But it's hardly fair to call them oppressed or subject to a dictator.
There isn't anything standing in their way of statehood should they want that and push for it, either. I believe Puerto Rico held a referendum for statehood and it actually failed.
It's quite amazing how many people will vote for "anyone but Bush", all the while forgetting to actually examine the positions of anyone but Bush.
Kerry has made it clear from the beginning he would not have attacked Iraq unilaterally, he would have gotten UN support.
That's the difference, not that Kerry supported the war on Iraq, but how Bush actually implemented it. I believe the OP is right about this, I've never voted before either, but I am this time precise because of Bush's arrogance and unilateralism and stupidity. I never had a problem with the war, it was how Bush prosecuted it that angered me so much (like calling the UN "irrelevent", then having the gall to go to them and ask for help afterwards, or not having a plan for after the fall of Saddam because he just assumed all Iraqis would welcome us with open arms, etc, etc).
The more I hear this comment, the more I think its deliberate FUD. By now, most people understand where the anger is coming from, some of it is because the war happened period, yes, but a lot of it is coming from Bush's cowboyism too. The Reps though always go back to Kerry authorising the war and implying he would have done things the same as Bush, when thats simply not true. Kerry agreed that Saddam had to go, but he didn't vote for or agree with how Bush did it.
According to the polls, thats what a majority of Americans are going to do.
Re:Those stats don't really mean much though
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
I can say I have a plan to get out in two weeks.
And Bush said he had a plan for the "peace" in Iraq too. Heck, forget that, just the fact he thought everyone there would welcome us with open arms is enough make me realize he's too stupid to be a President, regardless of his other political positions.
ala Yucca Mountain
And the Republican Big Lie machine strikes yet again.
Re:Site is incredibly biased...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
I can't believe you're defending this.
1) You break into a liqeur store and rob it with five of your friends. Are you any less guilty because you weren't alone?
2) This wasn't about "editorial decisions", its about whether news organizations can willfully print lies and get away with it. Not controversies, not subjective things, but known facts and evidence.
3) That you could read this article and not be disgusted with Fox and the other organizations who supported them really scares the hell out of me. In the name of conservativism and Bush Jr, anything goes?
Re:Wow! It's a game of "How do you feel".
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
Nice way to avoid answering the question.
The difference here, of course, is that CBS actually talked to the kids who dropped out that the Texas schools said never dropped out.
Oh, and did I forget to mention that CBS wasn't the first to report this? They were just following the New York Times, who in turn were going by a Texas Education Agency probe into some Houston schools. A google would have given you this, but nah, when it comes to protecting Bush, anything goes right?
Re:Site is incredibly biased...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
Yes, he also said he himself didn't believe it, but if he doesn't believe it, why does he even bringing it up?
Shouldn't that question be left to the listener? Only how is the listener suppose to know that Dean did later in the same interview say he "didn't believe it" if you cut that out of the clip? If you want to fairly represent both sides, you leave all the stuff in that the opposition believes supports their case, you don't delete it.
Of course I figured out real quick that Hannity isn't interested in representing both sides, only his own, and that basically goes for Fox News too.
Its also interesting to compare your reaction to Hannity's manipulation of evidence and what CBS allegedly did, for which every conservative is screaming for Dan Rather's head. But you give Hannity a pass for the same thing, nice consistency there.
How about this? Think of a seed that is put in the ground and watered. At what point does it become a "plant" instead of a "seed"? You would apparently say that it is when it shows above the dirt. So the day before that it's not a "plant"? What about two seeds that are planted next to each other at the same time, but one is planted 1 inch deeper than the other? One becomes a plant first because there's a little less dirt over it?
Agreed, and its going to get worse to as medical technology blurs the lines. The Constitution doesn't help us here. The authors referred to natural birth as the beginning point, but what happens when we can bring a human being into existance without ever putting him/her in a female womb?
Most "reasonable" people believe contraception or a day after pill isn't murder because the egg/sperm, or the small collection of undifferentiated cells the next day, aren't a human being anymore than cells from our skin are, but at the same time, at some point late in the pregnancy the "fetus" becomes a "human baby" which should be protected. But what point is that? The old idea, that the point is where the fetus becomes "viable" outside the womb, will eventually get blown out of the water by medical technology that will allow us, for example, to save a fetus at any stage of development from the death of its mother. Where is the dividing line going to be when the mother's womb becomes optional? Sorry, but I don't have an answer. We need a way of defining what "human life" is, a definition that can survive the technology and medical science advances that are coming in the relatively near future.
