The "killer app" is actually an entire software infrastructure that leads to a much better overall power-user experience.
Or for newbies, the killer apps I wow people with are Compiz-Fusion and APT.
I'm not so sure you know what a "killer app"" is. No average user is going to migrate from Windows or OSX to Linux because of a package management application. Compiz only attracts the Windows bling crowd and that certainly isn't a large portion of the Windows userbase.
For everyone that commented, static ip isn't my only problem with NM and also my router doesn't support binding MAC addresses to ip addresses. This was only an example. The bigger problem is that other programs are beginning to rely on NM and it doesn't do anything more than basic networking. So if I want to do more advanced networking then I have to throw NM out but that also means I have to throw out the network awareness capabilities of some of my apps. Personally I think Linux should have a framework like NM to interact with applications but it needs to be much more complete.
You can setup your distribution's standard networking tools to use a static ip address and NetworkManager is supposed to pick it up but it hasn't worked reliabley for me and there is absolutely no support for profiles to configure either static ip or dhcp depending on the AP, at least not in the current version.
Root is God. This must really be fixed. There should be a way for root to irrevocably divest its powers, and root does not need to access users file. A user should explicitly grant root permission to read his files. It will always be a major security issue because all one has to do is become root. Plan9 managed to do that.
Both SELinux and Grsecurity can do this.
They lie about everything is a file. Why not extend this to networking resources. Plan9 also succeeded there.
I really like the "everything is a file" metaphor that plan9 uses but I don't think it is really possible at this point for Linux to undergo that kind of shift without breaking practially everything. That's one of the reasons that plan9 was created if you read the docs. It just wasn't feasible to take Unix as a starting point and work backwards. A new system had to be developed. With that said I'm not so sure that would do much to enhance marketability to the average user. Only geeks get excited about manipulating networking interfaces with standard shell tools.
How can Linux win me back? Whatever machine I bring home from Best Buy has to "just work" at the end of the install/config program. Is that too much to ask for?
Yes it is too much to ask for. Windows is the dominant OS in the consumer market and it doesn't even meet your standards. A pre-configured Linux computer should work but when you install the OS yourself on a huge range of commodity hardware then it probably won't "just work" whether you're installing Wndows or Linux. I always hated this argument because it assumes two things:
A stand-alone windows disk installs and "just works" without any configuration on any computer
Linux is going to become mainstream by people installing it on their own
Neither of these assumptions are true. Windows often at least requires some third party drivers to be installed. Linux generally does not. If people had to install Windows themselves on every PC they bought then the majority of average computer users would probably be using Apple products. People don't want to mess with configuring anything no matter what OS they are dealing with. The real problem is that Linux doesn't have a "killer app" or feature to lure people into using it. People fear change and there has to be a compelling reason for them to switch. If such a "killer app" is created for Linux most likely it will just be ported to Windows unless there is some underlying architectural difference that prevents it. I've been a Linux user for years and I thought it was a good enough replacement for average users years ago but I've realized since then that it's going to take more than just being "good enough" to make a dent in Microsoft's OS marketshare. I'm just sick of hearing all the BS reasons out there. It's always "the install sucks, X sucks, the kernel ABI sucks, two desktops suck, thousands of distros suck", etc. None of these things have anything to do with why Linux is not on a large percentage of desktops. I could start a business today that sold computers with a fully functional GNOME desktop and I probably wouldn't do too well and that eliminates the "install sucks, kernel ABI sucks, thousnds of distos" and "two desktops" arguments. You're left with "X sucks" which I haven't actually found one person that can articulate why "X sucks".
My biggest issue lately has been NetworkManager. It isn't absolutely necessary but wireless connections are quite annoying without it and more and more applications are becoming NetworkManager aware which means it is increasingly important to have it. It hasn't progressed that much since its inception and it's still not possible to configure most networking options to work with it. The NetworkManager homepage makes it clear that they are not interested in profiles, and their application makes it clear they are not interested in bridge interfaces or any other kind of advanced networking. So your options are to disable it and configure networking through your init scripts or deal with the extremely limited options of NetworkManager. My biggest complainst are that I cannot get a static IP on my home wireless while getting DHCP everywhere else and it's a real pain in the ass to set up bridged networking for use with a VM.
