Not quite sure if you read the article there - the rollup incorporates all security patches that were released after SP4. So theoretically, when you install your Win2K box, you then apply SP4, then apply the security rollup, then visit Windows Update and there should be few or no new security patches.
However, I feel I should be asking - this is 2004. Why are you installing an operating system from 1999? Would you install a Linux server using a kernel from 1999? Windows 2003 is significantly better than Windows 2000 across the board. Likewise, on the desktop front, Windows XP is a much more refined operating system. Complaining that Microsoft isn't providing enough support for Windows 2000 is like complaining that Redhat doesn't provide enough support for Redhat 5.2
I don't see a problem with it, but I sure as heck wouldn't buy a video card based on that "information".
I suppose if you consider the general public, however, it is very misleading for the company to make those specific examples and then attempt to pass them off as an overall performance indicator. Give companies an inch and they'll take a mile of course. When advertising first kicked into swing, and there wasn't anyone to regulate the industry, companies used to tell all sorts of lies. About how tonics cured diseases, increased lifespans, "Reduced tired blood" and all sorts of other baloney.
Some people might say that anyone who believes those adverts deserves to suffer because they've lost money on an inferior product. But there's a responsibility that we all share to keep business honest. So we shouldn't put up with companies trying to mislead consumers this way. The behaviour of ATI and Valve with regards to HL2 has been deplorable.
Every 18 months if you're serious about playing these games, unfortunately. It's not necessarily easy, and cutting edge gaming isn't for everyone. This is what the console market is for. Understandably, you can't have the amazing graphics of Half-Life for the low low price of a console. PC gamers pay for the hardware because they want the performance and the quality. Much like hi-fi enthusiasts spend loads of cash upgrading their home cinema. Got a family, not a lot of money? Those things are more important than gaming or buying new subwoofers for your hi fi, so you adjust your financial properties.
nVidia and ATI wouldn't be the companies they are unless people *wanted* to spend money on those cards to play games like HL2.
You could probably play HL2 with very low settings. It wouldn't look very good. Your CPU will also hold you back. That gear is very, very dated though. You need to define for yourself what you consider "reasonable" quality to be. I remember playing Quake with some pretty low graphics settings back in the day. It ran, it wasn't as spectacular as it could have been, but I played it.
As a side note, the reason DooM3 is a side note and HL2 wouldn't be directly relates to the graphics quality. HL2's graphics aren't particularly revolutionary. Most textures in the game are only 2 passes for the shaders to work on. DooM3 has about 3-5 passes from bumpmapping and so on for the dynamic lighting in the game, which makes truly breathtaking visuals (if a bit dark if you don't have many light sources). But you pay for the amazing capabilities - you need a computer that can handle it. You won't get Quake running on an XT, and you won't get DooM3 running on a 286. Sometimes to move forward, well, we all need to move forward.
Well four of those seven items are mechnical Two of the seven items are chemical Only one of them was solid state (not counting your soon to be departed mainboard).
Considering the additional amount of work, and the structural design of the packaging for a CPU, I'm not surprised it's still running.
The first CPU I ever had fail was a PIII 1GHz CPU. All my AMD CPU's are still going (even an old 486 from AMD still ticks along).
Did you ever play the game? Warmongering is more effective than ever before! The special units available to some Civs are incredibly useful. The addition of armies and refining of combat makes the whole system better than ever for being aggressive in the game.
There are many excellent strategies for a warmongering player to adopt. I'm not sure where you're coming from.
The other 'features' newer civs have are realistic and animated units, which go through pains to move/attack/fortify, whereas I like to build huge civilizations and move around units real fast, no sounds, animation, messages or delay.
There's an option to disable these animations. Pretty vital, especially in LAN multiplayer.
Another feature I'm hoping for is grouping up units
You can move units by stack and by type-in-stack. There's a button in the lower right hand corner for it. Better grouping would be nice, but Armies are a special kind of group - I don't know if allowing other groupings would cause a problem with the game mechanics for the army special unit.
a civ that doesnt end in 2040, and smoothly translates into an Alpha Centauri game wouldnt hurt
I beg to differ. Call to Power I and II both were sci-fi games based loosely on Civ (sure you started in the ancient times but you finish building battlemechs). I don't think moving too far into the future is good for the franchise because it takes away from the great historical work that adds to much to the game. Civ 3, if anything, is less futuristic in the end game than any Civ game before it. Also, money talks.. there are some good reasons why Civ III is top of the heap.
