For me, this sounds like a company trying to prevent customers from going elsewhere soon. Announce early, release late if at all, keep customers. It's not that we didn't see this before. Is anybody else known to work on something like that?
Heh. I'm running AMD CPUs in 3 out of 4 computers, and the 4th one is a VIA C3. This is an Intel and M$ free zone. Except for my company notebook which is the exact opposite... Great news for AMD, and for the Dresden fab which will now be duplicated (dual-core fab if you want:-)) Go, folks, go! And gimme a dual-core A64 with a Winchester-like TDP!
The consequence is simple: don't buy American security products any more. If the Symantecs, NAIs etc. are forced to add insecure back doors in their products, buy something else. Man this is going to boost the US computer and telecomms industry.
Because everybody want to pay piddly prices for Pentium-Ms. Duh.
Re:So, you programmers ready to give up your jobs?
on
McVoy Strikes Back
·
· Score: 1
Please excuse me but you're vastly naive. The job of any company is to make money to begin with, no matter what their speciality. Ask their share holders if they are interested in all _what_ they are doing. Most are interested only in the money return.
An apparently clueless journalist who buys all these marketing stories, addressing managers. Clever.
A Unix-savvy journalist might have asked some more questions, like "Whoa! Automatic defrag comes with Longhorn in about 18 months. Are you saying Windows 2003 Server does not do automatic filesystem defragmentation? A server operating system targeted at minimizing downtimes in a data center needs manual intervention to defrag the filesystem? Uh-oh." (1)
But apparently, this journalist had no idea of what this is all about.
(1) hint for M$: you can still ask customers to run the defrag process on W2003 in the autostart folder, and reboot every night, as in the old days. That'll keep your filesystem cozy and clean.
This article is great. It just points out a single technical feature that M$ claims is a plus: Automatic filesystem defragmentation. Duh. As if filesystems always needed defragmentation, and M$ were the ones who invented automatic defrag.
Why not just write a filesystem that does not need defragmenting to begin with?
Oh yeah, and security. M$ finally starts to solve the problems they created. Or do they? They' ve been claiming better security for ages. Why we still see new Windows targeted malware every week is really beyond me.
M$, you've still got to copy a couple more features from other OSes until Windows is on par. "We'll put massive emphasis on this in terms of marketing and dollars". This is what you're good at.
To speak with the town of Munich's mayor Christian Ude: "What else can you offer?"
But for the typical "Fortune" reader this may be sufficient. Others will have to take the rap for half-witted managers buying this crap.
Not. As an application developer, you simply don't notice the DMA issue as far as app development goes. Yet the customer may notice a performance tradeoff sooner of later.
... Intel is shipping 10x the x86-64 volume AMD does.
The question is, are all these Intel CPUs actually used with 64 bit applications. See, people buying Opteron boxes buy them because they want to explicitly run 64 bit apps on Linux, e.g. for compute clusters where Opteron rack servers sell like sliced bread. Intel EM64T boxes are bought although most people still run 32 bit OSes and apps on them, mainly because very few windows applications are available in x86_64 versions right now.
So Intel may claim to be the market leader as far as shipping volumes but not as far as uses. The main reason Intel can claim to be the market leader here is that most customers always tend to buy the fastest GHz CPUs that are available, and these happen to be EM64T in machines like the IBM x346 or the HP DL380G4, which are pretty much the mainstream in data center applications.
Wide spread deployment of x86-64 production envrionments is still a few quarters out. Fact is it is not quite ready for prime time.
Uh - what the heck am I missing here? Check this page and this page and tell me for which OS x86_64 support is available, and give me a rough guess for which OS not. Sure as hell, Oracle 10g does not run on EM64T CPUs on Microsoft Windoze in 64 bit mode. For now, you need to buy an Itanium box to do that (and Itanium sales in 2004 is an entirely different story). What a pity. What did you say about prime time?
Oh my. I didn't really expect any other kind of FUD from Microsoft.