The only time i've seen intels integrated chips neglect to tear the screen when things move is under OS X, it does it in Vista, and has done it in X under Linux for as long as i've had the machine.
I have Linux running on an Intel 950 running Compiz and the only screen tearing that ever happens is when I try to run Blender, which is a known Compiz issue. Other than that it's rock solid.
It had a lot to do with copyrights, which monopoly grants by government. I know it's unrealistic to imagine a world without copyright, but that doesn't mean we must ignore the unintended consequences of this government intervention.
It has absolutely nothing to do with copyrights. You could try to make a case for patents but they haven't been used by Microsoft as a weapon. I would love to see your rationale behind the idea that copyrights created the current software landscape.
From where I sit there is still a lot of competition in this area. I see McAfee, AVG, Norton, Trend Micro, ZoneAlarm, and dozens more. But keeping on topic with this article, AV is rapidly becoming a a commodity, and the price will continue to plummet, with or without Microosoft.
Only by Microsoft entering the market can the market price drop to zero. Bundling AV eliminates the need to purchase or download a separate product. It's the same as the Netscape deal. As soon as it became easier to view the web with built in Microsoft technology people stopped downloading Netscape and IE stopped innovating. If it wasn't for the marketing blitz that non-profit Mozilla created around Firefox we would still be stuck with a huge IE marketshare and very little innovation on the web. This isn't a normal situation though and we cannot count on free alternatives to have as much marketing power as Mozilla.
Do not anthropomorphize markets (I know it's hard to do). Markets do not have goals, individuals have goals. A market is just a collection of people interacting with each other. There are as many goals in a market as their are individuals. It is an emergent order arising from all of these individual goals. (Read up on Hayek for more on emergent market orders).
If there truly is no real goal for a free market then why are people so in love with the idea? If it isn't supposed to create a specific type of market then why are we talking about it at all? There definitely is a goal to a free market economy and that is to create a fair price by means of supply and demand without intervention from outside sources and with low entry barriers. It is a system that is supposed to allow everyone to compete on equal ground. We have seen that true free market economics do not work becuase of conditions like monopolies which have high entry barriers and can artificially inflate prices. This is what I do not understand about free market proponents. Without regulation it is entirely possible to dominate a market then use that dominination to "hold" the market even when better options become available. Even if you don't agree economically, a totally free market would be devastating to the general population considering the total lack of health and safety regulations that a free market implies.
Trying to decide what the goals should be is what is truly antithetical to a free market.
That's the most damaging thing I have heard someone say about the free market. More so than anything I have said. It implies that anarchy in the market is what is desired. I sincerely doubt even the biggest proponents of a free market economy would agree with you. Most proponents argue that a free market is the best possible distribution of resources. Whether or not that is true is up for debate but at least they attempt to justify their belief in the free market. You don't even seem to have a reason for supporting it which I find rather unsettling.
The more successful a business, the more people want to enter that industry to grab a piece of that pie. People used to enter the oil business just so they could get bought out by Rockefeller. And he only had 60% or so of the market. We may not have seen Windows clones come out in the late nineties during the heyday of the Microsoft monopoly, but we did see an explosion of software development all competing with various bits and pieces of Windows.
The end result is the same. After that explosion of software development for Windows Microsoft began buying up smaller software vendors and leveraging their OS monopoly in other areas. This had little to do with government intervention. Right now Microsoft is ready to take a huge chunk out of the antivirus business when they start including their AV software with Windows. They aren't going to take a chunk out of the AV business by being a superior product but simply by bundling it with their monopoly operating system. This seems antithetical to the goals of the free market to me.
