Arben *is* the company. He *is* the one who claims to have written CherryOS. He *is* the one who claims that all the PearPC code was put in by another developer, who probably never existed, and whose existence was never mentioned except after the accusations. He *is* the one who lied and said this developer only put a small amount of code in there, even though it was obvious that the entire core of PearPC was copied (only a slightly different front-end was used).
I once charged over $400 to fix someone's machine and rid it of spyware, viruses, etc. (it was unuseable when they gave it to me). This took me quite a while and I charge a fair amount per hour. When they got the bill they pointed out that they could have nearly bought a new computer for that price. I said, "If you wanted a new computer, I could have installed a clean copy of the OS in 45 minutes." Then they remembered that they were paying me to get their (business) *life* back, not a computer with no spyware. The cost of regenerating all that data or migrating it to a new machine would have far exceeded what I charged. And for all his complaining, the guy came back to me when he had another problem.
Actually, Hatch is both. He owns and collects royalties on a catalog of songs he's written. He just happens to be in a unique position to (theoretically) help himself out by enforcing copyright.
The degree to which you enjoy having "truly huge discs" will depend on which standard gets adopted. The formats aren't equivalent and have substantial differences in price and excellence. This is nothing like the DVD+/DVD- R/RW wars; the formats are too dissimilar.
The preference of one format over the other could have ramifications similar to those of Betamax/VHS. Personally, I'm not excited bout HD-DVD's 2.5 hour limit on high-def video. Blu-ray has a 4.5 hour limit? Now we're talking. Even LOTR:ROTK will fit on that.
I'm sick of standards that just *barely* satisfy the need for new formats. HD-DVD is an evolutionary upgrade of DVDs to allow a majority of films to fit in high-def. Blu-ray is a revolutionary change which may cost more initially, but provides much more headroom and has plans for even larger disc capacity. It also will provide an immediate benefit for long films or extensive data storage over HD-DVD.
I can't wait for this crap to get settled...in favor of Blu-ray. I'm sure not going to be excited about it when I am sticking in the second HD-DVD for a > 2.5 hour hdef film because "HD-DVD" sounds more like "DVD" than "Blu-ray". So, world, take your time if you must; just choose the right format it the end.
Bottom line: if you have to do a major upgrade of media and players, do it right! Don't upgrade the minimum amount required, but plan for the future.
I'll be almost as happy if dual-format drives take over like DVD+/-, but it would still probably mean most movies came out on HD-DVD.
The forked software itself isn't the problem. 10 different versions of a program allow for more choice, and personally, I like choice. Everyone can choose the fork that is best for them, right?
The problem occurs when a new program wants to interoperate with this useful program, or build on top of its functionality. Suddenly minor differences in forks make things a bitch to deal with. The worst possible situation is when program X requires program A in fork B, and program Y requires program A in fork C. If the two forks can't coexist, you can't even use program X and Y simultaneously.
It's very difficult to support any program on Linux because of the all the different distros, kernel versions, library versions, etc., and most of these aren't even forks in the traditional sense. They're just newer versions that lack backwards compatibility. Imagine if, in addition to that, we had QTSuse and QTFedora and QTSlack with special extensions for each distro. Use the one that's best, right? Not if you want to run some random QT app that expects the other!
This is why forks can suck, and why forks don't usually thrive unless they replace the old tree (see xorg vs XFree). There is a time for forking, and a time for stability.
The entire "View" menu. Example: view->toolbars->customize.
Most of the "File" menu. Example: File->work offline.
The Favorites menu (called Bookmarks). Example: drag and drop works similarly to IE.
The "Help" menu. Example: "Help->For Netscape Users" vs. "Help->For Internet Explorer Users"
All of the menu titles except Favorites/Bookmarks are identical. Right click on the toolbar and you can choose "customize" and move buttons around. Almost every single IE shortcut is supported (example: "alt-d" goes to the Address bar even though in Firefox there is no Address label).
I could go on, but there is plenty more. Firefox copied everything about IE that was good, and much that was just customary for all those IE users. You've listed the things that Firefox brought to the table, and no, those weren't copied from IE. The tabs were copied from Opera (or inherited from Mozilla, if you like). The popup blocking was copied from IE plugins, etc.
