The fact that anybody is joking about 9 people losing their lives sickens mean. Have you all truly lost touch with reality to the point that the loss of human life is completely lost on you? Seriously?
I'm in the market for a new machine, so I'm not even going to bother with Vista. I beta tested it on my laptop and it seemed alright, but not worth paying to upgrade to, granted I didn't exactly put it through the ringer. Nah, come the end of the year when I have my annual bonus in hand I'll be headed down to my local Apple retailer and picking up an iMac as my new system of choice. It doesn't hurt that they offer a $100 discount to students.
What you say about US magazines rings a bit true to me in that I've seen some reviews that almost seem like advertisements for the product rather than a comprehensive, unbiased look at the pros and cons of it. Haven't seen a terrible lot of them, but I have seen them.
I thought everybody just kind of knew that hardware companies weren't going to supply hardware to bad reviewers? That would just be counter-intuitive on the part of the manufacturer. That's pretty much why I don't put too much stock in reviews and try and dig as much info as I can out of user reviews.
This is a way for the families to intimidate game makers into not making violent games. They figure if a game company thinks they'll get sued to kingdom come for making the game, they just won't make it.
Isn't this how it always is though? When Cable TV first arrived it was touted as having no commercials and then they came. We used to have the luxury of not watching commercials at the movie theatre because we paid to be there, now we have to watch the same trailer for the same bad tv show over and over again while we wait for the movie to start. The "no commercials" idea is IMHO a bait and switch maneuver that for some reason always works on consumers. The ridiculous number of commercials is the main reason I don't watch tv anymore. There are some shows I might like to see, but I'm not willing to sit through all the commercials to see them. Of course, it doesn't help that most of the shows are bad shows with excessively overpaid actors which brings us back to the insane amount of commercials, they have to pay for the talent, or lack thereof.
A) I thought the GOP went overboard with the draft dodging thing. B) Why must liberals always bring up Clinton when they're backed into a corner?
Everybody knew that Iraq had, at least, biological weapons because he used them. That is an indisputeable fact. He was told by the U.N. on many occassions to offer proof that he had gotten rid of them, therefore the burden of proof was on Husseins shoulders to show the world that he had gotten rid of the weapons and he failed to do so. There is also evidence that he may have moved a lot of weapons to Syria. After all, he went as far as to bury fighter jets, how bad would he want to get rid of wmds?
No, Democrats did not torture prisoners at Abu Ghraib, nor did Republicans! Soldiers whose direct leadership was clearly poor did the torturing.
About the next two years, I'm not too worried. Yeah, I'm concerned about the potential state of our civil liberties and civil rights, that's why I'm going to law school to study constitutional law so I can do something about it. As far as the wiretapping of people communicating with terrorists overseas, I'm all for it. If someone is conspiring with terrorists they are, as far as I'm concerned, committing treason and should be summarily charged and if convicted, shot.
If politicians resigned every time they made mistakes or what some perceived as mistakes, then this country would have about a 100% turnover rate of political leadership every 3 to 4 weeks! Ok, that may be a bit of an exageration, but you get my point.
I do not support everything Bush has done as president, but I viewed him as the lesser of 2 evils when I voted. In a perfect world, we would have a Libertarian president. And yes, I know the official platform of the Libertarian party opposes pre-emptive war, but there is a time and a place for everything. With that said, I'm done with this debate. Feel free to reply and rest assured I will read it, but I will not reply or this will never end and I'm pretty much over it at this point.
Perhaps if you attempted to make a point instead of just spewing the leftist kool-aid people might get it. Don't forget that a lot of prominent Democrats voted for the use of force as well, so they're hands are not clean in all of this. You can sit there and speculate all day long about what *might* have happened but that's just a waste of everybodies time. Quit griping about the past and think about the future, a viable future, none of this "get the troops out NOW" horseshit because that just won't work.
Your argument is just as weak as the original. If they had children in the military and were *that* concerned about their welfare they would find a way to keep them from going to the front, I wouldn't put that past the politicians. Also, given the general pedigree of politicians, I doubt their children would be in combat positions as it is. This is just another sign of a desperate group trying to find *any* reason to sway peoples support behind the leftists. The "send their kids" argument sounds a bit like a temper tantrum to me really.
Must I remind you that service in the military is voluntary and you essentially tell the government that you'll do whatever it wants you to do. So this ridiculous argument that the politicians should sign their kids up is tired and pointless. Ugh, I'm so tired of people who are unhappy with a situation making stupid remarks like this one in an effort to make some kind of "intelligent point".