There are folks here who irrationally hate Microsoft, no doubt. But it's not irrational to be wary of a company that has embraced, extended, and extinguished before.
Keep in mind that Moonlight is an OS implementation of a proprietary format, which Microsoft may arbitrarily change at any time--and if past experience is a predictor of future behavior, then Moonlight doesn't seem any better than Flash.
I am well aware of Microsoft's past business practices but the upsides to Mono are greater than the risks. First Mono has its own set of libraries that are completely different from.NET. The only similarity is the language that is used. Mono doesn't have to rely on Microsoft for anything. It is its own project and can be used on Windows as well and OSX. Moonlight and other aspects of Mono are being helped along with the support of Microsoft. They really don't have anything to lose by allowing Mono to exist. It's not possible to run any off the shelf.NET program under Mono but applications can be made that are cross platform. This can only be beneficial to Microsoft. People seem to think that Microsoft is just waiting to pull the run out from under Mono but that's just paranoia. For all the fear that's been pushed about Mono I have yet to hear about a single instance where Microsoft did anything to threaten Mono.
The success of iTunes has nothing to do with brand name recognition
I beg to differ. The success of the iPod has a lot to do with brand recognition. You're living in a fantasy land if you think otherwise. Most people cannot even name another mp3 player. iPod has become synonymous with mp3 player in most people's minds. People view other brands as knock-offs if they even realize that other brands exist. If their kid kid says "daddy I want an iPod for Christmas" you can damn well be sure the kid isn't going to be happly unless there is an apple logo on the mp3 player they buy. The iPod has reached a mythical status in American culture and something has to be 10 times better to knock it off its pedestal. With the lock Apple has on the iTunes store and its already entrenched marketshare it is going to take a lot change the current landscape in mp3 players.
First Adobe 64-bit flash and now this. It looks like commercial vendors are realizing that they can't just ignore Linux anymore. It's odd that so many people are favoring Flash over Silverlight here when at least Moonlight is GPL. I guess it's all the irrational Microsoft hatred that exists on Slashdot.
This is bad news. Microsoft's security products suck big time. Their AV was compared against other top AV brands last year and failed miserably compared to Symantec, Kaspersky and others. I have never used it myself but if it is anything like Windows Defender, which I have used, then it definitely sucks. Defender never finds anything even if the system is teeming with spyware. Customers won't care though and they won't buy the additional software. This is bad news for the big box stores too. They're already losing money on their sale computers and they generally try to make up the difference by selling you software and other crap.
The media does have a bias but it is towards the more interesting candidate. The press gave Bush a pass for years until popular sentiment turned against him. Then it became more "profit-worthy" to report the scandals and mis-steps of the administration. Palin was more interesting than McCain and received more airtime than he did after she was selected as a VP candidate. The press may not have discussed Obama's past drug use but they also avoided McCain's involvement with the Keating 5 to a large degree while they talked about Bill Ayers obsessively. They avoided Bush's drug use and alcoholism when he was running for President also. The "liberal media bias" BS is a cop out for sore losers. It's a tactic to cast blanket doubt on whatever the media reports on and has been used since Nixon. It's a very convenient way to discard anything negative said in the press. I think instead of blaming the press, mud slinging, and suppressing voters the Republicans should actually focus on policy. Maybe people would actually support them if their whole platform wasn't entirely based on social issues and character assasination. The country is in bad shape and people want answers not excuses.
Monopolies aren't illegal perse but abuse of a Monopoly position is. I think it would be quite difficult to leverage a software Monopoly when everyone has the source. Besides it would only be considered a Monopoly if a sole Linux company controlled the OS market and that seems quite unlikely.
Versions 10 and 11 are actually a lot slimmer and nicer than verion 8, at least on Linux. It is just a normal GTK app. I just recently got rid of it on my system though because Banshee plays all the streams I want to listen to and that's the only reason I kept it around.
