No, the actual XUL is stored as a text file, but that's converted to a binary that's used for startup, so it shouldn't add any time to startup at all.
It's always good to test with a new profile, as corruption can cause slowdowns, but other than that it's hard to help from afar. Try the netscape.public.mozilla.general newsgroup (NOT any of the others in n.p.m, they're all for developers!) and make sure you give enough system information.
Linux is an open source system, you should be able to run a fully usable linux system using nothing but open source components.
As the parent poster said, the FCC prohibits wireless card drivers from being fully open source (I'm having a problem with that right now). IIRC This comes from their regulation that you're not allowed to give anyone means to increase their transmitting power above the legal limit. This should of course be killed, but as it stands there's no way to run a fully Free Linux system if you need a wireless card.
Actually, how about embedding the.ogg in a data: url in a web page? That might get around things if they check each file individually. And if need be, you can use steganography to put the song in a.png, and then embed that in a data: url. How cool would that be?
I'll point out that a bioweapons lab large capable of producing enough anthrax to annihilate a small city would be no larger than a truck trailer. We're still finding MiG's buried in the desert. Iraq is nearly 200,000 sq. miles in area. How hard would it be to hide something like that?
The thing is, though, we're not just looking at random in the desert; we have access to pretty much all his records, and we haven't found anything that even suggests that he had or wanted to get WMDs. It's not just a matter of hiding the actual weapons, it's that if there were any, they're hidden so well that we haven't found any traces of them even with all our people over there and all our intelligence (which is usually pretty good when it isn't fabricated) and all our access to nearly all his records.
...we
know how much he had because we gave some of it to him. Again, where did it go? It didn't get used up in the war. It didn't get poured down the drain. Where did it go?
If you'll remember, Iraq was becomming increasinly more compliant with letting weapons inspectors in. Perhaps we could have answered that if we'd let them continue instead of taking over and bombing the place into oblivion.
You can't answer that question, so you just jump to the nearest, most naive conclusion: they never existed.
No. I jump to the conclusion that they don't exist anymore. And there is evidence to back me up. (And much more so, a lack of evidence to anything contrary.)
If the 1990 invasion of Kuwait had been backed up by nuclear weapons, it would've been far more dangerous to kick Saddam out of Kuwait...perhaps so dangerous that we wouldn't have done it.
What, we would have just sat there and let him take over large swaths of earth? You must think Bush Sr. was stupider than I do. (Actually, I give him a moderate-low rating, much higher than the current Bush.) If someone is demonstrating a clear and obvious threat to the US, and is starting to put their threat into action, we do something about it (one of the reasons I'm ambivelant about the first Gulf War.) We don't just sit there and let them get more power. If Saddam had had nukes and had attacked multiple places in the middle east, we would have done our best to stop him from using them, not watched as he conquered those places and got more.
In any rate, that's irrelevant--what matters is whether he was showing any want to gain significantly more power now, which he wasn't.
It may never have come to happen if we hadn't done anything, but now we know for sure it won't.
Again, you have to look at probabilities and relative losses when you compute the final costs. Hussein was showing no indication of major attempts to gain more power--if we'd left things how they were, with our current spending on Iraq, he most likely would have never again done anything significant outside of Iraq. Instead, we spent several hundreds of billions of dollars, and several thousands of US lives (not to mention all the Iraqi lives) to make absolutely sure of it. (I won't go into the fact that Iraq now is much worse for us than it was before, especially in terms of anti-american sentiment and terrorists.)
The Iraq war was a bad idea from the outset, especially since it wasn't planned well. We would have been much better off if we had never invaded.
p.s.: Can someone mod up the parent poster, please? It's really not fair that I'm getting insightfuls to balance out my offtopics, but he's not.
War is indeed a bad thing, but not the worst of things.
Living under tyrants who kill/rape/plunder at will is much worse.
And similarly, living under a chaotic, violent anarchy is even worse. Since war tends if not perfectly planned to lead to chaotic, violent anarchy, by itself war is not worse, but viewed as a whole, war and what it leads to is worse than malevolent dictatorship. (And I would debate that war is worse anyway--your chances of dying during a war are much higher than during peacetime, be it democracy OR dictatorship.)