Which reminds me of a great (and possibly educational) little story.
A priest gets marooned on a desert island when his boat sinks.
His first inclination is to pray to God. He feels sure that God will save him.
Nothing happens for some time, so he prays each day and ekes out a living on the island. One day, as he is busy praying, a huge eagle lands in front of him and looks at him, waiting for something. He sees the eagle and continues to pray, because he knows God will save him.
More time passes, and eventually, he sees a boat off in the distance, so he thinks, this is surely a sign that my rescue is imminent, so he prays harder and harder.
One day, he notices great storms on the horizon, a huge hurricane is approaching him. In great fear, he prays with all his faith. A helicopter flys close to the coast, and the pilot uses the loudhailer to ask him if he needs a ride. The priest waves him off and says, "No, God will save me!"
The hurricane decimates the island and kills the priest.
In heaven, the Priest asks God, "Why didn't you save me?", to which God replies, "What, I sent you a bird, a boat, a helicopter.. what's your problem?"
But praying, unlike stab-in-the-dark medicine and the resources of a modern hospital, is a precise and measured science. The parents had performed the pray-to-god procedure countless times with flawless results. Any university educated practioner with a degree in pray-to-god would tell you that faith in medicine is no substitute for correctly administered advanced prayer techniques.
But... who buys P4 for gaming? AMD CPUs cost less and perform better in gaming situations at this point in time. Given the next round of CPUs to compare will be dual core, and intel is lagging a good solid year behind AMD on the technology front...
Read the articles. Look at the prices. Compare the benchmarks. Make the right decision.
Probably because ATI is doing an intel chipset, which seems all the rage these days.
One begs the question, however, as to why one might want to purchase the premiere gaming chipset on a mainboard, and couple it with the least cost effective gaming CPU on the market (the only worse CPU you could buy for gaming would be an itanic, again from intel).
Intel chips are really best for repetitive processing tasks like video and audio encoding. Gamers prefer Athlon. If you're not sure, check the prices, check the benchmarks.
Indeed, the battery experiment would be a great example. All you need is two different metals and an acid. Two plain coins of different metal composition (american coins are perhaps not best because they are made of a sandwich metal) seperated by vinegar. That should easily demonstrate a current.
You could then attach wires to the coins and wrap them around an iron bar to make a magnet, and pick up iron filings. Not bad for turning familiar, extremely easy to find materials into a primitive but working electronic device.
Then he's entering an official contract, which websites don't ask you to agree to, instead providing the content on the assumption that you'll happily review advertisements for their sponsors (which more and more people choose not to do).
Interesting anecdote, though. I wonder what the conditions for that are. It would be a shame if vandals scratched the paint on the car, even bigger shame if those scratches strategically removed every instance of those logos.
This is a free market economy. If advertising in exchange for "free" services isn't becoming viable as a business model.. don't do it! The internet will survive without doubleclick.com and the countless "free" webmail vendors. If you gave away cars to people with "adverts" on the bonnets, and you went flat broke after giving away two cars with cola ads on them, don't complain. Don't complain if people paint over the ads, either. You gave away the cars. What did you expect? It's like people who build their houses in flood plains who whine when the flood comes and takes away thier houses. There's no guarantee that if you provide a service for "free" on the expectation that people will in turn do you a favour, they will.
But you seem to say there is!
Extensions and programs like AdBlock are tantamount to theft
Theft is a very strong word. The basis you ply is, to say the least, a poor understanding of the legal state of the world (despite efforts by the US congress to change it). Theft is a crime, crimes are enforced by laws. Let's look at the law. You assert there exists a "contract" between the client and the server. The client, under your contract, views the adverts and views the meaningful content. Adblocking is therefore a circumvention of this contract. Sounds reasonable. But consider this. Nowhere does the website state that viewing of advertisements is mandatory in exchange for content. The advertisements are imbedded within the content, and there is no way for me to avoid them, even if the content should be offensive to me in some way (and really, you can be offended by anything these days, personally, I'm offended by ads). So I'm getting my content, and I'm getting these ads. But I haven't agreed, signed, clicked, on anything that states I explicitly need to see these ads. I haven't agreed to any contract. If you don't agree to a contract, then there is no contract. But you've already "given" the content away. It's on a public web server. So I'm free to view what is visible on that basis, in the same way that if I left a newspaper on my front lawn you could read it. I can also choose which parts of the freely visible information I want to see - because again, there's no contract, and copyright is not an issue because I'm not altering or republishing this information, just reading it, and only the non-advertising parts of it.