Your last statement has some truth. But the truth here is that Firefox has done well on windows because IE users have little to learn; it works nearly identically for the average user. Where it works differently, it usually works better. In short, for many it works as a drop-in replacement for IE. That's a good thing, considering how established IE is. The same will have to be true of OO before it can start to replace MSO in the businessplace.
Seriously, though, I don't like the solution of pulling out IE every time I want to see the flash on a certain page. Oh, sure, I block most of it with adblock anyway, but sometimes I want to see it...and I don't want to open another, more annoying browser to do it.
This is a bit of a "security hole" that flash is able to give instructions to the browser, however. Perhaps Mozilla's plugin code should have some abilities to stop popups or other instructions from the loaded plugins.
I do use IE when I have to, but I'd prefer that to be never. So, it really irks me when people suggest that it's a perfectly acceptable solution to use IE some of the time. Most people simply don't want two programs that have the same purpose. All the things I get with Fx will disappear when I have to see the site in IE, so I'd prefer to be able to load as many sites as possible in Fx. "Just load it in IE" isn't acceptable if Fx is to replace IE. It's not a good permanent solution.
And part of what makes an admin "secure" is his experience in what operating systems to use due to their history and security.
It simply doesn't matter how careful an admin is; it is still possible an unknown OS flaw can bite him in the ass. If he's experienced, however, he knows about certain flaws and security holes, and takes corrective action, thus diminishing the chances of being hacked.
This study may or may not be valid, but it behooves admins everywhere to pay attention to the kinds of security holes that are found in every operating system.
To that point, I'd argue that a competent admin who sets up windows servers and one who sets up linux servers will never have the same success rate. The question is, who's is better? I have no idea--it's too difficult to quantify.
> If there are only 1-2 tracks you consider 'good', > you must not care for the artist too much, so why > buy the CD in the first place?
Sounds like you made his point for him. People *aren't* going to buy these CDs in "the first place," in the future. They're going to buy the one song they like.
In spite of that, I think your view is a little shortsighted. First of all, do I have to "care for" an artist to appreciate a song they write? (No, I don't.) If I like an artist, does that mean I'll like every song on their next album? (No, it doesn't.) Should I buy their CDs even if I only like one song, so they keep producing those few songs? (If I think it's worth it, I will.)
> I can't think of any CD i have bought recently > where I didn't enjoy the entire CD.
Same here. I stopped buying them.:) But seriously, I think you're ignoring the possibility of good bands writing bad music, and bad CDs having some good songs on them. On of my favorite bands, "They Might Be Giants," actually has some pretty terrible songs on some of their CDs. I still bought all their CDs (up to when they started releasing them in mp3 format), because I like a lot of their songs.
It's not as black and white as you suggest. There is a reason people still buy CDs, and there is a reason a lot of us have stopped. On of the biggest reason people have stopped, though, is because you *don't* have to like every song by a group to appreciate some of them. You *don't* have to like their entire CD to appreciate an artist. Even great artists make bad music every once in a while, and with the digital age, it's our prerogative to avoid those while buying what we enjoy.
The sad side effect will be all the songs we miss that are great, but not popular, and we never hear because we didn't buy an entire album. There are songs on CDs I bought that I grew to enjoy after listening to the CD several times, and I never would have purchased otherwise.
> if you are buying the flavor of the month pop > garbage, it's your own fault for contributing to > the studios coffers, so they can have someone > new on the lineup next month.
This I agree with. Why to people keep buying the same rehashed horrible pop music...? A topic for another time.
I don't know about that. The technical differences between AIX, Solaris, FreeBSD and Linux are significant (to name a few). If nothing else, the BSD section allows me to click on a single link and see if anything new is happening in the BSD world.
However, I agree that stories like this belong in a more general category. Perhaps we should have a "Unix" section, with subsections like "OS" (containing news about Linux, FreeBSD, etc.), "Apps" containing news about X, Apache, Mozilla, etc. Unfortunately, a lot of these apps exist in Windows, as well, so such things perhaps belong in the "main."
Oh well, looks like there will always be some cross-over between sections. I like it how it is; only BSD specific stuff shows up in BSD, and stuff like this usually makes it to the front page anyhow.
