I right now run Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 4 installed plus the current version of ZoneAlarm running; unless you're a cracker with extremely intimate knowledge of the OS kernel itself, it'll be very hard to hack into my system
I highly doubt that. Even your precious ZoneAlarm has security flaws. Breaking into a personal computer is like stealing a car, if someone really wants to they will. No cracker really cares about someone's personal machine, (as someone already mentioned) they care about servers. You're more or less protected from most of the idiots out there who don't know what they're doing but can google exploits, but don't get too confident because your system can be broken into.
Linux may never get it, unless more people use Linux, and I doubt that they would want to open up the code to the voting system that could create a large number of people trying to skew the results so that the results are not accurate.
The system doesn't have to run Linux to support Linux users and the application doesn't need to be open sourced even if it is on Linux so I don't really see how your arguement holds.
So I guess we should cover up all of those mass graves, put all those children back in prison, get Chemical Ali back into the lab, get those torture racks greased, throw all of those 'Big Brother Saddam' pictures back up in Baghdad, and leave a fruit basket with a letter of apology. You're right...we are indeed in the Twilight Zone.
Typical conservative technique. If you make liberals look like Saddam supporters then you don't even have to make a valid arguement to support your stance.
You sound partisan, bitter, and illogical. You and your ilk have offered nothing but criticism. No solutions. Just pissing and moaning. You have built your platform on the hopes that the United States will fail in its endeavours. That is disgusting.
You are partisan, bitter, and illogical. The statement "leftist lemmings" shows that you are partisan. You are indeed bitter because you wish to equate liberals to people who wish the US harm. Finally you are absolutley illogical in justifying a war ex post facto.
I mean really, why should we give a damn. It's still blatant speculation, just like the speculation that this would be "another Vietname" and "a quagmire". People that think just like you have been wrong over and over again, so many times, but you still get up and scream this same bullshit at the top of your lungs. That's what people should be giving a damn about.
How is not turning into another Vietnam? This administration has admitted we will be in Iraq for at least another five years. It is fact Americans are still dying everyday in Iraq.
The fact is, the United States had moral, legal, and political justification for removing Saddam Hussein. The world is a safer place for both Americans and Iraqis today than it was a few months ago, and it cost fewer lives than anyone estimated. A people who have experienced oppression you will NEVER comprehend are now free. I'll never forget the images of those Iraqis beating that Saddam statue with the shoes off of their feet. It's a shame you have forgotten, or maybe you never opened your eyes up enough to see.
If the US had real reasons to get rid of Saddam then why did they have to lie about it? The 7000 dead Iraqi civilians are definitely not happier or safer. Oh and one more thing, the pictures of people pulling down statues of Saddam are a little misleading. They don't show the troops riling up the crowds and starting the whole thing. It's propoganda just the same as Jessica Lynch.
you know, as i watched thoes people who danced in the streets, threw out candy and celebrated the deaths of innocent people after the september 11th attack, i sat and thought "oh man I hope each and every one of thoes scum bags die a slow painful death."
mr. bush, to a decent enough extent, has rose to the occasion.
for that i thank him, and regret nothing
I hope you know that Iraq had absolutley nothing to do with 9/11. So either you're just some dolt who wants to see someone else suffer because it makes you feel better or you're a racist. I hope you know that 7000 innocent Iraqi's died in the war. Now there is probably some equivalent Iraqi dolt over there just like you, hoping for more destruction and will in turn kill Americans. Now bacause of people like you, the violence will never end.
Actually it was an illegal war. The "evidence" the Administration used was falsified. That means they were knowingly lying to the people of the US about war. That is illegal. Also for all those so-called humanitarians who wish to debate that this war was about liberating Iraq; Iraq does not meet the requirements to go to war. "Liberating" a country can only be legal (UN standards) if genocide is involved. Supposedly Saddam gassed the Kurds but that was 15 years ago and the US was allies with Iraq so nothing was done. There is also some doubt that Saddam was the one who gassed the Kurds. Medical reports show it was gas that came from Iran not Iraq.
They haven't found Saddam Hussein yet either, but no one says he didn't exist.
Except...we have seen Saddam before. Actually the man (Donald Rumsfeld) who you qoute (without giving proper credit) has met Saddam in person. So we know he exists. The problem is that weapons inspectors did not see any WMD in person. In fact when we went to war all we had for evidence were satelite photos of weapons labs that later turned out to be stations for blowing up hot air balloons. Ties between Bin Laden and Hussein have been unfounded. Documents about Iraq attempting to obtain uranium from Africa have been proven to be falisified.
The law says Microsoft's business plan was perfectly reasonable
That's not the issue. It is perfectly legal to sell consoles at below cost because it's been done by everybody in the game console market. We all know that. It's just not very smart to sell something with common PC hardware at below cost.
and if you try to interfere with it, you go to jail
Maybe if you use it to play bootleg games but how is illegal to simply modify something you already own?
Who are you going to believe? A bunch of teenaged hackers with too much free time, or Uncle Sam?