No Child Left Behind but fuck the poor college kids who can't afford to eat.
[sarcasm] Ahhh, but you see, children aren't supposed to be working, so they are protected. Once you're in college everyone expects you to earn a living while going to school (which has been shown to be difficult for many, with a higher failure rate), or borrow the money (even though they don't go into the problem of everyone not qualifying for a loan, much less the loan actually being enough to survive on). But who cares about the details? The rich don't care, they can afford to send their kids to college, and the corporations don't care, they're sending their jobs overseas anyway. [/sarcasm]
"I dont like it, therefore it shouldnt be a law", is not a particularly good reason to make or not make a law.
It is if a majority of people agree with you. Contrary to what the Bible thumpers say, laws aren't handed down by God, they are made by people. Even those "inalienable rights" that can trump laws in democracies, are themselve human-made rules.
Firstly, it punishes someone for something they did.
Except the OP is pointing out we have murdered people who didn't do anything. I remember that within the first 10 years or so of DNA testing being accepted in courts here in the US, 60-70 people were released from death-row around the country because the testing proved they didn't commit the crime. I can only imagine how many innocents ended up being executed because the real perpetrator of the crime didn't leave any DNA evidence.
Secondly, and I think this is more important, it serves as an example for people who might commit a crime that qualifies you for capital punishment.
How many innocent lives should be sacrificed for this deterrent? Is there some formula for this? I don't believe this deterrent is worth a single innocent life, but that's just me.
PS: Last I heard they were still arguing about whether there is any connection between a death penalty and crime. The only correlation that is proven is that crime goes up when the economy goes down. Second there are many serious crimes that will likely occur no matter what the penalty may be. A lot of fatal domestic violence and serial murders will happen no matter what.
Twenty years ago, if you were at home and your house got burgled, you would probably have gotten a warning/temprarily disabling hit over the head if you tried to interfere. Today, you had better hope your not at home for the break in, because you will most definitely not survive it.
You can put people in jail for the rest of their lives, and accomplish the same thing as the death penalty as long as everyone knows that "20 to Life" really does mean a minimum of 20 years. The problem is there is never enough space for all the prisoners, nobody wants to pay for more prisons, and no one wants them in their neighborhood, so there is always pressure on the correctional system to let people out to make room for the new ones coming in. Human nature being what it is, I don't know how to get around that, but the point is deterrence is possible without the death penalty. If people knew incarceration would be certain and swift, that they would serve their entire sentence without getting out on parole early, and if they commit a serious violent crime, they would most likely not get out of prison alive, then those criminals that could be influenced by a deterrent, would be.
[political sarcasm] Of course we could solve this problem by letting out all the drug users, and just put violent offenders in prison, but no, America wants its "war on drugs" too, we seem to like wars. If we don't have one on hand, we tend to make one up.... or start one ourselves. [/political sarcasm]
How would MS know it was an OEM copy that you got without hardware? Why would they even care, since you at least paid the appropiate amount for it (OEM copy for the OEM price)?
Look, I don't approve of outright piracy, but this strikes me as nit-picking. I got WinXP Home for $70 from a hardware/software store on the net, along with a harddrive. Now this OEM copy doesn't care that I didn't buy an entire computer with it, MS can't tell the difference, and since I paid the right amount for an OEM version, I don't see stealing or piracy here at all.
Its just ridiculous to go around telling people they have to pay $300, when they can perfectly legally pay $150 or whatever for a harddrive they were going to get anyway, and throw in $70 extra for the same thing as the $300 version. If MS has a real problem with this, they only need to change their license to define what kind of hardware the OEM copies can be sold with. Since MS hasn't changed the license, I think they just don't care really, they're just happy you paid something for it, and not used a cracked copy that doesn't send any money back to MS at all.
Hopefully. Fortunately, stupidity is a correctable condition, whereas arrogance is usually a permanent flaw.
AMD just doesn't whip their mobo/chipset makers into shape.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether AMD should dictate what mobo makers do with their CPUs.