Just like Saddam, Hitler ignored the concessions Germany made when it lost WWI.
And just like Hitler, Saddam was trying to conquer the world, right? Just because two people do similar things doesn't mean they're for the same reason.
Pre-emptive? At that word you lose credibility. 12 years is pre-emption? HAHA.
Nearly the entire reason given for the war by the government was that Iraq was a threat to the US, and therefore we should get rid of the threat. That is pre-emption.
According to the CIA world factbook, Iraq's GDP in 2002 was $58 billion. According to this page (first on a google search for gdp germany hitler) Germany's GDP during the war averaged at about $400 billion in 1990 dollars, or >700 billion in 2002 dollars.
AFAIK, while a good part of the world believed that Saddam had WMDs because of the propoganda and fabricated/faulty intelligence (some of which was known to be so), a better part of the world didn't, even when presented with said propoganda and f* intelligence.
A war is pre-emptive if the reasoning given for it is that it's pre-emptive. Look back at the news from before and at the beginning of the war--everyone then said that it was because it was pre-emptive.
Germany was in a depression, that Hitler brought it out of. Iraq was (and is) a third world country, and nothing that Hussein could have done would have brought it up from that, to say nothing of the fact that he acted like he didn't even want to. Also, as evidenced by the amount of popular support that Hitler had inside Germany, the internal splits in Germany were very shallow compared to the ones in Iraq.
Obviously, we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We haven't found any WMD programs. Right now, we're trying, and failing to find "WMD program related activities." Hussein didn't have any WMDs, and he probably wan't going to anytime soon. It's like spending $200 billion to make sure the moon doesn't slip out of its orbit and hit us.
Again, Iraq had no WMDs, and showed no indication at all of wanting to attack us. The probability of it happening would have been minimal. If we hadn't gone there, about 0 lives would have been lost. Instead, by going there, several thousands of people were killed or permanently injured. Ask yourself: which is worse, a 1/1 millionth chance of 1 million people dying, or a certain chance of a thousand people dying?
Problem is, Hussein was never going to be "strong, bold, and have the initiative." He was the dictator of a small, poverty-ridden, country in which there were (at least) three very opposed different populations. Hitler was "dictator" of a larger, already strong, country, that was in a depression but by no means third-world, and was able to harness the emotions and power of practically the whole country to get what he wanted.
End result: Hitler was a threat to the US. Saddam wasn't. Hitler would have, eventually, gotten enough power to defeat the US if we hadn't joined the war in time. Saddam would have just sat there on his throne, killing off a few people (which a) we could have prevented in ways other than war, and b) was AFAIK fewer than are dying now due to the terrorists that weren't there before but are now and the worsened living conditions) and not posing any threat at all to us.
And as to pre-emptive war, the problem with it is that it sets a precedent for any other country that wants to start a pre-emptive war too. Because of that, there are a lot more wars total. And unless you happen to like war, I'm sure you'll agree that that's a bad thing.
No, "right place" to environmentalists means "where it won't kill off 14 entire genuses"--hence the fact that it's usually NON-environmentalists that oppose atual wind power construction projects, while supporting the idea in general.
Um? Environmentalists don't hate wind power, they just ask that it be put in the right place. Same with this--would you rather put this in a place where it'll kill off several entire ecosystems, or put it in a place where it can do its good without hurting anyone else?
Hm. Well, if just UN violations is the way you're counting, Bush definetly ranks up there pretty high as well, not to mention all the non-UN-related stuff that he's done like saying the First Amendment only applies in certain areas, TWICE (you'll have to scroll that page, sorry, no anchors). But anyway, the rest of the world agreed that a war was NOT necessary or at all the best way to go about things (and they've been proven correct) so yes, the US did have "an itchy trigger finger".
Billboards are illegal here in Vermont. (Thank god)
A letter would be great, in fact I'm planning on writing him one myself. (And I've met him in person before, so if he remembers me maybe that will mean something better! w00t!)
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like he still needs the computing cycles. There a client we can run for that?