Teenage hackers. Uncle Sam has lied before and he will again.
you don't need to recompile anything on a distro like redhat or mandrake.
finding drivers,
don't have to do that either.
learning tons of commands,
not necessary with either redhat's or mandrake's gui utilities.
and installing programs is way above the average pc users head under current versions of Linux.
same thing again. it is not a problem with most distos now. RPM hell is similar to DLL hell except most package managers in Linux have some form of automatic dependcy checking. just click the RPM and it's all set. not to mention the awewsome package managers that bot debian and gentoo have, just apt-get packagename or emerge packagename and a package and it's dependencies are automatically downloaded and installed. up2date for redhat and urpmi for mandrake work similary but are not as advanced as apt or portage.
For anyone reading this comment who hasn't used Linux before, don't buy into any of this crap. it's the biggest lie that has been perpetuated about Linux. anyone can set up an rpm distro. it's easier than reinstalling windows.
Kuwait existed as an entity way before Iraq did, so you are not correct there. Both of them once belong to Iran, so perhaps Iran should take them over? As for the Imperialists, Kuwait has been free of imperialist control for decades (except when iraqi imperialists had them for a few months).
As an addendum to this I would like to include this quote "I admit it, the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures" - William Kristol
I also find it amusing that there is now a witness to the blatant lying of this Administration. Bush and his cronies lied to us. Shouldn't he be impeached for that? After all, Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob and Americans didn't die for that.
It is a myth only to that small percentage on the far left that thinks everything to the right of them is "right wing". Measured from the center, it is true.
You forget that even conservatives concede to this myth.
Bush is more protective of our rights than Clinton (I know, this is not saying much). His FCC has held the line to protect the First Amendment against those who want government to make media policy to "keep Rupert Murdoch in line" or censor Clear Channel because they play bad pop. The 2nd Amendment is being protected better. There are many other examples (including equal rights regardless of race, and children's rights).
So the fact that the government needs no excuse to spy on you or anyone else on the internet doesn not bother you? How about the fact that the executive branch can itslef decide who constitutes a terrorist and hold them without outside contact to the world, even to consult with a lawyer. Or how about those poor people from green peace and various other left-wing organizations who were told by airlines that they could not fly because they were on a list. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it's ok.
Exactly what has the FCC done to protect First amendment rights?
Please include an example among the "many" of Bush protecting children's rights and ensuring protection of equal rights?
(including the time he supported Pol Pot during the killing field days)
You fail to mention the facts that the right wing US government supported Pol Pot and even helped with the killings. They then proceeded to turn around and condemn the acts and sensationalize the events to make it look even worse. The worst thing about the scenario is that it was bad enough without lying about it. Chomsky only pointed this out.
It gave plenty of good reasons to retaliate.
You see this is what you always come up with when you try to provide evidence. This is not evidence. You claim something without supporting a word of it.
It doesn't mean that this power should be maximized and abused. The government has the right to execute people too, but does this mean it should be done all the time, or at all? As for Stealing, what do you call it when someone takes your property under threat of force? The Randists have made a good point on this one.
Conservatives always want to think the government is stealing from them. It's lunacy. Fact 1: The United States has the richest people in the world among its citizens. Most other developed countries tax much more and they seem to complain less about it although they do still complain. Fact 2: The government needs to tax people in order to operate. The rich aren't taxed "more", the poor are taxed "less". Taxes don't incrementally get higher without end. There is a threshold. If you fall below it then you get to pay less because you shouldn't be asked to pay as much taxes if it kills you. Other taxes that tend to garner from the rich are there because they are not necessity. If you wish to live in extravagance then you should be willing to pay for it and that means taxes too.
The same is true of Jimmy Carter, and Jimmy Carter is an actual nuclear engineer! (You probably did not know that). I'm not one for spelling flames, but in the context you are pushing, it should be pointed out that you did not even spell the word correctly.
So a typo means I'm just as dumb? I know how to spell it and I know how to say it. I made a mistake, I'm not ignorant on the subject.
What about the large number of European countries that were allies with the U.S. against Iraq (it is a a large number, perhaps larger than the France and Germany axis: I do not know for sure). Countries like Poland, not countries like France who which were allied with Mr. Hussein and have had recent marches against the "Jewish global banking conspiracy"
Oh you mean the coalition of the bought? The same coalition that didn't send
I believe this since I know a basic fact you are not aware of when you believe the left-wing media lying about "Tax cuts for the rich": the fact is that the rich are only a minority of those who have the government loot less from them under the Bush tax plan.
The "Liberal Media" myth has been propogated for years by uninventive conservatives for years. You don't have to respond to any questions by the media if you can discount them all. Even several prominent Republicans have admitted to the "liberal media myth". It's called working the refs.
It is not laughable: it is true: the administration has put forth an excellent domestic agenda.
Sadly you have shown your true colors as a greedy pig. Who cares that we have had our rights taken away from us? Who cares that we are commiting horrible crimes to people in Guantanam Bay? I'm gonna get a fat paycheck! That makes everything better. Fool.