If you find adblocking annoys you - don't run a website with an unworkable revenue methodology. The free market economy is unforgiving, even less so when you give things away with no conditions attached.
Suggesting that Bush is somehow unique in following a progressive tax scheme is farcical.
What we do see is that Bush is very good at ensuring corporations and the very rich are able to "evade" taxation wherever possible.
Bush and the conservative governments have worked hard at the bidding of the MPAA and similar companies to ensure that corporate motives, including tax breaks, are always met. Ever noticed how just about every major motion picture company always operates at a loss? I probably pay more tax than some of them.
What is most significant however is that Bush is openly and directly following a mandate that progressively widens the rich-poor gap. It might seem like nothing to a relatively rich american, until you consider that things like the rich-poor divide are partially responsible for creating the conditions that inspired terrorists to go for a joyride on september 11. Now just imagine how nice it is that Bush is inadvertantly creating the same conditions within America.
Amusing idea, following on from that, perhaps one could have an AI that tags maps so that the developer doesn't have to. You'd probably only need to tag the map once to generate the AI tags for prosperity.
That way you could have anybody design a map and just let the AI loose on it once to develop decent tags.
That would be much cooler than having a human tag the map up for the AI.
Ahh, humans tag, if you will, but they do it dynamically. If we were like an AI, we'd need someone to go around in front of us painting things orange or red or green so we'd know where to go.
What would be great would be to have an AI that can tag terrain dynamically and decide which is the best place to go based only on what it can "see". That way you could design any map, random or planned, and drop an AI into it and have a great game. Unfortunately what happens is that the game developers plot out all of the paths and areas and points of interest for the AI before the game starts.
Likewise, amusingly, where superfluous tagging works on humans, it doesn't on AI. If you paint a box yellow, it's no more or less remarkable.
I guess we will have to rely on human opponents in deathmatches for the time being.
Actually I would suggest the opposite - Anderson converted the stoic portrayal of Russells grief-stricken parent (who was willing to die detonating the nuclear weapon in the Stargate film) into a character who is, for all intents and purposes, Angus McGuyver but without the mullet, swiss army knife, and ability to jury-rig anything.
Russells character was professional and militaristic. Andersons character is rogue and devil-may-care. Perhaps this is more appropriate for a TV series needing a strong male lead character, every sci-fi needs it's Kirk (well perhaps not, but in this case...)
So I'll try to be as constructive as I can - many pursuits in life, although exciting and enriching, are not necessarily a feasible means of support.
Telephone sanitisers, for instance. One or two can be quite useful. But you don't see an organisation hiring 2,000 of them for day to day work. There's simply a limit in society for certain kinds of labour. If the market is full of telephone sanitisers, even though that's what you've always wanted to do, even if you're very good at it, it's still not going to happen for you as a career.
Unfortunately the same applies for being an artist. There are thousands, if not millions of people, who want to become self sufficiently wealthy simply by producing works of art. Regrettably, artwork is rarely something that is immediately profitable. As we all know, many works of art don't approach meaningful value until after the death of the artist.
The only way I can see any success in artwork for you would be to pick up work as a professional graphic designer. And from what I understand of that industry, it's even harsher than that of a telephone sanitiser.
Sometimes you just have to compromise by doing a job you don't really enjoy and leave your hobbies as just that - a hobby.
I wanted a job playing games all day. So here I am supporting servers. We can't always choose what we want.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite sure if you read the article there - the rollup incorporates all security patches that were released after SP4. So theoretically, when you install your Win2K box, you then apply SP4, then apply the security rollup, then visit Windows Update and there should be few or no new security patches.
However, I feel I should be asking - this is 2004. Why are you installing an operating system from 1999? Would you install a Linux server using a kernel from 1999? Windows 2003 is significantly better than Windows 2000 across the board. Likewise, on the desktop front, Windows XP is a much more refined operating system. Complaining that Microsoft isn't providing enough support for Windows 2000 is like complaining that Redhat doesn't provide enough support for Redhat 5.2
Actually, service packs should never contain new functionality. The whole idea of a service pack is to fix problems - new features mean new problems.