The reason IIS was running is because that is the default behavior, which is just plain stupid. The average Windows server doesn't need a web server.
I usually slipstream service packs. In this case I had not done so. A previous machine had failed and needed a replacement ASAP. So, I installed Win2k AS from the original CD and started configuring things. IIS was on by default. I knew this; I didn't care--I was behind a NATed network, and every minute wasted was money lost. It turned out a port was forwarded which allowed Code Red to be exploited. If I had known this, obviously I would have been more careful about allowing IIS to run.
The point, however, was that I installed Win2k, a fairly expensive product, and within minutes, had my network hosed because it contained an insecure service which was enabled by default...without my ever selecting it. As it happened, I knew this service was on there and would have disabled it had I known the port was forwarded to that machine, but the real error here lies with the poor design in IIS. Just because I didn't take every single precaution I could have (and should have) doesn't mean the fault is all mine. Part of the problem was me not being familiar with that network, part was that I was in a hurry, and part was that Microsoft's product was extremely insecure by default. Considering the amount of money I paid to have access to that product that MS put on the CD, I'm kind of disappointed that it was so flaky.
Also, this happened over a year ago, so my story is not current either. But I just wanted to say that if the parent was suggesting that it was only the IIS with NT 4.0 that was so insecure, he/she's wrong. IIS continues to have problems, and Win2k isn't so long ago. Most windows companies are still running Win2k for their servers. Yes, there are patches, and yes, I install them, and *NO* I don't use IIS for *anything*. It's disabled on all my servers. I'd bet my job that IIS still has horrible security holes, though.
The default IIS on Windows 2000 Advanced Server has the code red flaw and is exploited within 5 minutes of port 80 being allowed into the box. I have done this personally, only because I did not realize the previous sys admin had already forwarded port 80 to the ip address I chose. When I installed Win2k Adv Server, it immediately got hit and slowed down the entire network. Eventually I turned off IIS and patched Win2k, but it was a serious problem.
So, the problems continue with IIS, and are not simply because there was a buggy version with NT4. Although, I do agree that it's a target because it's in the default install, just like OpenSSH is a huge target because it's running on so many Linux boxes.
Now that you've listed all these Democrats saying this, you can list some Republicans saying it, if you like. But as soon as you're done, why don't you answer the original question?
> Please tell me, how was invading Iraq "protecting > ourselves
Pointing out that many Democrats considered Iraq a threat is nothing but a defense of Republicans' failed policies. "Well, some Democrats thought Iraq was a threat too...nah, nah, nah." How does this answer the original question of how invading Iraq really protected us?
I'm an independent, and disagreed with the invasion of Iraq as a way of protecting ourselves from WMD. When nearly every Republican AND Democrat voted for the resolution to go to war, I disagreed with both of them.
Demonstrating that Democrat politicians are just as stupid as Republican politicians doesn't help answer the original question. It does, however, show exactly how biased and politically-minded you are. Rather than trying to figure out whether a policy was wrong, or defend that policy, you immediately jump to defend what apparently is your political party of choice. In other words, honesty and objectivism are not important to you, only partisanship.
It is exactly this kind of thinking that allows politicians to make poor choices and not be held accountable for them. People like you resort to partisan hackery, rather than trying to fix the system or question the choices of the people they supported in the election.
Now, history will tell whether invading Iraq was worth the cost. I personally believe that WMD were not even the *primary* reason for invading, although they were the *primary* justification. That doesn't mean I don't see the invasion as having some merit. But it does mean I question whether invading was really done to protect the United States. Even if it was, I believe it was done on a much more general level, because we believe that controlling several key countries in the Middle East will allow us to more effectively combat terrorism.
Again I repeat, however, that the statements of a few Democrats do nothing to answer this question, but rather distort the issue by making it a question of party politics. There has been significant rebellion in govt. institutions and in society on the way intelligence was used and interpreted to come to a certain conclusion about Iraq's WMDs, from Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Recently, this sentiment was tapped in an attempt to take power from the reigning party, but that does not make it a Democratic issue.
Perhaps you should stop thinking as a Republican and start thinking as a person. Then you might be able to start to answer the question that was originally posed.