It is regressive since it got the rulers much more involved in the lives of the people. It should have been temporary. Instead, it became a permanent power grab.
Actually it provided for a country that took care of its citizens. This is a good thing. Not everyone can be a billionaire CEO.
The cause of the war in that area was Saddam Hussein. This war had been going on for decades. (By the way, about the WMD: France and Germany believed, and rightly so, that they existed)
No. How can you claim "rightly so" when nothing has been found. Who cares what France and Germany think? I don't. I care whethere there was actual evidence and there wasn't. Saddam was not attacking another country. His army was too weak to do anything. Don't you remember the US pummeling them 12 years ago?
Ignore? You call spending billions in foreign aid "ignoring"?????
Typical conservative. Throw money at it. It will go away.
He proudly admitted funding anti-israeli terrorists. He still claimed Kuwait as his own imperial territory.
Wow, he claimed he owned it. Well I claim I own the US but that's not true. Just to set you straight, I think Saddam is a horrible person but Kuwait should technically belong to Iraq. It was once one country but Kuwait became the rich land for the Imperialists left there when they became free of Imperial rule.
He invaded Kuwait with his crippled mess of a country years ago. With his recent mess of a country, he was killing tens of thousands of Iraqis a year.
Uhh. We crippled their country in that war. I didn't think that would go over your head.
Because Saddam used them as human shields. Another reason he had to go.
Well ok then those don't count! They didn't really die.
It figures you are pro-Saddam. Things were so much better.
Man you conservatives can't come up with any different tactics. You all use the same ones. Not an inventive bunch. I prefer to be called anti-american. That at least makes me laugh.
I only reserve such terms for people when it is accurate to use them. I did not use the term Radical, however. I only used Communist for members of the Communist Party. I only use anti-american for inviduals who want to make the country significantly worse. I use the term Stalinist for those like Chomsky who write at great length in support of Stalinist regimes (Chomsky actually supported Pol Pot's "killing fields").
No again. I don't know how you confused what went on. Chomsky did not support that at all. He just attempted to make the facts straight. When things get bad people, especially the media, tend to blow things out of proportion. Many incidences like this have occurred during the latest Iraq war. Chomsky just wanted people to know the cold truth not the sensationalism.
I've given plenty of evidence.
Sorry, I forgot to qualify that with "useful"
I've read dozens of his writings. Typically, they have several lies per paragraph
No, they want to move the country forward by reducing the greed (look at the Bush tax cut, in which government is less greedy). Repealing the New Deal is in fact a good idea: it has given the rulers way to much power and control: as such the New Deal is in itself a regressive idea, and devolving this power from the state to the people is truly progressive.
I hope you don't really believe this. Bush cutting taxes for rich people is not making government less greedy when everyone in the administration is rich. It's by far the richest administration ever. They're simply self-serving. To suggest they are doing for the good of the country, at a time of war no less, is laughable. I'd be surprised if you even had the slightest grasp on history if you are willing to call the new deal regressive.
He invaded Iraq and overthrow the cause of the war.
And the cause of war was? WMD? No. Liberating Iraq? No. So what was it? Iraq was a crippled country with a crippled military. They were a threat to no one. Meanwhile the US continues to ignore Africa because it holds nothing of value to then.
If they had their way, Saddam would still be in power funding his war of terror against Israel, and also executing at least a thousand Iraqis a month (while also preparing more aggression against Kuwait and other countries). Thanks to Bush, this war is over.
Show me the proof. I don't see how Saddam could prepare to do anything with such a crippled mess of a country. BTW genius, 7,000 innocent civilians were killed in the war. How long has it been? Four months? I guess they were doing better under Saddam them.
The most these two you named can be called is forgettable losers. They hate the country and its people, and Americans in return think little of them. Kucinich is even endorsed by Noam Chomsky, a noted Stalinist pseudo-intellectual and anti-semite of the lunatic fringe.
Thankfully, these extremists will never sway more than the rabid 5 to 10 percent extremists.
People like you love to call everyone a radical, a communist, or anti-american. It's the only way to defend such an utterly ridiculous arguement. Why don't you actually print something useful rather than slander everyone without any evidence to back it up? It's obvious you haven't read a damn thing by Noam Chomsky. It's also obvious you have blind faith in a government based soley on your party affiliation. It's quite sad.
There was never a valid reason to go to war. Satelite photos showing "WMD" have turned out to be nothing of the sort. Ties between Iraq and Osama bin Laden were proven fabrications (even before the war). Liberating Iraqi's is just something that the administration used to sway people. They said it themselves many times. There have been and still are much worse regimes out there but it has never been an agenda for this administration.
The tax cut to the rich was worth more to the pockets of the top %1 than the social security and medicare deficiencies combined. The rich seemed to get along fine before without tax cuts. Why not fix the problems we have before giving away the farm?