Citrix has the right idea, they release service packs and "feature releases".
I don't see a problem with it, but I sure as heck wouldn't buy a video card based on that "information".
I suppose if you consider the general public, however, it is very misleading for the company to make those specific examples and then attempt to pass them off as an overall performance indicator. Give companies an inch and they'll take a mile of course. When advertising first kicked into swing, and there wasn't anyone to regulate the industry, companies used to tell all sorts of lies. About how tonics cured diseases, increased lifespans, "Reduced tired blood" and all sorts of other baloney.
Some people might say that anyone who believes those adverts deserves to suffer because they've lost money on an inferior product. But there's a responsibility that we all share to keep business honest. So we shouldn't put up with companies trying to mislead consumers this way. The behaviour of ATI and Valve with regards to HL2 has been deplorable.
Every 18 months if you're serious about playing these games, unfortunately. It's not necessarily easy, and cutting edge gaming isn't for everyone. This is what the console market is for. Understandably, you can't have the amazing graphics of Half-Life for the low low price of a console. PC gamers pay for the hardware because they want the performance and the quality. Much like hi-fi enthusiasts spend loads of cash upgrading their home cinema. Got a family, not a lot of money? Those things are more important than gaming or buying new subwoofers for your hi fi, so you adjust your financial properties.
nVidia and ATI wouldn't be the companies they are unless people *wanted* to spend money on those cards to play games like HL2.
You could probably play HL2 with very low settings. It wouldn't look very good. Your CPU will also hold you back. That gear is very, very dated though. You need to define for yourself what you consider "reasonable" quality to be. I remember playing Quake with some pretty low graphics settings back in the day. It ran, it wasn't as spectacular as it could have been, but I played it.
As a side note, the reason DooM3 is a side note and HL2 wouldn't be directly relates to the graphics quality. HL2's graphics aren't particularly revolutionary. Most textures in the game are only 2 passes for the shaders to work on. DooM3 has about 3-5 passes from bumpmapping and so on for the dynamic lighting in the game, which makes truly breathtaking visuals (if a bit dark if you don't have many light sources). But you pay for the amazing capabilities - you need a computer that can handle it. You won't get Quake running on an XT, and you won't get DooM3 running on a 286. Sometimes to move forward, well, we all need to move forward.
Well four of those seven items are mechnical
Two of the seven items are chemical
Only one of them was solid state (not counting your soon to be departed mainboard).
Considering the additional amount of work, and the structural design of the packaging for a CPU, I'm not surprised it's still running.
The first CPU I ever had fail was a PIII 1GHz CPU. All my AMD CPU's are still going (even an old 486 from AMD still ticks along).
The ottomans are always mean to me. I hope they do. Why is it that I never seem to get saltpeter, huh??
Did you ever play the game? Warmongering is more effective than ever before! The special units available to some Civs are incredibly useful. The addition of armies and refining of combat makes the whole system better than ever for being aggressive in the game.
There are many excellent strategies for a warmongering player to adopt. I'm not sure where you're coming from.
The other 'features' newer civs have are realistic and animated units, which go through pains to move/attack/fortify, whereas I like to build huge civilizations and move around units real fast, no sounds, animation, messages or delay.
There's an option to disable these animations. Pretty vital, especially in LAN multiplayer.
Another feature I'm hoping for is grouping up units
You can move units by stack and by type-in-stack. There's a button in the lower right hand corner for it. Better grouping would be nice, but Armies are a special kind of group - I don't know if allowing other groupings would cause a problem with the game mechanics for the army special unit.
a civ that doesnt end in 2040, and smoothly translates into an Alpha Centauri game wouldnt hurt
I beg to differ. Call to Power I and II both were sci-fi games based loosely on Civ (sure you started in the ancient times but you finish building battlemechs). I don't think moving too far into the future is good for the franchise because it takes away from the great historical work that adds to much to the game. Civ 3, if anything, is less futuristic in the end game than any Civ game before it. Also, money talks.. there are some good reasons why Civ III is top of the heap.
Well, whatever you do, don't eat the bats near the church. I don't think they're healthy to eat.
Which reminds me of a great (and possibly educational) little story.
A priest gets marooned on a desert island when his boat sinks.