Too bad no one has shown a causal relationship, simply posited a correlation between two pieces of data. There is no evidence here that CAN-SPAM increased spam, only that after the law was passed, eventually spam inreased (although immediately after, for the first time in a long time, spam actually decreased).
In fact, the graphic shows that spam increased at approximately the same rate that it was increasing before the act. So, the act apparently *did nothing*. It did *not* "increase spam" as far as I can tell.
The only noticeable difference in relation to the passage of the act is a temporary decrease in spam. Needless to say, the act seems to have been useless, but perhaps the enforcement of it will accomplish something, eventually.
To blame this increase on "CAN-SPAM", however, is ridiculous. Based on previous trends, it would have occurred regardless.
1). Putting in http://switch.atdmt.com/action/apple_g7_powerbook also yields a 1x1 image. Thus, that it exists on atdmt's site means nothing.
2). The correct title for this should be http://switch.atdmt.com/action/apple_g4_powerbook, because it is currently on the g4 page (and there is no g4 tracking link, which means it was probably a typo).
3). It has been now changed to be g4, which is appropriate for the content of the page.
If apple had a g5 in the works, why would they put this link in a g4 page? It doesn't help them track anything about g5s. This register article is speculative and probably wrong.
You can install with "runas", although I admit it doesn't work very well. But there are programs that offer to elevate your user priveleges when installing.
Demo CDs are a different story, because they come with stuff already installed (I believe). This means you don't have to go through the hassle of installing apps, which is when you often have to escalate privelelges.
I've never used a demo Linux CD, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But I don't think this properly guages how people will react to using the OS as their everyday environment. People like to download and install new apps, I've found, and they don't usually like having to enter a password every time. A lot of users even complain about having to enter a password upon boot-up!
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen quite a few Gigabit PCI-e adapters; here's the first one I found on google:
Gigabit PCI-e adapters.
-Dan
I can confirm this. They switched from Solaris on Sparc to Red Hat on Dell. I believe they are now using Fedora Core 2 on the same machines.
-Dan
Arben *is* the company. He *is* the one who claims to have written CherryOS. He *is* the one who claims that all the PearPC code was put in by another developer, who probably never existed, and whose existence was never mentioned except after the accusations. He *is* the one who lied and said this developer only put a small amount of code in there, even though it was obvious that the entire core of PearPC was copied (only a slightly different front-end was used).
-Dan
softpear
n/t
I'm a gamer and a hacker...but I'm well aware that I'm a member of two clubs, of which many members are not in common. -Dan
I once charged over $400 to fix someone's machine and rid it of spyware, viruses, etc. (it was unuseable when they gave it to me). This took me quite a while and I charge a fair amount per hour. When they got the bill they pointed out that they could have nearly bought a new computer for that price. I said, "If you wanted a new computer, I could have installed a clean copy of the OS in 45 minutes." Then they remembered that they were paying me to get their (business) *life* back, not a computer with no spyware. The cost of regenerating all that data or migrating it to a new machine would have far exceeded what I charged. And for all his complaining, the guy came back to me when he had another problem.
-Dan
Actually, Hatch is both. He owns and collects royalties on a catalog of songs he's written. He just happens to be in a unique position to (theoretically) help himself out by enforcing copyright.
-Dan
The degree to which you enjoy having "truly huge discs" will depend on which standard gets adopted. The formats aren't equivalent and have substantial differences in price and excellence. This is nothing like the DVD+/DVD- R/RW wars; the formats are too dissimilar.
The preference of one format over the other could have ramifications similar to those of Betamax/VHS. Personally, I'm not excited bout HD-DVD's 2.5 hour limit on high-def video. Blu-ray has a 4.5 hour limit? Now we're talking. Even LOTR:ROTK will fit on that.
I'm sick of standards that just *barely* satisfy the need for new formats. HD-DVD is an evolutionary upgrade of DVDs to allow a majority of films to fit in high-def. Blu-ray is a revolutionary change which may cost more initially, but provides much more headroom and has plans for even larger disc capacity. It also will provide an immediate benefit for long films or extensive data storage over HD-DVD.
I can't wait for this crap to get settled...in favor of Blu-ray. I'm sure not going to be excited about it when I am sticking in the second HD-DVD for a > 2.5 hour hdef film because "HD-DVD" sounds more like "DVD" than "Blu-ray". So, world, take your time if you must; just choose the right format it the end.