Bush, the man, is an ignorant and arrogant person. He lacks even basic diplomacy skills. His leadership is out of the wild west. Shoot first and ask questions later. Whether you like it or not we all have to live in this world together. Bush and his cronies are single-handedly threating the security of our entire nation. The United States is now the most feared country in the world. The United States also has a large military empire, with military installations in every corner of the world. That makes everyone nervous. In these times it's better to talk softly and carry a big stick. Mouthing off to the whole world as Bush does is childish and personally I can't see how a grown adult could support him.
The guys you are thinking of are actually very regressive (i.e. Howard Dean and his "more power for the powerful" platform), and they are pro-war (as they supported Saddam's war against Iraq, Israel and other countries; and have opposed Bush's successful efforts to end Saddam's war)
Hmmm. I don't think so. Regressive would be the term to desrcibe Republicans who want to repeal the entire New Deal and bring the country back to the late 19th century, a time of greed and inequality. Please explain to me how Bush has tried to end the war. You can't just throw something that unsupported out there without providing some valid evidence. The same goes for calling people like Dean and Kucinich pro-war (Iraq war that is, as that is what I was talking about).
I wonder why everyone assumes that someone who is not a Republican is automatically a Democrat, or a supporter of what Democrats are doing. I can tell you first hand that most people who are against what the Republicans are doing right now are not too happy with Democrats either. The Democrats have done little to stop the policies of this Administration. Considering third parties have little chance succeding in this type of government, I sure do hope they straighten their act out. I'm hopeful that at least one of the progressive anti-war canidates wins the primary so the American public can have a real choice this time around. The Democrats were getting to conservative and too content for Liberals to back.
Yep, yep. Start the install program, sit back, watch just watch the progress bar and bang, it's installed. Compared with Linux where each distro seems to have its own incompatable package manager. Or compile from scratch and manage the dependencies manually.
I don't see what this has to do with the discussion. Any package manager should be able to install just as easily. Sure not all of them are compatible with each other but what has that got to do with anything? If you don't want choice then go back to windows. Linux is about choice, not about replacing windows. I do believe it will eventually replace windows but that was never the goal so don't try to make it the goal of Linux.
And I love this argument. Anybody with an MCSE is less skilled and that is why they get payed less. Personally I wouldn't want any Linux users touching my computers, and your argument is a good example why. Highly skilled or not, arrogant assholes aren't worth the money.
I don't see how it is arrogant to want someone more skilled. You can hire a fast food cook to cook for your wedding but why would you?
Or not. We have used Windows 2000 for 3 years now and we can keep on using it forever if we want. Nobody is forcing us to upgrade.
Actually they are forcing you to upgrade. MS has a product life cycle and when it has completed its course you will no longer have support.
You forgot to bring some numbers to back that up. If you do, try and remember that Apache installs != Linux installs.
Even after I reread my comment I failed to see where I said Apache = Linux. Anyway, last I checked Linux has about 55% and Windows only has about 35% of the webservers that make up the internet.
In 8 years MS has dominated the market with their OS. Windows 98 is still perfectly usable. It's been 12-13 years for Linux and it's far from done.
Talk about uninformed. You are way off the mark. Linux is very much done and has been since version 1.0. Since then it has been continually improving. BTW if you think win98 is perfectly usable but Linux is not then you better get your head out of you ass.
I'd love to sit around and wait for Linux to get done but I've got work to do now.
So what exactly is it that you cannot do on Linux that you can do on Windows? I do agree there are not alternatives for everything but the same could be said about MS when compared to Linux. I'm only asking this question because I think you have no idea what you are talking about.
The great thing about closed source is that it has a clear road map that the developers have to follow and the developers get paid. As a result things get done far faster than in the Open Source model where it's not really clear what's needed and few are really dedicated to putting 8+ hour days in on their part all year for x years.
Are you Bill Gates? You sure do sound a lot like him. Things do not get done faster in a closed source environment. Bugs get fixed within hours of being reported sometimes in Linux. It may take months in Windows before a fix is made available. Open source works without a "roadmap" because it is about creating what is needed when it is needed. There's no time spent allocating resources and putting together a team to produce a piece of software. If someone needs an application they can just create it whenever they please and if people like it they will come and help.
The issue of getting paid is the weakest one of them all. Getting paid to do something is not as productive as doing it out of fun. If you are paid to do something, you don't necessarily have a reason to do your best, especially when it doesn't reflect on you. It only reflects on the company (of course unless you do a completely horrible job). With closed source, you really only need to do enough to get by. OTOH you're much more likely to do a better job for a personal project, with your name on it, so that you can be proud of it.
"Many eyes" is a joke when talking about MS. Bill Gates probably has more people working on Windows than there are people working on Linux. And if he needed "more eyes" he'd hire them
I really hope you're joking on this one. There are more people working on Linux then there are MS employees. With Linux you never have to hire more people. Everyone and anyone can look at the source. Anyone can make an improvement. Besides, a homogenous environment like that is bound to stifle innovation more than an Open Source environment where people from every different part of the world, with all there different ideas, can contribute.
I think you missed the whole point of his post. He never said mplayer or xine was innovative. He said they were good players. He did say that the 2.5-2.6 kernel is ahead of MS and I'd have to agree with that.