I'm not talking just about CPU frequency scaling... I'm talking about power management in general.
You said the AMD chips run hot, and I said that with an Athlon64 on a motherboard that supports CnQ, this isn't true. Even if you try to change the definition of what we're arguing about, what I said *still* isn't true.
If you get a P4, you know the CPU will use less power and output less heat while it's idle.
I also know this with an Athlon64 on a motherboard that supports CnQ. Which is all I said.
If you get an AMD XP
And I was talking about Athlon64s on mobos supporting CnQ.
As long as the US relies on "winner takes all" rules, a +2 party system is impossible. We would need proportional representation in the Congress, perhaps including something like Condorcet voting, to make that possible. Right now, throughout the US government and its Constitution, you only need "50% + 1" to get *all* of the power.
Its not going to happen unfortunately. There are just too many Americans who implicitly think our system of governence is "perfect", and "special", and nothing should be changed (except for the social conservatives who want to shoehorn their idea of morality into the Constitution). Few never seem to wonder whether its a good thing that a country with 270 million people always reduces every issue, simple or insanely complex, down to just 2 perspectives.
This -- Saddam's removal -- is why I support Bush.
Fundamentally, Saddam's removal is not where Bush made his mistakes. The problem is *how* he did it.
If he loses the elections, no future president will dare attacking a contemptuous tyrant
They certainly won't do it in the haphazard, unplanned, unilateral and arrogant way Bush did.
Besides, US policy has never been about removing tyrants in other countries just *because* they are tyrants. Its a dangerously simplistic idea, and wrong, if for no other reason than it implies we should also invade the remaining third of the world thats *still* run by tyrants. This idea was just the excuse used because Bush & Co. couldn't tell the world the real reasons they felt compelled to attack (reasons which were far less noble than this idealistic vision).
In fact, the idea that we should invade other countries because we don't like their leaders on our own whims, unilaterally without UN support, is exactly the kind arrogance thats gotten us into so much trouble already.
if you disaprove of the war, Kerry is not your candidate either.
If your goal is to get rid of Bush at any cost, you vote for whoever has the best chance of beating him, and that of course, is Kerry.
And ignore the trolls who don't understand what it's all about.
This is a story about a Debian variant, so why have you shown up trying to change the subject? Who is really the troll here? For Pete's sake, this distro isn't even trying to court the same user group that might be interested in Gentoo, so why are you here? Seriously.
Interesting, since CBS hasn't publically said where they got those documents.
You see, here's what I think: You've been reading right-wing blogs, or listening to Fox News, and somewhere along the line, you heard someone say it came from the DNC, and to you thats now a fact. Well, I have a few facts of my own: some of these "friends and relatives" that say it couldn't have happened are pro-Bush, and the CBS crew suspected them of lying from the beginning, there are experts saying there were typewriters of the era that could have made these documents, few if any of the experts are going on record as 100% against the documents because they don't have access to the originals, CBS *still* stands by their story, in part because the documents aren't the only thing they based the story on, CBS hasn't said what the origin was, and the DNC says they had nothing to do with this, and as sure as you are that CBS and everyone else is lying, I think you and the bloggers are lying, desperately attacking something you fear might bring your boy down.
There is a reason why I specifically mentioned that motherboard. That motherboard doesn't just support Cool-n-Quiet, it goes well beyond it with MSI's own motherboard technology called "Core Cell". Cool-n-Quiet is just the lower layer.
I've heard that something like 50% of AMD64 motherboards don't work with Cool n Quiet
Well since its a new kind of technology (or mobile technology showing up on the desktop for the first time), I'm not surprised some motherboard maker's didn't support it at first. That was NOT AMD's fault however. MSI's motherboards do show you how far you can take the Cool-n-Quiet idea, if the motherboard is designed to support and enhance the technology.
Buy any Intel CPU/motherboard, and you are guaranteed to get full and proper power management.
Maybe on their laptops and such, but not on desktop machines. AMD was the first to put this technology on their mainline CPUs (Athlon64), and not just a special mobile edition of the chip. MSI's motherboards are for desktops, not laptops.
I've had "full and proper power management" on my desktop machine for nearly a year now, the CPU automatically controls its own speed based on its load, and not just throttling down, but when the load is high it will automatically overclock itself too, based on bios settings (to what degree overclocking works, of course, is dependent on the individual CPU - so you have to do a little experimenting to find out how far you can safely overclock your CPU).