But what the heck did Larry Ellison smoke this morning? Larry, go read your own web page, look which platform makes the fastest growth for you at the moment, and think it over again.
Or EMC - why did you buy VMware to begin with, if you think that the ESX server base OS does not scale, and is insecure? Oh you added your own patches? Okay - where is the source code, and how about forks?
Hey Cisco, do you have a problem with Asterisk in the upcoming VoIP hype?
And Sun... well they advertise SUSE Linux and Red Hat Linux on their web page, but I didn't expect these free riders to actually *support* Linux. These folks turn any discussion from Linux as a teaser to Slowaris x86 within a wink of the eye. The fork discussion is particularly interesting. As far as I remember, it was not Sun Microsystems who prevented the UNIX fork from happening in the 80s and 90s, despite all the XPG4's, SPEC1170's, Single UNIX Specifications and all these other marketing smoke grenades. "McNealy... finally announced he won the battle and had the one surviving Unix out there." Scott, go sleep again. Or get sued by SCO because they allegedly own Unix.
Scalability problems is a nice thing. Go read the top500.org list, see what OSses are at the top, and come back then. Hint: it's not Microsoft Windows, and it's not Solaris, especially not the system on rank 2 (has anybody ever seen a 10000+ CPU cluster even *boot* Sloaris or Windows?). The top 10 were not built by EDS, EMC or anybody else on this list. There is *one* Windows system on the list - the entry is 15 months old and fell from rank 84 to 194 within one year. Apparently, nobody dared to run another Windows HPC benchmark ever since. The fastest Sun machine is on rank 31, and guess what, it's not an UltraSPARC box, and did it run Solaris? So far for scalability. BTW: The fastest UltraSPARC machine is on rank 32, and it's not a Sun box, but from Fujitsu-Siemens. Watch your six, there is an Alpha machine behind you!
They assume their customers are deaf, dumb, and blind. Disgusting.
Correct. A couple of people here seem to be theoretizing about the pros and cons of Windows vs. Linux in a compute cluster. These folks (and M$) disregard the customer. I'm working as a consultant, having done a lot of pre-sales in this realm in the past 2 years. I've seen quite a few invitations to tender, and none of them was saying "if you can provide some more expensive operating system software instead of Linux, just deliver some less cluster nodes. We can live with it."
Somebody here was saying "M$ targets this at customers who are running Windows already". This is ridiculous. NONE of the customers I've been working for does NOT run Windows somewhere, either in the datacenter or on the desktop. But ALL of them want the fastest floating point hardware for their money (this is why Opteron boxes sell like sliced bread in some industries), and not spend ANY money for the operating system. Independent of whether it is a public administration customer like a University or a car manufacturer. Mind you, you cannot buy a new German car any more that was not simulated on a Linux cluster at some point. These customers use all these LS-Dynas, Pamcrashes, Nastrans etc. Do you think anybody is going to rewrite all these applications for Windows? Thrash all the existing standard models and replace them by models for other cluster applications? Nobody there is waiting for Windows as a cluster OS. Rather the hell is going to freeze over.
And last, advertising C# as a fast to use programming language is ridiculous too. This great idea simply disregards the billions of lines of existing code written in C or, mostly, Fortran. This is the customers' real value, their own code. Nobody is going to rewrite any of this code in C# just for the heck of it.
But anyway, M$, show what you have, we're going to see your added value. And if you're going to give it away for free, maybe somebody is going to buy it. I for one am going to ask some of my customers what they think about using an apparently crippled Windows cluster edition instead of Unix or Linux. Or rather - no, I'm not going to do M$'s market research.
With DOS 2.0, directories were finally possible. Remember - DOS 1.0 couldn't do directories. So, DOS 2.0 virtually copied the related parts of the UNIX C API with open(), close(), read(), write(), and ioctl(). At this time, there was no technical need to do that because DOS wasn't even written in C (the first release written in C was DOS 4.0 which bloated the installation media big time as most of you will remember), so they did it just for the heck of it. So - DOS 1.0 replicated most of CP/M's APIs, and DOS 2.0 added UNIX APIs. Compare this to SCO's ranting that Linux allegedly copied UNIX and you get an idea of the mind set of certain people.