That would be Markov chain text scrambler, not Markov random text generator. I'm looking for one right now so I can feed my spam through it.
Mod parent up. And then someone who understands how this was done go figure out whatever you can that was blacked out.
Shake well before each use.
Don't you mean "Just we ain't be saying them that way cuz well there are like too many sylables in Aluminium and well Aunt sounds gay."?
PEBKAC--and it's on a T-shirt.
That falls under the second amendment. The government tries to take away my freedom of expression, I try and take away the government.
No, the actual XUL is stored as a text file, but that's converted to a binary that's used for startup, so it shouldn't add any time to startup at all.
It's always good to test with a new profile, as corruption can cause slowdowns, but other than that it's hard to help from afar. Try the netscape.public.mozilla.general newsgroup (NOT any of the others in n.p.m, they're all for developers!) and make sure you give enough system information.
Thunderbird is most definetly NOT in Java. It's based on the Mozilla suite, which is all C or C++, and a lot of Javascript too.
Besides, even if it is slow (it isn't for me), it's still a lot faster than OE once you get a system full of viruses and stuff.
Hmm... None. Unless you count the one that's on the other side of a mountain range... But I don't think I will. So none.
As the parent poster said, the FCC prohibits wireless card drivers from being fully open source (I'm having a problem with that right now). IIRC This comes from their regulation that you're not allowed to give anyone means to increase their transmitting power above the legal limit. This should of course be killed, but as it stands there's no way to run a fully Free Linux system if you need a wireless card.
Actually, how about embedding the .ogg in a data: url in a web page? That might get around things if they check each file individually. And if need be, you can use steganography to put the song in a .png, and then embed that in a data: url. How cool would that be?
When the internet was invented.
What's wrong with just plain FTP over SSL? No one's going to be blocking FTP anytime soon...
The thing is, though, we're not just looking at random in the desert; we have access to pretty much all his records, and we haven't found anything that even suggests that he had or wanted to get WMDs. It's not just a matter of hiding the actual weapons, it's that if there were any, they're hidden so well that we haven't found any traces of them even with all our people over there and all our intelligence (which is usually pretty good when it isn't fabricated) and all our access to nearly all his records.
If you'll remember, Iraq was becomming increasinly more compliant with letting weapons inspectors in. Perhaps we could have answered that if we'd let them continue instead of taking over and bombing the place into oblivion.
No. I jump to the conclusion that they don't exist anymore. And there is evidence to back me up. (And much more so, a lack of evidence to anything contrary.)
What, we would have just sat there and let him take over large swaths of earth? You must think Bush Sr. was stupider than I do. (Actually, I give him a moderate-low rating, much higher than the current Bush.) If someone is demonstrating a clear and obvious threat to the US, and is starting to put their threat into action, we do something about it (one of the reasons I'm ambivelant about the first Gulf War.) We don't just sit there and let them get more power. If Saddam had had nukes and had attacked multiple places in the middle east, we would have done our best to stop him from using them, not watched as he conquered those places and got more.
In any rate, that's irrelevant--what matters is whether he was showing any want to gain significantly more power now, which he wasn't.
Again, you have to look at probabilities and relative losses when you compute the final costs. Hussein was showing no indication of major attempts to gain more power--if we'd left things how they were, with our current spending on Iraq, he most likely would have never again done anything significant outside of Iraq. Instead, we spent several hundreds of billions of dollars, and several thousands of US lives (not to mention all the Iraqi lives) to make absolutely sure of it. (I won't go into the fact that Iraq now is much worse for us than it was before, especially in terms of anti-american sentiment and terrorists.)
The Iraq war was a bad idea from the outset, especially since it wasn't planned well. We would have been much better off if we had never invaded.
p.s.: Can someone mod up the parent poster, please? It's really not fair that I'm getting insightfuls to balance out my offtopics, but he's not.
And similarly, living under a chaotic, violent anarchy is even worse. Since war tends if not perfectly planned to lead to chaotic, violent anarchy, by itself war is not worse, but viewed as a whole, war and what it leads to is worse than malevolent dictatorship. (And I would debate that war is worse anyway--your chances of dying during a war are much higher than during peacetime, be it democracy OR dictatorship.)