This is good news for us photographers! 90% of the time, photographers only set constrast/brightness/level/curves of their photos. These tasks cause lots of color aliasing in 8bit mode, but they are just fine in 16bit mode. With Gegl support, I can use gimp for my photo flow:)
If all you are doing is setting contrast/brightness/level/curves there are already a few RAW conversion programs for Linux that do all of that. Rawstudio is a light, fast RAW converter that does this quite easily.
There really isn't much here to warrant a major release (at least for the end user). I thought they had declared that the next major release would have full GEGL integration. Maybe I'm wrong.
I don't remember there ever being plans to have complete GEGL integration by 2.6. In fact I don't think that is scheduled until version 3.0.
1) Well, okay, I guess. If you think Jimmy Carter did better than Ronald Reagan, or that Clinton did better than Bush I, then we have a disagreement that can't be resolved here. 2) "I just don't see him doing what I want done." How do you select candidates? Do you not pick the one that comes the closest to doing what you think should be done?
Reagan and Bush Jr were both disasters. Both led us to economic crisis. About 90% of our national debt was accrued during their terms. Both led us to international crisis. Reagan had the Iran Contra affair. Bush Jr had 911 and two failed wars. They are the embodiment of neo-conservatism which is currently in the process of derailing the Republican party. Contrast that with Bush Sr and Clinton. Bush Sr struggled through the recession brought on by Reagan's economic policy, raised taxes, and had a nicely packaged, clean war with few casualties. He wasn't bad but he wasn't great and he was only in for 4 years. Under Clinton we had 8 years of economic growth and a surplus. The neoconservative policies of Reagan and Bush Jr are exactly the reason why we are in the situation we are in now economically and geopolitically. I'm still wondering what the fascination with Reagan is all about. He wasn't conservative in the slightest.
"Saddam had no WMD's"
It's funny, and hypocritical in the extreme how everybody keeps claiming that.
You're right. He did have WMDs...over 20 years ago when the US was an ally selling him these weapons. Saddam doesn't have these weapons anymore and hasn't had them for years. We know because the US fought another War with Iraq almost 20 years ago where all the weapons were destroyed by bombings and all inspections since the first war have come up clean.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, is doubting even in the slightest that Saddam did this:
Actually the CIA has its own doubts. In fact they know that the attacks on Halabja were not against Iraq's own people. The Iranians had control of it and Saddam attacked with chemical weapons. Let's not forget that Iran also used chemical weapons and no one is really sure which side we can attribute the Halabja deaths to.
Can we please bring some common sense into this ? If we know a guy shot some children, then gets arrested with powder on his hands, but without a gun, that does not mean the witnesses who saw him shoot lied. It merely means we're short a gun. That would be a VERY good reason to search the neighbourhood for said gun (especially if the next door neighbour is a Jew hating theocratic massacrer like the Iranian government).
Extremely bad analogy. The US is not the World Police first of all. Second, we have seen how we invading a soveirgn nation on a hunch works out in the end and it isn't pretty. Third, keeping with your bad analogy, hiding WMDs in Iran is like crips hiding a gun in a bloods neighborhood.
This is how Gentoo does it. Versions are numbered with the year and back when we were getting updates twice a year it would be 2006.0 and 2006.5. It has worked quite well since release 2004.0.
What does philosophy have to do with science? Besides certain interpretations of quantum mechanics I mean.
ere
A lot actually. Many philosophical ideas have been proved and disproved by science. Philosophy is like a precursor to science. Philosophy discusses ideas that we cannot test with science. Many times those ideas become accessible to science years in the future and eventually can be tested. There are also competing scientific philosophies in certain advanced disciplines. This doesn't give credence to ID in any way though. There is no way to prove the existance of a creator which makes ID absolutely not science. If the day ever comes when we can prove such a "theory" then the science vs religion point becomes moot, not that I ever expect that day to come.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not so sure you know what a "killer app"" is. No average user is going to migrate from Windows or OSX to Linux because of a package management application. Compiz only attracts the Windows bling crowd and that certainly isn't a large portion of the Windows userbase.