So - The IBM PC used Intel CPUs that suffered from CP/M backwards compatibility (64K segments coming from the Z80 / 8085 era), and never overcame it, since even the very latest Pentium IV CPU boots up in the so-called real mode which mimicks an 8086 whose address space is segmented in 64K CP/M compliant address spaces; and MS-DOS copied the related 64K APIs. Remember the program segment prefix, i.e. the first 0x100 bytes of a.COM memory footprint? Ever parsed a command line from there? Duh. CP/M stuff.
Had IBM chosen the M68000 and a better OS, many programmers wouldn't have gotten grey hair. Near pointers? Far Pointers? 5 different memory models in C or pascal? C'mon. Flat 32 bit address space, 1979. 68000 Amigas and Ataris were _way_ ahead of MS-DOS PCs at that time, but they did not manage to enter the office computer realm which made them fail economically. Today the PC market isn't office realm driven any more. How the world changes... . Anything else?
or of the more "exotic" devices, you're specifically buying the ones you KNOW have proper driver support.
Good morning! Nice you're woken up as well. Yes sure, if I need some piece of hardware I tend to pay attention that this hardware has Linux driver support. Would anybody seriously buy a piece of hardware for Windows that doesn't have Windows drivers?
sendmail has nothing to do with Linux kernel security (about which the thread was, so despite your "first post" luck you're way off-topic). And I think nobody with half a brain would knowingly use sendmail today, considering more secure alternatives like Qmail and Postfix. Open source, mate, is not about using software that has a bad security track record, it is about having the choice of using something better, a choice that Microsoft doesn't want us to have.
The only thing stopping anyone is laziness. It's only going to work at 1x speed, so there's no conveinience there. You can't exactly use the CDDB lookup to get the CD's info automatically entered, you're stuck doing everything by hand. That is far too much work for many people, making this copy-protection scheme work better than many others.
And how is this going to prevent the professional CD pirates in Asia from making copies, eh? Such schemes will only prevent average music listeners from making their samplers for the road, that's what it is.
... before it even hits the market. I've got a 1989 Sony (!) CD player with an optical SPDIF output, and a CMI8738 sound card with an optical SPDIF input. Any questions?
Anybody with half a brain will be able to rip the stuff across the TOSLINK wire. I mean, if the "music" is worth ripping, to begin with.
XCP® successfully protects the content from unauthorised copying.
Who cares? I've got an old 1989 Sony (!) CD player with an optical digital output, and a CMI8738 sound card with a digital input. I cannot imagine this copy protection scheme to violate existing SPDIF standards (mind you, "SPDIF" stands for "Sony/Philips Digital Interface", see also here). So - nobody able of getting an older CD player and a 50$ sound card will be too impressed by any backwards compatible CP scheme. This is ridiculous.
The CP vendor's web site says "It is a robust solution providing the highest levels of protection against casual piracy while ensuring full playability." which says all. This is not (and cannot be) targeted against the professional pirates in Asia who make and sell millions of copies, but against you and me and Joe User.
"The card is cooled by two on-board fans." Suuuper. Really cool. Statistically, one out of two fans will fail twice as often as a single fan. In other words, the MTBF is halved, while the noise is raised by 3 dB. And the assembly doesn't exactly look like you can easily replace the fans by aftermarket fans. I wonder how this spiffy card performs when one of the GPUs blows up. But maybe the PCB has some predetermined breaking points to punch out a blown GPU. This will also reduce the blue light by 3 dB. Bad for gamers.
I still think most RFID uses could be handled by bar codes, while sacrificing your privacy far less than RFID because you need visible contact to read them -- which gives me control over who sees them. With RFID, I am entirely out of control. I may even not know that I carry an RFID equipped part with me. No thanks.