How so? I do understand that right now it's not looking too democratic but the US is a democracy. Don't give me any of that "we're a republic" crap either because the two are not mutually exclusive. So what part of: "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives" does the US not prescribe to?
Linux distros cost in the same order of magnitude now of what winows installations cost.
Bull. Linux is FREE. Even if you buy a distribution it is much cheaper than Windows. Basically though, you can use pretty much any distro you want + Apache and you have a no-cost webserver.
Linux requires more expensive support personnel, which generally swamps the cost of the OS
I love this arguement. Personally I wouldn't want any MSCE touching my computers. They may be cheaper but that's because they're less skilled too.
Microsoft offers a reasonably clear roadmap for the next five years for which a CIO can plan, Linux does not (before the knee-jerks respond: the fact that you don't read ms whitepapers doesn't mean that they dont exist).
Yeah, they can plan to pay to upgrade again and again and again. They can also plan to waste a lot of time with DRM issues when it's not possible to make images to install on machines.
Giant websites run both Linux and Microsoft successfully. At the very least, it's not "obvious" that linux is better per se.
You forgot to mention that far more websites use Linux rather than Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
I highly doubt that. Even your precious ZoneAlarm has security flaws. Breaking into a personal computer is like stealing a car, if someone really wants to they will. No cracker really cares about someone's personal machine, (as someone already mentioned) they care about servers. You're more or less protected from most of the idiots out there who don't know what they're doing but can google exploits, but don't get too confident because your system can be broken into.
The system doesn't have to run Linux to support Linux users and the application doesn't need to be open sourced even if it is on Linux so I don't really see how your arguement holds.
Typical conservative technique. If you make liberals look like Saddam supporters then you don't even have to make a valid arguement to support your stance.
You sound partisan, bitter, and illogical. You and your ilk have offered nothing but criticism. No solutions. Just pissing and moaning. You have built your platform on the hopes that the United States will fail in its endeavours. That is disgusting.
You are partisan, bitter, and illogical. The statement "leftist lemmings" shows that you are partisan. You are indeed bitter because you wish to equate liberals to people who wish the US harm. Finally you are absolutley illogical in justifying a war ex post facto.
I mean really, why should we give a damn. It's still blatant speculation, just like the speculation that this would be "another Vietname" and "a quagmire". People that think just like you have been wrong over and over again, so many times, but you still get up and scream this same bullshit at the top of your lungs. That's what people should be giving a damn about.
How is not turning into another Vietnam? This administration has admitted we will be in Iraq for at least another five years. It is fact Americans are still dying everyday in Iraq.
The fact is, the United States had moral, legal, and political justification for removing Saddam Hussein. The world is a safer place for both Americans and Iraqis today than it was a few months ago, and it cost fewer lives than anyone estimated. A people who have experienced oppression you will NEVER comprehend are now free. I'll never forget the images of those Iraqis beating that Saddam statue with the shoes off of their feet. It's a shame you have forgotten, or maybe you never opened your eyes up enough to see.
If the US had real reasons to get rid of Saddam then why did they have to lie about it? The 7000 dead Iraqi civilians are definitely not happier or safer. Oh and one more thing, the pictures of people pulling down statues of Saddam are a little misleading. They don't show the troops riling up the crowds and starting the whole thing. It's propoganda just the same as Jessica Lynch.
mr. bush, to a decent enough extent, has rose to the occasion.
for that i thank him, and regret nothing
I hope you know that Iraq had absolutley nothing to do with 9/11. So either you're just some dolt who wants to see someone else suffer because it makes you feel better or you're a racist. I hope you know that 7000 innocent Iraqi's died in the war. Now there is probably some equivalent Iraqi dolt over there just like you, hoping for more destruction and will in turn kill Americans. Now bacause of people like you, the violence will never end.
You can't be that naive ?
Actually it was an illegal war. The "evidence" the Administration used was falsified. That means they were knowingly lying to the people of the US about war. That is illegal. Also for all those so-called humanitarians who wish to debate that this war was about liberating Iraq; Iraq does not meet the requirements to go to war. "Liberating" a country can only be legal (UN standards) if genocide is involved. Supposedly Saddam gassed the Kurds but that was 15 years ago and the US was allies with Iraq so nothing was done. There is also some doubt that Saddam was the one who gassed the Kurds. Medical reports show it was gas that came from Iran not Iraq.
Except...we have seen Saddam before. Actually the man (Donald Rumsfeld) who you qoute (without giving proper credit) has met Saddam in person. So we know he exists. The problem is that weapons inspectors did not see any WMD in person. In fact when we went to war all we had for evidence were satelite photos of weapons labs that later turned out to be stations for blowing up hot air balloons. Ties between Bin Laden and Hussein have been unfounded. Documents about Iraq attempting to obtain uranium from Africa have been proven to be falisified.
The law says Microsoft's business plan was perfectly reasonable
That's not the issue. It is perfectly legal to sell consoles at below cost because it's been done by everybody in the game console market. We all know that. It's just not very smart to sell something with common PC hardware at below cost.
and if you try to interfere with it, you go to jail
Maybe if you use it to play bootleg games but how is illegal to simply modify something you already own?