For everyone that commented, static ip isn't my only problem with NM and also my router doesn't support binding MAC addresses to ip addresses. This was only an example. The bigger problem is that other programs are beginning to rely on NM and it doesn't do anything more than basic networking. So if I want to do more advanced networking then I have to throw NM out but that also means I have to throw out the network awareness capabilities of some of my apps. Personally I think Linux should have a framework like NM to interact with applications but it needs to be much more complete.
You can setup your distribution's standard networking tools to use a static ip address and NetworkManager is supposed to pick it up but it hasn't worked reliabley for me and there is absolutely no support for profiles to configure either static ip or dhcp depending on the AP, at least not in the current version.
Both SELinux and Grsecurity can do this.
I really like the "everything is a file" metaphor that plan9 uses but I don't think it is really possible at this point for Linux to undergo that kind of shift without breaking practially everything. That's one of the reasons that plan9 was created if you read the docs. It just wasn't feasible to take Unix as a starting point and work backwards. A new system had to be developed. With that said I'm not so sure that would do much to enhance marketability to the average user. Only geeks get excited about manipulating networking interfaces with standard shell tools.
Unfortunately my current router doesn't allow you to do that.
Yes it is too much to ask for. Windows is the dominant OS in the consumer market and it doesn't even meet your standards. A pre-configured Linux computer should work but when you install the OS yourself on a huge range of commodity hardware then it probably won't "just work" whether you're installing Wndows or Linux. I always hated this argument because it assumes two things:
Neither of these assumptions are true. Windows often at least requires some third party drivers to be installed. Linux generally does not. If people had to install Windows themselves on every PC they bought then the majority of average computer users would probably be using Apple products. People don't want to mess with configuring anything no matter what OS they are dealing with. The real problem is that Linux doesn't have a "killer app" or feature to lure people into using it. People fear change and there has to be a compelling reason for them to switch. If such a "killer app" is created for Linux most likely it will just be ported to Windows unless there is some underlying architectural difference that prevents it. I've been a Linux user for years and I thought it was a good enough replacement for average users years ago but I've realized since then that it's going to take more than just being "good enough" to make a dent in Microsoft's OS marketshare. I'm just sick of hearing all the BS reasons out there. It's always "the install sucks, X sucks, the kernel ABI sucks, two desktops suck, thousands of distros suck", etc. None of these things have anything to do with why Linux is not on a large percentage of desktops. I could start a business today that sold computers with a fully functional GNOME desktop and I probably wouldn't do too well and that eliminates the "install sucks, kernel ABI sucks, thousnds of distos" and "two desktops" arguments. You're left with "X sucks" which I haven't actually found one person that can articulate why "X sucks".
My biggest issue lately has been NetworkManager. It isn't absolutely necessary but wireless connections are quite annoying without it and more and more applications are becoming NetworkManager aware which means it is increasingly important to have it. It hasn't progressed that much since its inception and it's still not possible to configure most networking options to work with it. The NetworkManager homepage makes it clear that they are not interested in profiles, and their application makes it clear they are not interested in bridge interfaces or any other kind of advanced networking. So your options are to disable it and configure networking through your init scripts or deal with the extremely limited options of NetworkManager. My biggest complainst are that I cannot get a static IP on my home wireless while getting DHCP everywhere else and it's a real pain in the ass to set up bridged networking for use with a VM.
I have Linux running on an Intel 950 running Compiz and the only screen tearing that ever happens is when I try to run Blender, which is a known Compiz issue. Other than that it's rock solid.
It has absolutely nothing to do with copyrights. You could try to make a case for patents but they haven't been used by Microsoft as a weapon. I would love to see your rationale behind the idea that copyrights created the current software landscape.
Only by Microsoft entering the market can the market price drop to zero. Bundling AV eliminates the need to purchase or download a separate product. It's the same as the Netscape deal. As soon as it became easier to view the web with built in Microsoft technology people stopped downloading Netscape and IE stopped innovating. If it wasn't for the marketing blitz that non-profit Mozilla created around Firefox we would still be stuck with a huge IE marketshare and very little innovation on the web. This isn't a normal situation though and we cannot count on free alternatives to have as much marketing power as Mozilla.