The whole thing is automatic, controlled entirely on the silicon, from throttling down to 800Mhz to overclocking the CPU by as much as 15%, and I'm pretty sure no Intel chip or chip/motherboard combo (for desktops) did this at the time I got the Athlon64 and this mobo (MSI claimed at the time no one else was doing this for desktop machines).
An invasion by a pitifully small number of Cuban nationals. After it became apparent there wasn't going to be a spontaneous revolt by the Cubans against Castro (which the whole plan depended on), Kennedy decided not to intervene with the US Army to save the invaders, sending a pretty clear signal he wasn't willing to go to war with Castro.
NATO was complaining about Soviet missiles in Cuba, having just installed a nuclear arsenal in Turkey to point at the Warsaw Pact.
FWIW, If NATO and the US military had not dragged their feet, those old missiles in Turkey would alreay have been removed by the time of the CMC. Granted, none of this mattered at the time, since neither side trusted the other and thus didn't believe one another, but Kennedy did recognize the USSR's point about those missiles in Turkey (as well as realizing they were useless anyway) and had ordered them removed earlier.
a lot more complicated than "US good, everyone else bad".
Where did I say that? I was just saying that as far as the CMC goes, it was a lot more complicated than "US bad, Castro good". Lots of distrust and suspicion, crucial mistakes, and misreads of the opposition on both sides. In hindsight, one thing is pretty clear though: Castro is the only one who really *wanted* a confrontation. Look at some of things Castro himself said in later interviews about the CMC. For the US and the USSR, the Cuban Missile Crisis was never planned or desired, they both just kinda blundered into the crisis.
Its a hopeful sign, and believable as well. I'm 38 years old, and never voted before because I never saw much point in it. Under normal circumstances I believe the Dems and Reps are close enough to one another that the differences are just measured in degrees. But not this time, I registered to vote last week, and I'm not alone (but I don't know how many of us there are and whether we can offset the Religious Right).
Something like a thousand Iraqis have died just in the last 3 weeks or so, 50 today in just one attack in central Baghdad, and we've still got ~58 days to go. I'm going out on a limb here and say Iraq will be in virtual chaos by the time our election happens, especially if our military tries to crack down on the insurgency. That should have an effect too.
Doesn't surprise me, you and all your terrorist friends have always lived in a different world than the rest of us.
We're just all waiting for you to pass on soon (heard you had a heart attck some time back, how 'ya feel?), so the Palestinians can find a real leader who is willing to confront the religious extremists. Once that happens peace will arrive shortly, after all, at its heart this war is just a land dispute, so strip away the religious fanatics on both sides, and this problem can and will be solved.
Slashdot Mirror
There isn't anything standing in their way of statehood should they want that and push for it, either. I believe Puerto Rico held a referendum for statehood and it actually failed.
Kerry has made it clear from the beginning he would not have attacked Iraq unilaterally, he would have gotten UN support.
That's the difference, not that Kerry supported the war on Iraq, but how Bush actually implemented it. I believe the OP is right about this, I've never voted before either, but I am this time precise because of Bush's arrogance and unilateralism and stupidity. I never had a problem with the war, it was how Bush prosecuted it that angered me so much (like calling the UN "irrelevent", then having the gall to go to them and ask for help afterwards, or not having a plan for after the fall of Saddam because he just assumed all Iraqis would welcome us with open arms, etc, etc).
The more I hear this comment, the more I think its deliberate FUD. By now, most people understand where the anger is coming from, some of it is because the war happened period, yes, but a lot of it is coming from Bush's cowboyism too. The Reps though always go back to Kerry authorising the war and implying he would have done things the same as Bush, when thats simply not true. Kerry agreed that Saddam had to go, but he didn't vote for or agree with how Bush did it.
Heh, I thought exactly the same thing when I read that.
According to the polls, thats what a majority of Americans are going to do.
And Bush said he had a plan for the "peace" in Iraq too. Heck, forget that, just the fact he thought everyone there would welcome us with open arms is enough make me realize he's too stupid to be a President, regardless of his other political positions.
And the Republican Big Lie machine strikes yet again.
I can't believe you're defending this.