Who are you going to believe? A bunch of teenaged hackers with too much free time, or Uncle Sam?
Teenage hackers. Uncle Sam has lied before and he will again.
you don't need to recompile anything on a distro like redhat or mandrake.
finding drivers,
don't have to do that either.
learning tons of commands,
not necessary with either redhat's or mandrake's gui utilities.
and installing programs is way above the average pc users head under current versions of Linux.
same thing again. it is not a problem with most distos now. RPM hell is similar to DLL hell except most package managers in Linux have some form of automatic dependcy checking. just click the RPM and it's all set. not to mention the awewsome package managers that bot debian and gentoo have, just apt-get packagename or emerge packagename and a package and it's dependencies are automatically downloaded and installed. up2date for redhat and urpmi for mandrake work similary but are not as advanced as apt or portage.
For anyone reading this comment who hasn't used Linux before, don't buy into any of this crap. it's the biggest lie that has been perpetuated about Linux. anyone can set up an rpm distro. it's easier than reinstalling windows.
You're right. The answer is obvious. xpdf is perfectly capable of replacing acrobat reader.
Not really
I also find it amusing that there is now a witness to the blatant lying of this Administration. Bush and his cronies lied to us. Shouldn't he be impeached for that? After all, Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blowjob and Americans didn't die for that.
You forget that even conservatives concede to this myth.
Bush is more protective of our rights than Clinton (I know, this is not saying much). His FCC has held the line to protect the First Amendment against those who want government to make media policy to "keep Rupert Murdoch in line" or censor Clear Channel because they play bad pop. The 2nd Amendment is being protected better. There are many other examples (including equal rights regardless of race, and children's rights).
So the fact that the government needs no excuse to spy on you or anyone else on the internet doesn not bother you? How about the fact that the executive branch can itslef decide who constitutes a terrorist and hold them without outside contact to the world, even to consult with a lawyer. Or how about those poor people from green peace and various other left-wing organizations who were told by airlines that they could not fly because they were on a list. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it's ok.
Exactly what has the FCC done to protect First amendment rights?
Please include an example among the "many" of Bush protecting children's rights and ensuring protection of equal rights?
(including the time he supported Pol Pot during the killing field days)
You fail to mention the facts that the right wing US government supported Pol Pot and even helped with the killings. They then proceeded to turn around and condemn the acts and sensationalize the events to make it look even worse. The worst thing about the scenario is that it was bad enough without lying about it. Chomsky only pointed this out.
It gave plenty of good reasons to retaliate.
You see this is what you always come up with when you try to provide evidence. This is not evidence. You claim something without supporting a word of it.
It doesn't mean that this power should be maximized and abused. The government has the right to execute people too, but does this mean it should be done all the time, or at all? As for Stealing, what do you call it when someone takes your property under threat of force? The Randists have made a good point on this one.
Conservatives always want to think the government is stealing from them. It's lunacy. Fact 1: The United States has the richest people in the world among its citizens. Most other developed countries tax much more and they seem to complain less about it although they do still complain. Fact 2: The government needs to tax people in order to operate. The rich aren't taxed "more", the poor are taxed "less". Taxes don't incrementally get higher without end. There is a threshold. If you fall below it then you get to pay less because you shouldn't be asked to pay as much taxes if it kills you. Other taxes that tend to garner from the rich are there because they are not necessity. If you wish to live in extravagance then you should be willing to pay for it and that means taxes too.
The same is true of Jimmy Carter, and Jimmy Carter is an actual nuclear engineer! (You probably did not know that). I'm not one for spelling flames, but in the context you are pushing, it should be pointed out that you did not even spell the word correctly.
So a typo means I'm just as dumb? I know how to spell it and I know how to say it. I made a mistake, I'm not ignorant on the subject.
What about the large number of European countries that were allies with the U.S. against Iraq (it is a a large number, perhaps larger than the France and Germany axis: I do not know for sure). Countries like Poland, not countries like France who which were allied with Mr. Hussein and have had recent marches against the "Jewish global banking conspiracy"
Oh you mean the coalition of the bought? The same coalition that didn't send
The "Liberal Media" myth has been propogated for years by uninventive conservatives for years. You don't have to respond to any questions by the media if you can discount them all. Even several prominent Republicans have admitted to the "liberal media myth". It's called working the refs.
It is not laughable: it is true: the administration has put forth an excellent domestic agenda.
Sadly you have shown your true colors as a greedy pig. Who cares that we have had our rights taken away from us? Who cares that we are commiting horrible crimes to people in Guantanam Bay? I'm gonna get a fat paycheck! That makes everything better. Fool.
It is regressive since it got the rulers much more involved in the lives of the people. It should have been temporary. Instead, it became a permanent power grab.
Actually it provided for a country that took care of its citizens. This is a good thing. Not everyone can be a billionaire CEO.