If there truly is no real goal for a free market then why are people so in love with the idea? If it isn't supposed to create a specific type of market then why are we talking about it at all? There definitely is a goal to a free market economy and that is to create a fair price by means of supply and demand without intervention from outside sources and with low entry barriers. It is a system that is supposed to allow everyone to compete on equal ground. We have seen that true free market economics do not work becuase of conditions like monopolies which have high entry barriers and can artificially inflate prices. This is what I do not understand about free market proponents. Without regulation it is entirely possible to dominate a market then use that dominination to "hold" the market even when better options become available. Even if you don't agree economically, a totally free market would be devastating to the general population considering the total lack of health and safety regulations that a free market implies.
That's the most damaging thing I have heard someone say about the free market. More so than anything I have said. It implies that anarchy in the market is what is desired. I sincerely doubt even the biggest proponents of a free market economy would agree with you. Most proponents argue that a free market is the best possible distribution of resources. Whether or not that is true is up for debate but at least they attempt to justify their belief in the free market. You don't even seem to have a reason for supporting it which I find rather unsettling.
I guess you didn't read the text I quoted or the parent post.
The end result is the same. After that explosion of software development for Windows Microsoft began buying up smaller software vendors and leveraging their OS monopoly in other areas. This had little to do with government intervention. Right now Microsoft is ready to take a huge chunk out of the antivirus business when they start including their AV software with Windows. They aren't going to take a chunk out of the AV business by being a superior product but simply by bundling it with their monopoly operating system. This seems antithetical to the goals of the free market to me.
I am well aware of Microsoft's past business practices but the upsides to Mono are greater than the risks. First Mono has its own set of libraries that are completely different from .NET. The only similarity is the language that is used. Mono doesn't have to rely on Microsoft for anything. It is its own project and can be used on Windows as well and OSX. Moonlight and other aspects of Mono are being helped along with the support of Microsoft. They really don't have anything to lose by allowing Mono to exist. It's not possible to run any off the shelf .NET program under Mono but applications can be made that are cross platform. This can only be beneficial to Microsoft. People seem to think that Microsoft is just waiting to pull the run out from under Mono but that's just paranoia. For all the fear that's been pushed about Mono I have yet to hear about a single instance where Microsoft did anything to threaten Mono.
I beg to differ. The success of the iPod has a lot to do with brand recognition. You're living in a fantasy land if you think otherwise. Most people cannot even name another mp3 player. iPod has become synonymous with mp3 player in most people's minds. People view other brands as knock-offs if they even realize that other brands exist. If their kid kid says "daddy I want an iPod for Christmas" you can damn well be sure the kid isn't going to be happly unless there is an apple logo on the mp3 player they buy. The iPod has reached a mythical status in American culture and something has to be 10 times better to knock it off its pedestal. With the lock Apple has on the iTunes store and its already entrenched marketshare it is going to take a lot change the current landscape in mp3 players.
First Adobe 64-bit flash and now this. It looks like commercial vendors are realizing that they can't just ignore Linux anymore. It's odd that so many people are favoring Flash over Silverlight here when at least Moonlight is GPL. I guess it's all the irrational Microsoft hatred that exists on Slashdot.
This is bad news. Microsoft's security products suck big time. Their AV was compared against other top AV brands last year and failed miserably compared to Symantec, Kaspersky and others. I have never used it myself but if it is anything like Windows Defender, which I have used, then it definitely sucks. Defender never finds anything even if the system is teeming with spyware. Customers won't care though and they won't buy the additional software. This is bad news for the big box stores too. They're already losing money on their sale computers and they generally try to make up the difference by selling you software and other crap.