1) You break into a liqeur store and rob it with five of your friends. Are you any less guilty because you weren't alone?
2) This wasn't about "editorial decisions", its about whether news organizations can willfully print lies and get away with it. Not controversies, not subjective things, but known facts and evidence.
3) That you could read this article and not be disgusted with Fox and the other organizations who supported them really scares the hell out of me. In the name of conservativism and Bush Jr, anything goes?
Nice way to avoid answering the question.
The difference here, of course, is that CBS actually talked to the kids who dropped out that the Texas schools said never dropped out.
Oh, and did I forget to mention that CBS wasn't the first to report this? They were just following the New York Times, who in turn were going by a Texas Education Agency probe into some Houston schools. A google would have given you this, but nah, when it comes to protecting Bush, anything goes right?
Shouldn't that question be left to the listener? Only how is the listener suppose to know that Dean did later in the same interview say he "didn't believe it" if you cut that out of the clip? If you want to fairly represent both sides, you leave all the stuff in that the opposition believes supports their case, you don't delete it.
Of course I figured out real quick that Hannity isn't interested in representing both sides, only his own, and that basically goes for Fox News too.
Its also interesting to compare your reaction to Hannity's manipulation of evidence and what CBS allegedly did, for which every conservative is screaming for Dan Rather's head. But you give Hannity a pass for the same thing, nice consistency there.
Agreed, and its going to get worse to as medical technology blurs the lines. The Constitution doesn't help us here. The authors referred to natural birth as the beginning point, but what happens when we can bring a human being into existance without ever putting him/her in a female womb?
Most "reasonable" people believe contraception or a day after pill isn't murder because the egg/sperm, or the small collection of undifferentiated cells the next day, aren't a human being anymore than cells from our skin are, but at the same time, at some point late in the pregnancy the "fetus" becomes a "human baby" which should be protected. But what point is that? The old idea, that the point is where the fetus becomes "viable" outside the womb, will eventually get blown out of the water by medical technology that will allow us, for example, to save a fetus at any stage of development from the death of its mother. Where is the dividing line going to be when the mother's womb becomes optional? Sorry, but I don't have an answer. We need a way of defining what "human life" is, a definition that can survive the technology and medical science advances that are coming in the relatively near future.
[sarcasm]
Ahhh, but you see, children aren't supposed to be working, so they are protected. Once you're in college everyone expects you to earn a living while going to school (which has been shown to be difficult for many, with a higher failure rate), or borrow the money (even though they don't go into the problem of everyone not qualifying for a loan, much less the loan actually being enough to survive on). But who cares about the details? The rich don't care, they can afford to send their kids to college, and the corporations don't care, they're sending their jobs overseas anyway.
[/sarcasm]
It is if a majority of people agree with you. Contrary to what the Bible thumpers say, laws aren't handed down by God, they are made by people. Even those "inalienable rights" that can trump laws in democracies, are themselve human-made rules.
Except the OP is pointing out we have murdered people who didn't do anything. I remember that within the first 10 years or so of DNA testing being accepted in courts here in the US, 60-70 people were released from death-row around the country because the testing proved they didn't commit the crime. I can only imagine how many innocents ended up being executed because the real perpetrator of the crime didn't leave any DNA evidence.
How many innocent lives should be sacrificed for this deterrent? Is there some formula for this? I don't believe this deterrent is worth a single innocent life, but that's just me.
PS: Last I heard they were still arguing about whether there is any connection between a death penalty and crime. The only correlation that is proven is that crime goes up when the economy goes down. Second there are many serious crimes that will likely occur no matter what the penalty may be. A lot of fatal domestic violence and serial murders will happen no matter what.
You can put people in jail for the rest of their lives, and accomplish the same thing as the death penalty as long as everyone knows that "20 to Life" really does mean a minimum of 20 years. The problem is there is never enough space for all the prisoners, nobody wants to pay for more prisons, and no one wants them in their neighborhood, so there is always pressure on the correctional system to let people out to make room for the new ones coming in. Human nature being what it is, I don't know how to get around that, but the point is deterrence is possible without the death penalty. If people knew incarceration would be certain and swift, that they would serve their entire sentence without getting out on parole early, and if they commit a serious violent crime, they would most likely not get out of prison alive, then those criminals that could be influenced by a deterrent, would be.