It's sad how everybody is letting all the other goings-on cloud their judgement of a simple issue like this. If something is classified, it is illegal for ANYBODY to disclose it. To prosecute someone for disclosing classified information is not a violation of their free speech. Telling somebody they couldn't trash the president or something would be a violation. Regardless of how one feels about the content of classified information, it is still classified and revealing it is a prosecuteable offense. How successful would the government be in prosecuting it? Well, if a judge finds that the classified information was evidence that the government was committing a crime, then that might cancel out the reporters crime in revealing classified info.
I would like to say though, that everybody can wail and moan about "the government is breaking the law!", but in this country we have a system where an individual or entity is innocent until proven guilty in a court of LAW, not a court of public opinion based on sparse facts and political agendas. People in this country need to stop with the knee-jerk reactions and actually sit back and look at the facts and realize that we may not have all of them and take the proper course of action in obtaining them. If it takes a reporter breaking the law to reveal an illegal program, well that reporter may very well have to defend themselves against allegations of violating national security to which they could be exonerated, but we must allow the system to work as it is intended and not pick and choose who is villified and who is exercising freedom of speech. A completely open government is no way to run a government, some (a very very very limited few) things must be kept classified otherwise mob mentality takes over and suddenly everybody is hoarding food and building bomb shelters for the nuclear winter that is never to come.
Sure the government is granted it's power by the people, however if this fool had gone to the police or district attorney with his information, he probably wouldn't be in any trouble.
How is it that just about every article on slashdot is accompanied by an anti-republican quip of some sort? Grow up people, and learn to vent your political frustrations in the correct arena.
Greed is such an overused term. We live in a free market economy, if people are willing to pay $2.00 for a song then the market will charge $2.00 for a song. Only catch here is that there is a virtually infinite supply of the product. So people should stop throwing around the word "Greed" and be grateful for the type of economic system we have. If you don't want to pay, don't pay, simple as that. Nobody is entitled to this music.
And if we were ruled by a Democratic administration and congress, we would all be working for government owned companies and have our pay garnished for income redistribution. Either way it's not perfect.
I believe that in most districts it is a crime merely to possess child pornography so, while I see where you're going with this, it's kind of a moot point.
Holy crap my buddy and I were rolling on the floor laughing at this. Very nicely done my friend! You might think of taking it a step further and being the next BOFH.
Ok, normally I wouldn't take offense to that comment, but since you're equating military intelligence with Microsoft Security, I just have to say that anybody who hasn't been around the military can't talk about military intelligence. And let the flaming begin.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that anybody is joking about 9 people losing their lives sickens mean. Have you all truly lost touch with reality to the point that the loss of human life is completely lost on you? Seriously?
I'm in the market for a new machine, so I'm not even going to bother with Vista. I beta tested it on my laptop and it seemed alright, but not worth paying to upgrade to, granted I didn't exactly put it through the ringer. Nah, come the end of the year when I have my annual bonus in hand I'll be headed down to my local Apple retailer and picking up an iMac as my new system of choice. It doesn't hurt that they offer a $100 discount to students.
What you say about US magazines rings a bit true to me in that I've seen some reviews that almost seem like advertisements for the product rather than a comprehensive, unbiased look at the pros and cons of it. Haven't seen a terrible lot of them, but I have seen them.
I thought everybody just kind of knew that hardware companies weren't going to supply hardware to bad reviewers? That would just be counter-intuitive on the part of the manufacturer. That's pretty much why I don't put too much stock in reviews and try and dig as much info as I can out of user reviews.
I'm not hugely familiar with this sort of stuff but wouldn't this significantly cut down on the amount of space available on the DVD?
This is a way for the families to intimidate game makers into not making violent games. They figure if a game company thinks they'll get sued to kingdom come for making the game, they just won't make it.
Isn't this how it always is though? When Cable TV first arrived it was touted as having no commercials and then they came. We used to have the luxury of not watching commercials at the movie theatre because we paid to be there, now we have to watch the same trailer for the same bad tv show over and over again while we wait for the movie to start. The "no commercials" idea is IMHO a bait and switch maneuver that for some reason always works on consumers. The ridiculous number of commercials is the main reason I don't watch tv anymore. There are some shows I might like to see, but I'm not willing to sit through all the commercials to see them. Of course, it doesn't help that most of the shows are bad shows with excessively overpaid actors which brings us back to the insane amount of commercials, they have to pay for the talent, or lack thereof.
A) I thought the GOP went overboard with the draft dodging thing. B) Why must liberals always bring up Clinton when they're backed into a corner?
Everybody knew that Iraq had, at least, biological weapons because he used them. That is an indisputeable fact. He was told by the U.N. on many occassions to offer proof that he had gotten rid of them, therefore the burden of proof was on Husseins shoulders to show the world that he had gotten rid of the weapons and he failed to do so. There is also evidence that he may have moved a lot of weapons to Syria. After all, he went as far as to bury fighter jets, how bad would he want to get rid of wmds?