The media does have a bias but it is towards the more interesting candidate. The press gave Bush a pass for years until popular sentiment turned against him. Then it became more "profit-worthy" to report the scandals and mis-steps of the administration. Palin was more interesting than McCain and received more airtime than he did after she was selected as a VP candidate. The press may not have discussed Obama's past drug use but they also avoided McCain's involvement with the Keating 5 to a large degree while they talked about Bill Ayers obsessively. They avoided Bush's drug use and alcoholism when he was running for President also. The "liberal media bias" BS is a cop out for sore losers. It's a tactic to cast blanket doubt on whatever the media reports on and has been used since Nixon. It's a very convenient way to discard anything negative said in the press. I think instead of blaming the press, mud slinging, and suppressing voters the Republicans should actually focus on policy. Maybe people would actually support them if their whole platform wasn't entirely based on social issues and character assasination. The country is in bad shape and people want answers not excuses.
Monopolies aren't illegal perse but abuse of a Monopoly position is. I think it would be quite difficult to leverage a software Monopoly when everyone has the source. Besides it would only be considered a Monopoly if a sole Linux company controlled the OS market and that seems quite unlikely.
Versions 10 and 11 are actually a lot slimmer and nicer than verion 8, at least on Linux. It is just a normal GTK app. I just recently got rid of it on my system though because Banshee plays all the streams I want to listen to and that's the only reason I kept it around.
Isn't the phrase "lazy programmer" a little redundant.
If all you are doing is setting contrast/brightness/level/curves there are already a few RAW conversion programs for Linux that do all of that. Rawstudio is a light, fast RAW converter that does this quite easily.
I don't remember there ever being plans to have complete GEGL integration by 2.6. In fact I don't think that is scheduled until version 3.0.
Reagan and Bush Jr were both disasters. Both led us to economic crisis. About 90% of our national debt was accrued during their terms. Both led us to international crisis. Reagan had the Iran Contra affair. Bush Jr had 911 and two failed wars. They are the embodiment of neo-conservatism which is currently in the process of derailing the Republican party. Contrast that with Bush Sr and Clinton. Bush Sr struggled through the recession brought on by Reagan's economic policy, raised taxes, and had a nicely packaged, clean war with few casualties. He wasn't bad but he wasn't great and he was only in for 4 years. Under Clinton we had 8 years of economic growth and a surplus. The neoconservative policies of Reagan and Bush Jr are exactly the reason why we are in the situation we are in now economically and geopolitically. I'm still wondering what the fascination with Reagan is all about. He wasn't conservative in the slightest.
You're right. He did have WMDs...over 20 years ago when the US was an ally selling him these weapons. Saddam doesn't have these weapons anymore and hasn't had them for years. We know because the US fought another War with Iraq almost 20 years ago where all the weapons were destroyed by bombings and all inspections since the first war have come up clean.
Actually the CIA has its own doubts. In fact they know that the attacks on Halabja were not against Iraq's own people. The Iranians had control of it and Saddam attacked with chemical weapons. Let's not forget that Iran also used chemical weapons and no one is really sure which side we can attribute the Halabja deaths to.
Extremely bad analogy. The US is not the World Police first of all. Second, we have seen how we invading a soveirgn nation on a hunch works out in the end and it isn't pretty. Third, keeping with your bad analogy, hiding WMDs in Iran is like crips hiding a gun in a bloods neighborhood.
This is how Gentoo does it. Versions are numbered with the year and back when we were getting updates twice a year it would be 2006.0 and 2006.5. It has worked quite well since release 2004.0.
ere
A lot actually. Many philosophical ideas have been proved and disproved by science. Philosophy is like a precursor to science. Philosophy discusses ideas that we cannot test with science. Many times those ideas become accessible to science years in the future and eventually can be tested. There are also competing scientific philosophies in certain advanced disciplines. This doesn't give credence to ID in any way though. There is no way to prove the existance of a creator which makes ID absolutely not science. If the day ever comes when we can prove such a "theory" then the science vs religion point becomes moot, not that I ever expect that day to come.