A gas tax encourages more efficient vehicles, shorter commutes, and public transportation. Taxing mileage only encourages the latter two.
That's okay as long as there are some oil producing countries left for invasion. C'mon folks, let's burn the remaining oil as quickly as possible so that nobody else can do it. Just for the heck of it (like, why does a dog lick its balls? Because it can). In 30-50 years it's all over anyway. So hummers are the way to go, not this steenkin' hybrid crap. Let's have fun!
(too chicken-hearted to post with a proper account? Well.)
"leftist" and "liberal" seem to be bad values for you per se, and your "way of life" as we've seen it in the past couple of decades has made the world a worse place to begin with. You are about 4% of the world population, and you are using more than 25% of the world's energy resources. Simply because you can (like the dog who licks its balls, ya know) by using your sheer power. From large parts of the remaining 96% of the world's population's perspective, the current U.S. foreign energy politics is worse than a locust plague in Africa. And to make sure you have free access to the remaining couple of gallons of oil, you raid other countries on obviously and provenly false accusations and lies. This country (Iraq) is now really a terrorist's haven, and whoever will be elected the next U.S. president will have a hard time getting out of this mess without losing face. America's foreign politics since the 60's was a sheer mess: Central America, Iran/Contra, Vietnam, supporting Saddam against Iran in the 80's (Rumsfeld), supporting the Taliban against the Soviet army (that wasn't much better) in Afghanistan in the 80's -- do I need to quote more? The last major good thing was liberating Europe from the Nazi terror, but that does not give the U.S. eternal credit. Bush turned a nice budget surplus into hundreds of billions of new debts within just 4 years, with very little or no positive effect on employment rates, children's education or health care. And all just for the heck of it.
Had the U.S. stayed at home and not tamper with everybody else's business without consulting international partners and organizations, you'd have one or two problems less ("international terrorism" for example). I'm not talking about joint operations like on the Balkan - just about this extremist unilateralism we see today, and I sincerely hope this will go away soon. You must not expect that the rest of the world sits still and prays to God that "America will prevail".
If that is your "way of life", I can certainly do without it. I for one prefer Indymedia style journalism over Fox TV.
Slashdot Mirror
For me, this sounds like a company trying to prevent customers from going elsewhere soon. Announce early, release late if at all, keep customers. It's not that we didn't see this before. Is anybody else known to work on something like that?
Heh. I'm running AMD CPUs in 3 out of 4 computers, and the 4th one is a VIA C3. This is an Intel and M$ free zone. Except for my company notebook which is the exact opposite... Great news for AMD, and for the Dresden fab which will now be duplicated (dual-core fab if you want :-)) Go, folks, go! And gimme a dual-core A64 with a Winchester-like TDP!
The consequence is simple: don't buy American security products any more. If the Symantecs, NAIs etc. are forced to add insecure back doors in their products, buy something else. Man this is going to boost the US computer and telecomms industry.
Has he ever heard of a sound daemon? Like esd or arts? The likes that are set up as defaults in Red Hat or SUSE?
Ohmygod. OK, go use yer Mac. I for one will stay with my desktop Linux (12+ years now, and still satisfied).
And while we're at it - when I'm hearing music, I don't want every second friggin' web page with a Flash to spoil my hearing experience.
Because everybody want to pay piddly prices for Pentium-Ms. Duh.
Please excuse me but you're vastly naive. The job of any company is to make money to begin with, no matter what their speciality. Ask their share holders if they are interested in all _what_ they are doing. Most are interested only in the money return.
ROTFL.
Since when do we have hard links and soft links on Unix?
Why did they need so long to simply copy this function?
This interview really bugs me. Cleverly made, M$.
An apparently clueless journalist who buys all these marketing stories, addressing managers. Clever.