Bottom line: if you have to do a major upgrade of media and players, do it right! Don't upgrade the minimum amount required, but plan for the future.
I'll be almost as happy if dual-format drives take over like DVD+/-, but it would still probably mean most movies came out on HD-DVD.
-Dan
The forked software itself isn't the problem. 10 different versions of a program allow for more choice, and personally, I like choice. Everyone can choose the fork that is best for them, right?
The problem occurs when a new program wants to interoperate with this useful program, or build on top of its functionality. Suddenly minor differences in forks make things a bitch to deal with. The worst possible situation is when program X requires program A in fork B, and program Y requires program A in fork C. If the two forks can't coexist, you can't even use program X and Y simultaneously.
It's very difficult to support any program on Linux because of the all the different distros, kernel versions, library versions, etc., and most of these aren't even forks in the traditional sense. They're just newer versions that lack backwards compatibility. Imagine if, in addition to that, we had QTSuse and QTFedora and QTSlack with special extensions for each distro. Use the one that's best, right? Not if you want to run some random QT app that expects the other!
This is why forks can suck, and why forks don't usually thrive unless they replace the old tree (see xorg vs XFree). There is a time for forking, and a time for stability.
-Dan
In windows (in Linux, some menus differ):
The entire "View" menu. Example: view->toolbars->customize.
Most of the "File" menu. Example: File->work offline.
The Favorites menu (called Bookmarks). Example: drag and drop works similarly to IE.
The "Help" menu. Example: "Help->For Netscape Users" vs. "Help->For Internet Explorer Users"
All of the menu titles except Favorites/Bookmarks are identical. Right click on the toolbar and you can choose "customize" and move buttons around. Almost every single IE shortcut is supported (example: "alt-d" goes to the Address bar even though in Firefox there is no Address label).
I could go on, but there is plenty more. Firefox copied everything about IE that was good, and much that was just customary for all those IE users. You've listed the things that Firefox brought to the table, and no, those weren't copied from IE. The tabs were copied from Opera (or inherited from Mozilla, if you like). The popup blocking was copied from IE plugins, etc.
Your last statement has some truth. But the truth here is that Firefox has done well on windows because IE users have little to learn; it works nearly identically for the average user. Where it works differently, it usually works better. In short, for many it works as a drop-in replacement for IE. That's a good thing, considering how established IE is. The same will have to be true of OO before it can start to replace MSO in the businessplace.
-Dan
Don't use the web.
Seriously, though, I don't like the solution of pulling out IE every time I want to see the flash on a certain page. Oh, sure, I block most of it with adblock anyway, but sometimes I want to see it...and I don't want to open another, more annoying browser to do it.
This is a bit of a "security hole" that flash is able to give instructions to the browser, however. Perhaps Mozilla's plugin code should have some abilities to stop popups or other instructions from the loaded plugins.
I do use IE when I have to, but I'd prefer that to be never. So, it really irks me when people suggest that it's a perfectly acceptable solution to use IE some of the time. Most people simply don't want two programs that have the same purpose. All the things I get with Fx will disappear when I have to see the site in IE, so I'd prefer to be able to load as many sites as possible in Fx. "Just load it in IE" isn't acceptable if Fx is to replace IE. It's not a good permanent solution.
-Dan
And part of what makes an admin "secure" is his experience in what operating systems to use due to their history and security.
It simply doesn't matter how careful an admin is; it is still possible an unknown OS flaw can bite him in the ass. If he's experienced, however, he knows about certain flaws and security holes, and takes corrective action, thus diminishing the chances of being hacked.
This study may or may not be valid, but it behooves admins everywhere to pay attention to the kinds of security holes that are found in every operating system.
To that point, I'd argue that a competent admin who sets up windows servers and one who sets up linux servers will never have the same success rate. The question is, who's is better? I have no idea--it's too difficult to quantify.
-Dan
> If there are only 1-2 tracks you consider 'good',
:) But seriously, I think you're ignoring the possibility of good bands writing bad music, and bad CDs having some good songs on them. On of my favorite bands, "They Might Be Giants," actually has some pretty terrible songs on some of their CDs. I still bought all their CDs (up to when they started releasing them in mp3 format), because I like a lot of their songs.