The cause of the war in that area was Saddam Hussein. This war had been going on for decades. (By the way, about the WMD: France and Germany believed, and rightly so, that they existed)
No. How can you claim "rightly so" when nothing has been found. Who cares what France and Germany think? I don't. I care whethere there was actual evidence and there wasn't. Saddam was not attacking another country. His army was too weak to do anything. Don't you remember the US pummeling them 12 years ago?
Ignore? You call spending billions in foreign aid "ignoring"?????
Typical conservative. Throw money at it. It will go away.
He proudly admitted funding anti-israeli terrorists. He still claimed Kuwait as his own imperial territory.
Wow, he claimed he owned it. Well I claim I own the US but that's not true. Just to set you straight, I think Saddam is a horrible person but Kuwait should technically belong to Iraq. It was once one country but Kuwait became the rich land for the Imperialists left there when they became free of Imperial rule.
He invaded Kuwait with his crippled mess of a country years ago. With his recent mess of a country, he was killing tens of thousands of Iraqis a year.
Uhh. We crippled their country in that war. I didn't think that would go over your head.
Because Saddam used them as human shields. Another reason he had to go.
Well ok then those don't count! They didn't really die.
It figures you are pro-Saddam. Things were so much better.
Man you conservatives can't come up with any different tactics. You all use the same ones. Not an inventive bunch. I prefer to be called anti-american. That at least makes me laugh.
I only reserve such terms for people when it is accurate to use them. I did not use the term Radical, however. I only used Communist for members of the Communist Party. I only use anti-american for inviduals who want to make the country significantly worse. I use the term Stalinist for those like Chomsky who write at great length in support of Stalinist regimes (Chomsky actually supported Pol Pot's "killing fields").
No again. I don't know how you confused what went on. Chomsky did not support that at all. He just attempted to make the facts straight. When things get bad people, especially the media, tend to blow things out of proportion. Many incidences like this have occurred during the latest Iraq war. Chomsky just wanted people to know the cold truth not the sensationalism.
I've given plenty of evidence.
Sorry, I forgot to qualify that with "useful"
I've read dozens of his writings. Typically, they have several lies per paragraph
I hope you don't really believe this. Bush cutting taxes for rich people is not making government less greedy when everyone in the administration is rich. It's by far the richest administration ever. They're simply self-serving. To suggest they are doing for the good of the country, at a time of war no less, is laughable. I'd be surprised if you even had the slightest grasp on history if you are willing to call the new deal regressive.
He invaded Iraq and overthrow the cause of the war.
And the cause of war was? WMD? No. Liberating Iraq? No. So what was it? Iraq was a crippled country with a crippled military. They were a threat to no one. Meanwhile the US continues to ignore Africa because it holds nothing of value to then.
If they had their way, Saddam would still be in power funding his war of terror against Israel, and also executing at least a thousand Iraqis a month (while also preparing more aggression against Kuwait and other countries). Thanks to Bush, this war is over.
Show me the proof. I don't see how Saddam could prepare to do anything with such a crippled mess of a country. BTW genius, 7,000 innocent civilians were killed in the war. How long has it been? Four months? I guess they were doing better under Saddam them.
The most these two you named can be called is forgettable losers. They hate the country and its people, and Americans in return think little of them. Kucinich is even endorsed by Noam Chomsky, a noted Stalinist pseudo-intellectual and anti-semite of the lunatic fringe.
Thankfully, these extremists will never sway more than the rabid 5 to 10 percent extremists.
People like you love to call everyone a radical, a communist, or anti-american. It's the only way to defend such an utterly ridiculous arguement. Why don't you actually print something useful rather than slander everyone without any evidence to back it up? It's obvious you haven't read a damn thing by Noam Chomsky. It's also obvious you have blind faith in a government based soley on your party affiliation. It's quite sad.
There was never a valid reason to go to war. Satelite photos showing "WMD" have turned out to be nothing of the sort. Ties between Iraq and Osama bin Laden were proven fabrications (even before the war). Liberating Iraqi's is just something that the administration used to sway people. They said it themselves many times. There have been and still are much worse regimes out there but it has never been an agenda for this administration.
The tax cut to the rich was worth more to the pockets of the top %1 than the social security and medicare deficiencies combined. The rich seemed to get along fine before without tax cuts. Why not fix the problems we have before giving away the farm?
Bush, the man, is an ignorant and arrogant person. He lacks even basic diplomacy skills. His leadership is out of the wild west. Shoot first and ask questions later. Whether you like it or not we all have to live in this world together. Bush and his cronies are single-handedly threating the security of our entire nation. The United States is now the most feared country in the world. The United States also has a large military empire, with military installations in every corner of the world. That makes everyone nervous. In these times it's better to talk softly and carry a big stick. Mouthing off to the whole world as Bush does is childish and personally I can't see how a grown adult could support him.
They forced my math teacher out. Sadly, it seems the best ones were always forced out.
Yes I did. He was by far the best teacher I have ever had. I think I learned more in that year than I have in any other class in any other year.