A Unix-savvy journalist might have asked some more questions, like "Whoa! Automatic defrag comes with Longhorn in about 18 months. Are you saying Windows 2003 Server does not do automatic filesystem defragmentation? A server operating system targeted at minimizing downtimes in a data center needs manual intervention to defrag the filesystem? Uh-oh." (1)
But apparently, this journalist had no idea of what this is all about.
(1) hint for M$: you can still ask customers to run the defrag process on W2003 in the autostart folder, and reboot every night, as in the old days. That'll keep your filesystem cozy and clean.
Why not just write a filesystem that does not need defragmenting to begin with?
Oh yeah, and security. M$ finally starts to solve the problems they created. Or do they? They' ve been claiming better security for ages. Why we still see new Windows targeted malware every week is really beyond me.
M$, you've still got to copy a couple more features from other OSes until Windows is on par. "We'll put massive emphasis on this in terms of marketing and dollars". This is what you're good at.
To speak with the town of Munich's mayor Christian Ude: "What else can you offer?"
But for the typical "Fortune" reader this may be sufficient. Others will have to take the rap for half-witted managers buying this crap.
Not. As an application developer, you simply don't notice the DMA issue as far as app development goes. Yet the customer may notice a performance tradeoff sooner of later.
The question is, are all these Intel CPUs actually used with 64 bit applications. See, people buying Opteron boxes buy them because they want to explicitly run 64 bit apps on Linux, e.g. for compute clusters where Opteron rack servers sell like sliced bread. Intel EM64T boxes are bought although most people still run 32 bit OSes and apps on them, mainly because very few windows applications are available in x86_64 versions right now.
So Intel may claim to be the market leader as far as shipping volumes but not as far as uses. The main reason Intel can claim to be the market leader here is that most customers always tend to buy the fastest GHz CPUs that are available, and these happen to be EM64T in machines like the IBM x346 or the HP DL380G4, which are pretty much the mainstream in data center applications.
Wide spread deployment of x86-64 production envrionments is still a few quarters out. Fact is it is not quite ready for prime time.
Uh - what the heck am I missing here? Check this page and this page and tell me for which OS x86_64 support is available, and give me a rough guess for which OS not. Sure as hell, Oracle 10g does not run on EM64T CPUs on Microsoft Windoze in 64 bit mode. For now, you need to buy an Itanium box to do that (and Itanium sales in 2004 is an entirely different story). What a pity. What did you say about prime time?
But what the heck did Larry Ellison smoke this morning? Larry, go read your own web page, look which platform makes the fastest growth for you at the moment, and think it over again.
Or EMC - why did you buy VMware to begin with, if you think that the ESX server base OS does not scale, and is insecure? Oh you added your own patches? Okay - where is the source code, and how about forks?
Hey Cisco, do you have a problem with Asterisk in the upcoming VoIP hype?
And Sun... well they advertise SUSE Linux and Red Hat Linux on their web page, but I didn't expect these free riders to actually *support* Linux. These folks turn any discussion from Linux as a teaser to Slowaris x86 within a wink of the eye. The fork discussion is particularly interesting. As far as I remember, it was not Sun Microsystems who prevented the UNIX fork from happening in the 80s and 90s, despite all the XPG4's, SPEC1170's, Single UNIX Specifications and all these other marketing smoke grenades. "McNealy ... finally announced he won the battle and had the one surviving Unix out there." Scott, go sleep again. Or get sued by SCO because they allegedly own Unix.
Scalability problems is a nice thing. Go read the top500.org list, see what OSses are at the top, and come back then. Hint: it's not Microsoft Windows, and it's not Solaris, especially not the system on rank 2 (has anybody ever seen a 10000+ CPU cluster even *boot* Sloaris or Windows?). The top 10 were not built by EDS, EMC or anybody else on this list. There is *one* Windows system on the list - the entry is 15 months old and fell from rank 84 to 194 within one year. Apparently, nobody dared to run another Windows HPC benchmark ever since. The fastest Sun machine is on rank 31, and guess what, it's not an UltraSPARC box, and did it run Solaris? So far for scalability. BTW: The fastest UltraSPARC machine is on rank 32, and it's not a Sun box, but from Fujitsu-Siemens. Watch your six, there is an Alpha machine behind you!