And just like Hitler, Saddam was trying to conquer the world, right? Just because two people do similar things doesn't mean they're for the same reason.
Nearly the entire reason given for the war by the government was that Iraq was a threat to the US, and therefore we should get rid of the threat. That is pre-emption.
According to the CIA world factbook, Iraq's GDP in 2002 was $58 billion. According to this page (first on a google search for gdp germany hitler) Germany's GDP during the war averaged at about $400 billion in 1990 dollars, or >700 billion in 2002 dollars.
AFAIK, while a good part of the world believed that Saddam had WMDs because of the propoganda and fabricated/faulty intelligence (some of which was known to be so), a better part of the world didn't, even when presented with said propoganda and f* intelligence.
A war is pre-emptive if the reasoning given for it is that it's pre-emptive. Look back at the news from before and at the beginning of the war--everyone then said that it was because it was pre-emptive.
Germany was in a depression, that Hitler brought it out of. Iraq was (and is) a third world country, and nothing that Hussein could have done would have brought it up from that, to say nothing of the fact that he acted like he didn't even want to. Also, as evidenced by the amount of popular support that Hitler had inside Germany, the internal splits in Germany were very shallow compared to the ones in Iraq.
Obviously, we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We haven't found any WMD programs. Right now, we're trying, and failing to find "WMD program related activities." Hussein didn't have any WMDs, and he probably wan't going to anytime soon. It's like spending $200 billion to make sure the moon doesn't slip out of its orbit and hit us.
Again, Iraq had no WMDs, and showed no indication at all of wanting to attack us. The probability of it happening would have been minimal. If we hadn't gone there, about 0 lives would have been lost. Instead, by going there, several thousands of people were killed or permanently injured. Ask yourself: which is worse, a 1/1 millionth chance of 1 million people dying, or a certain chance of a thousand people dying?
Problem is, Hussein was never going to be "strong, bold, and have the initiative." He was the dictator of a small, poverty-ridden, country in which there were (at least) three very opposed different populations. Hitler was "dictator" of a larger, already strong, country, that was in a depression but by no means third-world, and was able to harness the emotions and power of practically the whole country to get what he wanted.
End result: Hitler was a threat to the US. Saddam wasn't. Hitler would have, eventually, gotten enough power to defeat the US if we hadn't joined the war in time. Saddam would have just sat there on his throne, killing off a few people (which a) we could have prevented in ways other than war, and b) was AFAIK fewer than are dying now due to the terrorists that weren't there before but are now and the worsened living conditions) and not posing any threat at all to us.
And as to pre-emptive war, the problem with it is that it sets a precedent for any other country that wants to start a pre-emptive war too. Because of that, there are a lot more wars total. And unless you happen to like war, I'm sure you'll agree that that's a bad thing.
No, "right place" to environmentalists means "where it won't kill off 14 entire genuses"--hence the fact that it's usually NON-environmentalists that oppose atual wind power construction projects, while supporting the idea in general.
Um? Environmentalists don't hate wind power, they just ask that it be put in the right place. Same with this--would you rather put this in a place where it'll kill off several entire ecosystems, or put it in a place where it can do its good without hurting anyone else?
Hm. Well, if just UN violations is the way you're counting, Bush definetly ranks up there pretty high as well, not to mention all the non-UN-related stuff that he's done like saying the First Amendment only applies in certain areas, TWICE (you'll have to scroll that page, sorry, no anchors). But anyway, the rest of the world agreed that a war was NOT necessary or at all the best way to go about things (and they've been proven correct) so yes, the US did have "an itchy trigger finger".
They couldn't wait any longer? Couldn't? As in, "Oh, boy, I can't wait to go start a war!"?
...Actually, now that I think about it, that sounds pretty much correct.
The other thing about GMail is that yesterday, gmail.google.com was a working address. It's been taken down, but I thought it was for real at first.
Billboards are illegal here in Vermont. (Thank god)
A letter would be great, in fact I'm planning on writing him one myself. (And I've met him in person before, so if he remembers me maybe that will mean something better! w00t!)