No, Democrats did not torture prisoners at Abu Ghraib, nor did Republicans! Soldiers whose direct leadership was clearly poor did the torturing.
About the next two years, I'm not too worried. Yeah, I'm concerned about the potential state of our civil liberties and civil rights, that's why I'm going to law school to study constitutional law so I can do something about it. As far as the wiretapping of people communicating with terrorists overseas, I'm all for it. If someone is conspiring with terrorists they are, as far as I'm concerned, committing treason and should be summarily charged and if convicted, shot.
If politicians resigned every time they made mistakes or what some perceived as mistakes, then this country would have about a 100% turnover rate of political leadership every 3 to 4 weeks! Ok, that may be a bit of an exageration, but you get my point.
I do not support everything Bush has done as president, but I viewed him as the lesser of 2 evils when I voted. In a perfect world, we would have a Libertarian president. And yes, I know the official platform of the Libertarian party opposes pre-emptive war, but there is a time and a place for everything. With that said, I'm done with this debate. Feel free to reply and rest assured I will read it, but I will not reply or this will never end and I'm pretty much over it at this point.
Perhaps if you attempted to make a point instead of just spewing the leftist kool-aid people might get it. Don't forget that a lot of prominent Democrats voted for the use of force as well, so they're hands are not clean in all of this. You can sit there and speculate all day long about what *might* have happened but that's just a waste of everybodies time. Quit griping about the past and think about the future, a viable future, none of this "get the troops out NOW" horseshit because that just won't work.
Your argument is just as weak as the original. If they had children in the military and were *that* concerned about their welfare they would find a way to keep them from going to the front, I wouldn't put that past the politicians. Also, given the general pedigree of politicians, I doubt their children would be in combat positions as it is. This is just another sign of a desperate group trying to find *any* reason to sway peoples support behind the leftists. The "send their kids" argument sounds a bit like a temper tantrum to me really.
Must I remind you that service in the military is voluntary and you essentially tell the government that you'll do whatever it wants you to do. So this ridiculous argument that the politicians should sign their kids up is tired and pointless. Ugh, I'm so tired of people who are unhappy with a situation making stupid remarks like this one in an effort to make some kind of "intelligent point".
It's sad how everybody is letting all the other goings-on cloud their judgement of a simple issue like this. If something is classified, it is illegal for ANYBODY to disclose it. To prosecute someone for disclosing classified information is not a violation of their free speech. Telling somebody they couldn't trash the president or something would be a violation. Regardless of how one feels about the content of classified information, it is still classified and revealing it is a prosecuteable offense. How successful would the government be in prosecuting it? Well, if a judge finds that the classified information was evidence that the government was committing a crime, then that might cancel out the reporters crime in revealing classified info.
I would like to say though, that everybody can wail and moan about "the government is breaking the law!", but in this country we have a system where an individual or entity is innocent until proven guilty in a court of LAW, not a court of public opinion based on sparse facts and political agendas. People in this country need to stop with the knee-jerk reactions and actually sit back and look at the facts and realize that we may not have all of them and take the proper course of action in obtaining them. If it takes a reporter breaking the law to reveal an illegal program, well that reporter may very well have to defend themselves against allegations of violating national security to which they could be exonerated, but we must allow the system to work as it is intended and not pick and choose who is villified and who is exercising freedom of speech. A completely open government is no way to run a government, some (a very very very limited few) things must be kept classified otherwise mob mentality takes over and suddenly everybody is hoarding food and building bomb shelters for the nuclear winter that is never to come.
Well, it DID happen to the Simpsons...
Sure the government is granted it's power by the people, however if this fool had gone to the police or district attorney with his information, he probably wouldn't be in any trouble.
Perhaps if he'd gone to the PROPER authorities instead of a newspaper, he might not be in the hot water he's in.
How is it that just about every article on slashdot is accompanied by an anti-republican quip of some sort? Grow up people, and learn to vent your political frustrations in the correct arena.
Greed is such an overused term. We live in a free market economy, if people are willing to pay $2.00 for a song then the market will charge $2.00 for a song. Only catch here is that there is a virtually infinite supply of the product. So people should stop throwing around the word "Greed" and be grateful for the type of economic system we have. If you don't want to pay, don't pay, simple as that. Nobody is entitled to this music.
And if we were ruled by a Democratic administration and congress, we would all be working for government owned companies and have our pay garnished for income redistribution. Either way it's not perfect.
I believe that in most districts it is a crime merely to possess child pornography so, while I see where you're going with this, it's kind of a moot point.
Holy crap my buddy and I were rolling on the floor laughing at this. Very nicely done my friend! You might think of taking it a step further and being the next BOFH.
Ok, normally I wouldn't take offense to that comment, but since you're equating military intelligence with Microsoft Security, I just have to say that anybody who hasn't been around the military can't talk about military intelligence. And let the flaming begin.