They assume their customers are deaf, dumb, and blind. Disgusting.
Correct. A couple of people here seem to be theoretizing about the pros and cons of Windows vs. Linux in a compute cluster. These folks (and M$) disregard the customer. I'm working as a consultant, having done a lot of pre-sales in this realm in the past 2 years. I've seen quite a few invitations to tender, and none of them was saying "if you can provide some more expensive operating system software instead of Linux, just deliver some less cluster nodes. We can live with it."
Somebody here was saying "M$ targets this at customers who are running Windows already". This is ridiculous. NONE of the customers I've been working for does NOT run Windows somewhere, either in the datacenter or on the desktop. But ALL of them want the fastest floating point hardware for their money (this is why Opteron boxes sell like sliced bread in some industries), and not spend ANY money for the operating system. Independent of whether it is a public administration customer like a University or a car manufacturer. Mind you, you cannot buy a new German car any more that was not simulated on a Linux cluster at some point. These customers use all these LS-Dynas, Pamcrashes, Nastrans etc. Do you think anybody is going to rewrite all these applications for Windows? Thrash all the existing standard models and replace them by models for other cluster applications? Nobody there is waiting for Windows as a cluster OS. Rather the hell is going to freeze over.
And last, advertising C# as a fast to use programming language is ridiculous too. This great idea simply disregards the billions of lines of existing code written in C or, mostly, Fortran. This is the customers' real value, their own code. Nobody is going to rewrite any of this code in C# just for the heck of it.
But anyway, M$, show what you have, we're going to see your added value. And if you're going to give it away for free, maybe somebody is going to buy it. I for one am going to ask some of my customers what they think about using an apparently crippled Windows cluster edition instead of Unix or Linux. Or rather - no, I'm not going to do M$'s market research.
With DOS 2.0, directories were finally possible. Remember - DOS 1.0 couldn't do directories. So, DOS 2.0 virtually copied the related parts of the UNIX C API with open(), close(), read(), write(), and ioctl(). At this time, there was no technical need to do that because DOS wasn't even written in C (the first release written in C was DOS 4.0 which bloated the installation media big time as most of you will remember), so they did it just for the heck of it. So - DOS 1.0 replicated most of CP/M's APIs, and DOS 2.0 added UNIX APIs. Compare this to SCO's ranting that Linux allegedly copied UNIX and you get an idea of the mind set of certain people.
.COM memory footprint? Ever parsed a command line from there? Duh. CP/M stuff.
So - The IBM PC used Intel CPUs that suffered from CP/M backwards compatibility (64K segments coming from the Z80 / 8085 era), and never overcame it, since even the very latest Pentium IV CPU boots up in the so-called real mode which mimicks an 8086 whose address space is segmented in 64K CP/M compliant address spaces; and MS-DOS copied the related 64K APIs. Remember the program segment prefix, i.e. the first 0x100 bytes of a
Had IBM chosen the M68000 and a better OS, many programmers wouldn't have gotten grey hair. Near pointers? Far Pointers? 5 different memory models in C or pascal? C'mon. Flat 32 bit address space, 1979. 68000 Amigas and Ataris were _way_ ahead of MS-DOS PCs at that time, but they did not manage to enter the office computer realm which made them fail economically. Today the PC market isn't office realm driven any more. How the world changes... . Anything else?
Duh.
Vote with your feet, and let them know why. This is the only language these morons understand.
sendmail has nothing to do with Linux kernel security (about which the thread was, so despite your "first post" luck you're way off-topic). And I think nobody with half a brain would knowingly use sendmail today, considering more secure alternatives like Qmail and Postfix. Open source, mate, is not about using software that has a bad security track record, it is about having the choice of using something better, a choice that Microsoft doesn't want us to have.