Hmmm. I don't think so. Regressive would be the term to desrcibe Republicans who want to repeal the entire New Deal and bring the country back to the late 19th century, a time of greed and inequality. Please explain to me how Bush has tried to end the war. You can't just throw something that unsupported out there without providing some valid evidence. The same goes for calling people like Dean and Kucinich pro-war (Iraq war that is, as that is what I was talking about).
I wonder why everyone assumes that someone who is not a Republican is automatically a Democrat, or a supporter of what Democrats are doing. I can tell you first hand that most people who are against what the Republicans are doing right now are not too happy with Democrats either. The Democrats have done little to stop the policies of this Administration. Considering third parties have little chance succeding in this type of government, I sure do hope they straighten their act out. I'm hopeful that at least one of the progressive anti-war canidates wins the primary so the American public can have a real choice this time around. The Democrats were getting to conservative and too content for Liberals to back.
Believe it or not, yes I can. My 8th grade math teacher taught us how to extract a square root by hand.
I don't see what this has to do with the discussion. Any package manager should be able to install just as easily. Sure not all of them are compatible with each other but what has that got to do with anything? If you don't want choice then go back to windows. Linux is about choice, not about replacing windows. I do believe it will eventually replace windows but that was never the goal so don't try to make it the goal of Linux.
I don't see how it is arrogant to want someone more skilled. You can hire a fast food cook to cook for your wedding but why would you?
Or not. We have used Windows 2000 for 3 years now and we can keep on using it forever if we want. Nobody is forcing us to upgrade.
Actually they are forcing you to upgrade. MS has a product life cycle and when it has completed its course you will no longer have support.
You forgot to bring some numbers to back that up. If you do, try and remember that Apache installs != Linux installs.
Even after I reread my comment I failed to see where I said Apache = Linux. Anyway, last I checked Linux has about 55% and Windows only has about 35% of the webservers that make up the internet.
Talk about uninformed. You are way off the mark. Linux is very much done and has been since version 1.0. Since then it has been continually improving. BTW if you think win98 is perfectly usable but Linux is not then you better get your head out of you ass.
I'd love to sit around and wait for Linux to get done but I've got work to do now.
So what exactly is it that you cannot do on Linux that you can do on Windows? I do agree there are not alternatives for everything but the same could be said about MS when compared to Linux. I'm only asking this question because I think you have no idea what you are talking about.
The great thing about closed source is that it has a clear road map that the developers have to follow and the developers get paid. As a result things get done far faster than in the Open Source model where it's not really clear what's needed and few are really dedicated to putting 8+ hour days in on their part all year for x years.
Are you Bill Gates? You sure do sound a lot like him. Things do not get done faster in a closed source environment. Bugs get fixed within hours of being reported sometimes in Linux. It may take months in Windows before a fix is made available. Open source works without a "roadmap" because it is about creating what is needed when it is needed. There's no time spent allocating resources and putting together a team to produce a piece of software. If someone needs an application they can just create it whenever they please and if people like it they will come and help.
The issue of getting paid is the weakest one of them all. Getting paid to do something is not as productive as doing it out of fun. If you are paid to do something, you don't necessarily have a reason to do your best, especially when it doesn't reflect on you. It only reflects on the company (of course unless you do a completely horrible job). With closed source, you really only need to do enough to get by. OTOH you're much more likely to do a better job for a personal project, with your name on it, so that you can be proud of it.
"Many eyes" is a joke when talking about MS. Bill Gates probably has more people working on Windows than there are people working on Linux. And if he needed "more eyes" he'd hire them
I really hope you're joking on this one. There are more people working on Linux then there are MS employees. With Linux you never have to hire more people. Everyone and anyone can look at the source. Anyone can make an improvement. Besides, a homogenous environment like that is bound to stifle innovation more than an Open Source environment where people from every different part of the world, with all there different ideas, can contribute.
I think you missed the whole point of his post. He never said mplayer or xine was innovative. He said they were good players. He did say that the 2.5-2.6 kernel is ahead of MS and I'd have to agree with that.
How so? I do understand that right now it's not looking too democratic but the US is a democracy. Don't give me any of that "we're a republic" crap either because the two are not mutually exclusive. So what part of: "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives" does the US not prescribe to?
Bull. Linux is FREE. Even if you buy a distribution it is much cheaper than Windows. Basically though, you can use pretty much any distro you want + Apache and you have a no-cost webserver.
Linux requires more expensive support personnel, which generally swamps the cost of the OS
I love this arguement. Personally I wouldn't want any MSCE touching my computers. They may be cheaper but that's because they're less skilled too.
Microsoft offers a reasonably clear roadmap for the next five years for which a CIO can plan, Linux does not (before the knee-jerks respond: the fact that you don't read ms whitepapers doesn't mean that they dont exist).
Yeah, they can plan to pay to upgrade again and again and again. They can also plan to waste a lot of time with DRM issues when it's not possible to make images to install on machines.
Giant websites run both Linux and Microsoft successfully. At the very least, it's not "obvious" that linux is better per se.
You forgot to mention that far more websites use Linux rather than Windows.