> you must not care for the artist too much, so why
> buy the CD in the first place?
Sounds like you made his point for him. People *aren't* going to buy these CDs in "the first place," in the future. They're going to buy the one song they like.
In spite of that, I think your view is a little shortsighted. First of all, do I have to "care for" an artist to appreciate a song they write? (No, I don't.) If I like an artist, does that mean I'll like every song on their next album? (No, it doesn't.) Should I buy their CDs even if I only like one song, so they keep producing those few songs? (If I think it's worth it, I will.)
> I can't think of any CD i have bought recently
> where I didn't enjoy the entire CD.
Same here. I stopped buying them.
It's not as black and white as you suggest. There is a reason people still buy CDs, and there is a reason a lot of us have stopped. On of the biggest reason people have stopped, though, is because you *don't* have to like every song by a group to appreciate some of them. You *don't* have to like their entire CD to appreciate an artist. Even great artists make bad music every once in a while, and with the digital age, it's our prerogative to avoid those while buying what we enjoy.
The sad side effect will be all the songs we miss that are great, but not popular, and we never hear because we didn't buy an entire album. There are songs on CDs I bought that I grew to enjoy after listening to the CD several times, and I never would have purchased otherwise.
> if you are buying the flavor of the month pop
> garbage, it's your own fault for contributing to
> the studios coffers, so they can have someone
> new on the lineup next month.
This I agree with. Why to people keep buying the same rehashed horrible pop music...? A topic for another time.
-Dan
I don't know about that. The technical differences between AIX, Solaris, FreeBSD and Linux are significant (to name a few). If nothing else, the BSD section allows me to click on a single link and see if anything new is happening in the BSD world.
However, I agree that stories like this belong in a more general category. Perhaps we should have a "Unix" section, with subsections like "OS" (containing news about Linux, FreeBSD, etc.), "Apps" containing news about X, Apache, Mozilla, etc. Unfortunately, a lot of these apps exist in Windows, as well, so such things perhaps belong in the "main."
Oh well, looks like there will always be some cross-over between sections. I like it how it is; only BSD specific stuff shows up in BSD, and stuff like this usually makes it to the front page anyhow.
-Dan
The reason IIS was running is because that is the default behavior, which is just plain stupid. The average Windows server doesn't need a web server.
I usually slipstream service packs. In this case I had not done so. A previous machine had failed and needed a replacement ASAP. So, I installed Win2k AS from the original CD and started configuring things. IIS was on by default. I knew this; I didn't care--I was behind a NATed network, and every minute wasted was money lost. It turned out a port was forwarded which allowed Code Red to be exploited. If I had known this, obviously I would have been more careful about allowing IIS to run.
The point, however, was that I installed Win2k, a fairly expensive product, and within minutes, had my network hosed because it contained an insecure service which was enabled by default...without my ever selecting it. As it happened, I knew this service was on there and would have disabled it had I known the port was forwarded to that machine, but the real error here lies with the poor design in IIS. Just because I didn't take every single precaution I could have (and should have) doesn't mean the fault is all mine. Part of the problem was me not being familiar with that network, part was that I was in a hurry, and part was that Microsoft's product was extremely insecure by default. Considering the amount of money I paid to have access to that product that MS put on the CD, I'm kind of disappointed that it was so flaky.
Also, this happened over a year ago, so my story is not current either. But I just wanted to say that if the parent was suggesting that it was only the IIS with NT 4.0 that was so insecure, he/she's wrong. IIS continues to have problems, and Win2k isn't so long ago. Most windows companies are still running Win2k for their servers. Yes, there are patches, and yes, I install them, and *NO* I don't use IIS for *anything*. It's disabled on all my servers. I'd bet my job that IIS still has horrible security holes, though.
-Dan
The default IIS on Windows 2000 Advanced Server has the code red flaw and is exploited within 5 minutes of port 80 being allowed into the box. I have done this personally, only because I did not realize the previous sys admin had already forwarded port 80 to the ip address I chose. When I installed Win2k Adv Server, it immediately got hit and slowed down the entire network. Eventually I turned off IIS and patched Win2k, but it was a serious problem.