His first inclination is to pray to God. He feels sure that God will save him.
Nothing happens for some time, so he prays each day and ekes out a living on the island. One day, as he is busy praying, a huge eagle lands in front of him and looks at him, waiting for something. He sees the eagle and continues to pray, because he knows God will save him.
More time passes, and eventually, he sees a boat off in the distance, so he thinks, this is surely a sign that my rescue is imminent, so he prays harder and harder.
One day, he notices great storms on the horizon, a huge hurricane is approaching him. In great fear, he prays with all his faith. A helicopter flys close to the coast, and the pilot uses the loudhailer to ask him if he needs a ride. The priest waves him off and says, "No, God will save me!"
The hurricane decimates the island and kills the priest.
In heaven, the Priest asks God, "Why didn't you save me?", to which God replies, "What, I sent you a bird, a boat, a helicopter.. what's your problem?"
But praying, unlike stab-in-the-dark medicine and the resources of a modern hospital, is a precise and measured science. The parents had performed the pray-to-god procedure countless times with flawless results. Any university educated practioner with a degree in pray-to-god would tell you that faith in medicine is no substitute for correctly administered advanced prayer techniques.
Let's give the doctors some credit, hmm?
I have a plain 6800 with a massive heatsink on it, and whew, it generates a lot of heat in my case.
Sweet card though. It's a shame that ATI didn't have anything to compare with at the time and the price.
Of course now that I've bought it, the 6600GT and the X700's are starting to hit the market at lower price points. Which is always the way, isn't it?
At least I didn't buy a pair of 6800GT's for SLI just as the 6900GT comes out... which is bound to happen. Right? Sigh. They saw me coming.
But... who buys P4 for gaming? AMD CPUs cost less and perform better in gaming situations at this point in time. Given the next round of CPUs to compare will be dual core, and intel is lagging a good solid year behind AMD on the technology front...
Read the articles. Look at the prices. Compare the benchmarks. Make the right decision.
Probably because ATI is doing an intel chipset, which seems all the rage these days.
One begs the question, however, as to why one might want to purchase the premiere gaming chipset on a mainboard, and couple it with the least cost effective gaming CPU on the market (the only worse CPU you could buy for gaming would be an itanic, again from intel).
Intel chips are really best for repetitive processing tasks like video and audio encoding. Gamers prefer Athlon. If you're not sure, check the prices, check the benchmarks.
Indeed, the battery experiment would be a great example. All you need is two different metals and an acid. Two plain coins of different metal composition (american coins are perhaps not best because they are made of a sandwich metal) seperated by vinegar. That should easily demonstrate a current.
You could then attach wires to the coins and wrap them around an iron bar to make a magnet, and pick up iron filings. Not bad for turning familiar, extremely easy to find materials into a primitive but working electronic device.
Then he's entering an official contract, which websites don't ask you to agree to, instead providing the content on the assumption that you'll happily review advertisements for their sponsors (which more and more people choose not to do).
Interesting anecdote, though. I wonder what the conditions for that are. It would be a shame if vandals scratched the paint on the car, even bigger shame if those scratches strategically removed every instance of those logos.
Here's two slightly more appropriate viewpoints.
This is a free market economy. If advertising in exchange for "free" services isn't becoming viable as a business model.. don't do it! The internet will survive without doubleclick.com and the countless "free" webmail vendors. If you gave away cars to people with "adverts" on the bonnets, and you went flat broke after giving away two cars with cola ads on them, don't complain. Don't complain if people paint over the ads, either. You gave away the cars. What did you expect? It's like people who build their houses in flood plains who whine when the flood comes and takes away thier houses. There's no guarantee that if you provide a service for "free" on the expectation that people will in turn do you a favour, they will.
But you seem to say there is!