And how is this going to prevent the professional CD pirates in Asia from making copies, eh? Such schemes will only prevent average music listeners from making their samplers for the road, that's what it is.
Anybody with half a brain will be able to rip the stuff across the TOSLINK wire. I mean, if the "music" is worth ripping, to begin with.
What are you smoking? Can you say "S/PDIF"?
... as long as you are savvy enough to handle a CD player with an SPDIF output and a sound card with an SPDIF input.
Who cares? I've got an old 1989 Sony (!) CD player with an optical digital output, and a CMI8738 sound card with a digital input. I cannot imagine this copy protection scheme to violate existing SPDIF standards (mind you, "SPDIF" stands for "Sony/Philips Digital Interface", see also here). So - nobody able of getting an older CD player and a 50$ sound card will be too impressed by any backwards compatible CP scheme. This is ridiculous.
The CP vendor's web site says "It is a robust solution providing the highest levels of protection against casual piracy while ensuring full playability." which says all. This is not (and cannot be) targeted against the professional pirates in Asia who make and sell millions of copies, but against you and me and Joe User.
"The card is cooled by two on-board fans." Suuuper. Really cool. Statistically, one out of two fans will fail twice as often as a single fan. In other words, the MTBF is halved, while the noise is raised by 3 dB. And the assembly doesn't exactly look like you can easily replace the fans by aftermarket fans. I wonder how this spiffy card performs when one of the GPUs blows up. But maybe the PCB has some predetermined breaking points to punch out a blown GPU. This will also reduce the blue light by 3 dB. Bad for gamers.
I still think most RFID uses could be handled by bar codes, while sacrificing your privacy far less than RFID because you need visible contact to read them -- which gives me control over who sees them. With RFID, I am entirely out of control. I may even not know that I carry an RFID equipped part with me. No thanks.
That's okay as long as there are some oil producing countries left for invasion. C'mon folks, let's burn the remaining oil as quickly as possible so that nobody else can do it. Just for the heck of it (like, why does a dog lick its balls? Because it can). In 30-50 years it's all over anyway. So hummers are the way to go, not this steenkin' hybrid crap. Let's have fun!
Dear Anonymous Coward,
(too chicken-hearted to post with a proper account? Well.)
"leftist" and "liberal" seem to be bad values for you per se, and your "way of life" as we've seen it in the past couple of decades has made the world a worse place to begin with. You are about 4% of the world population, and you are using more than 25% of the world's energy resources. Simply because you can (like the dog who licks its balls, ya know) by using your sheer power. From large parts of the remaining 96% of the world's population's perspective, the current U.S. foreign energy politics is worse than a locust plague in Africa. And to make sure you have free access to the remaining couple of gallons of oil, you raid other countries on obviously and provenly false accusations and lies. This country (Iraq) is now really a terrorist's haven, and whoever will be elected the next U.S. president will have a hard time getting out of this mess without losing face. America's foreign politics since the 60's was a sheer mess: Central America, Iran/Contra, Vietnam, supporting Saddam against Iran in the 80's (Rumsfeld), supporting the Taliban against the Soviet army (that wasn't much better) in Afghanistan in the 80's -- do I need to quote more? The last major good thing was liberating Europe from the Nazi terror, but that does not give the U.S. eternal credit. Bush turned a nice budget surplus into hundreds of billions of new debts within just 4 years, with very little or no positive effect on employment rates, children's education or health care. And all just for the heck of it.
Had the U.S. stayed at home and not tamper with everybody else's business without consulting international partners and organizations, you'd have one or two problems less ("international terrorism" for example). I'm not talking about joint operations like on the Balkan - just about this extremist unilateralism we see today, and I sincerely hope this will go away soon. You must not expect that the rest of the world sits still and prays to God that "America will prevail".
If that is your "way of life", I can certainly do without it. I for one prefer Indymedia style journalism over Fox TV.