So, the problems continue with IIS, and are not simply because there was a buggy version with NT4. Although, I do agree that it's a target because it's in the default install, just like OpenSSH is a huge target because it's running on so many Linux boxes.
-Dan
Believe it then. Already done.
-Dan
Now that you've listed all these Democrats saying this, you can list some Republicans saying it, if you like. But as soon as you're done, why don't you answer the original question?
> Please tell me, how was invading Iraq "protecting
> ourselves
Pointing out that many Democrats considered Iraq a threat is nothing but a defense of Republicans' failed policies. "Well, some Democrats thought Iraq was a threat too...nah, nah, nah." How does this answer the original question of how invading Iraq really protected us?
I'm an independent, and disagreed with the invasion of Iraq as a way of protecting ourselves from WMD. When nearly every Republican AND Democrat voted for the resolution to go to war, I disagreed with both of them.
Demonstrating that Democrat politicians are just as stupid as Republican politicians doesn't help answer the original question. It does, however, show exactly how biased and politically-minded you are. Rather than trying to figure out whether a policy was wrong, or defend that policy, you immediately jump to defend what apparently is your political party of choice. In other words, honesty and objectivism are not important to you, only partisanship.
It is exactly this kind of thinking that allows politicians to make poor choices and not be held accountable for them. People like you resort to partisan hackery, rather than trying to fix the system or question the choices of the people they supported in the election.
Now, history will tell whether invading Iraq was worth the cost. I personally believe that WMD were not even the *primary* reason for invading, although they were the *primary* justification. That doesn't mean I don't see the invasion as having some merit. But it does mean I question whether invading was really done to protect the United States. Even if it was, I believe it was done on a much more general level, because we believe that controlling several key countries in the Middle East will allow us to more effectively combat terrorism.
Again I repeat, however, that the statements of a few Democrats do nothing to answer this question, but rather distort the issue by making it a question of party politics. There has been significant rebellion in govt. institutions and in society on the way intelligence was used and interpreted to come to a certain conclusion about Iraq's WMDs, from Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Recently, this sentiment was tapped in an attempt to take power from the reigning party, but that does not make it a Democratic issue.
Perhaps you should stop thinking as a Republican and start thinking as a person. Then you might be able to start to answer the question that was originally posed.
-Dan
"Can-Spam Increased Spam"!?
Too bad no one has shown a causal relationship, simply posited a correlation between two pieces of data. There is no evidence here that CAN-SPAM increased spam, only that after the law was passed, eventually spam inreased (although immediately after, for the first time in a long time, spam actually decreased).
In fact, the graphic shows that spam increased at approximately the same rate that it was increasing before the act. So, the act apparently *did nothing*. It did *not* "increase spam" as far as I can tell.
The only noticeable difference in relation to the passage of the act is a temporary decrease in spam. Needless to say, the act seems to have been useless, but perhaps the enforcement of it will accomplish something, eventually.
To blame this increase on "CAN-SPAM", however, is ridiculous. Based on previous trends, it would have occurred regardless.
-Dan
lol, this is hilarious
1). Putting in http://switch.atdmt.com/action/apple_g7_powerbook also yields a 1x1 image. Thus, that it exists on atdmt's site means nothing.
, because it is currently on the g4 page (and there is no g4 tracking link, which means it was probably a typo).
2). The correct title for this should be http://switch.atdmt.com/action/apple_g4_powerbook
3). It has been now changed to be g4, which is appropriate for the content of the page.
If apple had a g5 in the works, why would they put this link in a g4 page? It doesn't help them track anything about g5s. This register article is speculative and probably wrong.
-Dan
Would he write "I wrote a PHP program that tracks me's finances"?
:)
Perhaps you mean the difference between I and "my".
You can install with "runas", although I admit it doesn't work very well. But there are programs that offer to elevate your user priveleges when installing.
-Dan
Demo CDs are a different story, because they come with stuff already installed (I believe). This means you don't have to go through the hassle of installing apps, which is when you often have to escalate privelelges.
I've never used a demo Linux CD, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But I don't think this properly guages how people will react to using the OS as their everyday environment. People like to download and install new apps, I've found, and they don't usually like having to enter a password every time. A lot of users even complain about having to enter a password upon boot-up!
-Dan