Extensions and programs like AdBlock are tantamount to theft
Theft is a very strong word. The basis you ply is, to say the least, a poor understanding of the legal state of the world (despite efforts by the US congress to change it). Theft is a crime, crimes are enforced by laws. Let's look at the law. You assert there exists a "contract" between the client and the server. The client, under your contract, views the adverts and views the meaningful content. Adblocking is therefore a circumvention of this contract. Sounds reasonable. But consider this. Nowhere does the website state that viewing of advertisements is mandatory in exchange for content. The advertisements are imbedded within the content, and there is no way for me to avoid them, even if the content should be offensive to me in some way (and really, you can be offended by anything these days, personally, I'm offended by ads). So I'm getting my content, and I'm getting these ads. But I haven't agreed, signed, clicked, on anything that states I explicitly need to see these ads. I haven't agreed to any contract. If you don't agree to a contract, then there is no contract. But you've already "given" the content away. It's on a public web server. So I'm free to view what is visible on that basis, in the same way that if I left a newspaper on my front lawn you could read it. I can also choose which parts of the freely visible information I want to see - because again, there's no contract, and copyright is not an issue because I'm not altering or republishing this information, just reading it, and only the non-advertising parts of it.
If you find adblocking annoys you - don't run a website with an unworkable revenue methodology. The free market economy is unforgiving, even less so when you give things away with no conditions attached.
Most modern taxation systems are progressive.
Suggesting that Bush is somehow unique in following a progressive tax scheme is farcical.
What we do see is that Bush is very good at ensuring corporations and the very rich are able to "evade" taxation wherever possible.
Bush and the conservative governments have worked hard at the bidding of the MPAA and similar companies to ensure that corporate motives, including tax breaks, are always met. Ever noticed how just about every major motion picture company always operates at a loss? I probably pay more tax than some of them.
What is most significant however is that Bush is openly and directly following a mandate that progressively widens the rich-poor gap. It might seem like nothing to a relatively rich american, until you consider that things like the rich-poor divide are partially responsible for creating the conditions that inspired terrorists to go for a joyride on september 11. Now just imagine how nice it is that Bush is inadvertantly creating the same conditions within America.
Amusing idea, following on from that, perhaps one could have an AI that tags maps so that the developer doesn't have to. You'd probably only need to tag the map once to generate the AI tags for prosperity.
That way you could have anybody design a map and just let the AI loose on it once to develop decent tags.
That would be much cooler than having a human tag the map up for the AI.
Ahh, humans tag, if you will, but they do it dynamically. If we were like an AI, we'd need someone to go around in front of us painting things orange or red or green so we'd know where to go.
What would be great would be to have an AI that can tag terrain dynamically and decide which is the best place to go based only on what it can "see". That way you could design any map, random or planned, and drop an AI into it and have a great game. Unfortunately what happens is that the game developers plot out all of the paths and areas and points of interest for the AI before the game starts.
Likewise, amusingly, where superfluous tagging works on humans, it doesn't on AI. If you paint a box yellow, it's no more or less remarkable.
I guess we will have to rely on human opponents in deathmatches for the time being.
He also played Dana Scully's father in the TV series "The X Files".
Actually I would suggest the opposite - Anderson converted the stoic portrayal of Russells grief-stricken parent (who was willing to die detonating the nuclear weapon in the Stargate film) into a character who is, for all intents and purposes, Angus McGuyver but without the mullet, swiss army knife, and ability to jury-rig anything.
Russells character was professional and militaristic. Andersons character is rogue and devil-may-care. Perhaps this is more appropriate for a TV series needing a strong male lead character, every sci-fi needs it's Kirk (well perhaps not, but in this case...)
The only reason I use firefox is that you can disable tabs. Tabbed browsing isn't for everyone. Consult your doctor.
So I'll try to be as constructive as I can - many pursuits in life, although exciting and enriching, are not necessarily a feasible means of support.
Telephone sanitisers, for instance. One or two can be quite useful. But you don't see an organisation hiring 2,000 of them for day to day work. There's simply a limit in society for certain kinds of labour. If the market is full of telephone sanitisers, even though that's what you've always wanted to do, even if you're very good at it, it's still not going to happen for you as a career.
Unfortunately the same applies for being an artist. There are thousands, if not millions of people, who want to become self sufficiently wealthy simply by producing works of art. Regrettably, artwork is rarely something that is immediately profitable. As we all know, many works of art don't approach meaningful value until after the death of the artist.
The only way I can see any success in artwork for you would be to pick up work as a professional graphic designer. And from what I understand of that industry, it's even harsher than that of a telephone sanitiser.
Sometimes you just have to compromise by doing a job you don't really enjoy and leave your hobbies as just that - a hobby.
I wanted a job playing games all day. So here I am supporting servers. We can't always choose what we want.
They can't be married but they're allowed to join a union? I didn't think Dubya supported unions at all! What next? Will he allow gay communists??