[political sarcasm]
Of course we could solve this problem by letting out all the drug users, and just put violent offenders in prison, but no, America wants its "war on drugs" too, we seem to like wars. If we don't have one on hand, we tend to make one up.... or start one ourselves.
[/political sarcasm]
How would MS know it was an OEM copy that you got without hardware? Why would they even care, since you at least paid the appropiate amount for it (OEM copy for the OEM price)?
Look, I don't approve of outright piracy, but this strikes me as nit-picking. I got WinXP Home for $70 from a hardware/software store on the net, along with a harddrive. Now this OEM copy doesn't care that I didn't buy an entire computer with it, MS can't tell the difference, and since I paid the right amount for an OEM version, I don't see stealing or piracy here at all.
Its just ridiculous to go around telling people they have to pay $300, when they can perfectly legally pay $150 or whatever for a harddrive they were going to get anyway, and throw in $70 extra for the same thing as the $300 version. If MS has a real problem with this, they only need to change their license to define what kind of hardware the OEM copies can be sold with. Since MS hasn't changed the license, I think they just don't care really, they're just happy you paid something for it, and not used a cracked copy that doesn't send any money back to MS at all.
err, that should be "what I said is *still* true".
Hopefully. Fortunately, stupidity is a correctable condition, whereas arrogance is usually a permanent flaw.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether AMD should dictate what mobo makers do with their CPUs.
You said the AMD chips run hot, and I said that with an Athlon64 on a motherboard that supports CnQ, this isn't true. Even if you try to change the definition of what we're arguing about, what I said *still* isn't true.
I also know this with an Athlon64 on a motherboard that supports CnQ. Which is all I said.
And I was talking about Athlon64s on mobos supporting CnQ.
As long as the US relies on "winner takes all" rules, a +2 party system is impossible. We would need proportional representation in the Congress, perhaps including something like Condorcet voting, to make that possible. Right now, throughout the US government and its Constitution, you only need "50% + 1" to get *all* of the power.
Its not going to happen unfortunately. There are just too many Americans who implicitly think our system of governence is "perfect", and "special", and nothing should be changed (except for the social conservatives who want to shoehorn their idea of morality into the Constitution). Few never seem to wonder whether its a good thing that a country with 270 million people always reduces every issue, simple or insanely complex, down to just 2 perspectives.
Fundamentally, Saddam's removal is not where Bush made his mistakes. The problem is *how* he did it.
They certainly won't do it in the haphazard, unplanned, unilateral and arrogant way Bush did.
Besides, US policy has never been about removing tyrants in other countries just *because* they are tyrants. Its a dangerously simplistic idea, and wrong, if for no other reason than it implies we should also invade the remaining third of the world thats *still* run by tyrants. This idea was just the excuse used because Bush & Co. couldn't tell the world the real reasons they felt compelled to attack (reasons which were far less noble than this idealistic vision).
In fact, the idea that we should invade other countries because we don't like their leaders on our own whims, unilaterally without UN support, is exactly the kind arrogance thats gotten us into so much trouble already.
If your goal is to get rid of Bush at any cost, you vote for whoever has the best chance of beating him, and that of course, is Kerry.
Make that: "what other people outside the White House call resistance"
This is a story about a Debian variant, so why have you shown up trying to change the subject? Who is really the troll here? For Pete's sake, this distro isn't even trying to court the same user group that might be interested in Gentoo, so why are you here? Seriously.
Interesting, since CBS hasn't publically said where they got those documents.
You see, here's what I think: You've been reading right-wing blogs, or listening to Fox News, and somewhere along the line, you heard someone say it came from the DNC, and to you thats now a fact. Well, I have a few facts of my own: some of these "friends and relatives" that say it couldn't have happened are pro-Bush, and the CBS crew suspected them of lying from the beginning, there are experts saying there were typewriters of the era that could have made these documents, few if any of the experts are going on record as 100% against the documents because they don't have access to the originals, CBS *still* stands by their story, in part because the documents aren't the only thing they based the story on, CBS hasn't said what the origin was, and the DNC says they had nothing to do with this, and as sure as you are that CBS and everyone else is lying, I think you and the bloggers are lying, desperately attacking something you fear might bring your boy down.
Now where does that leave us?
There is a reason why I specifically mentioned that motherboard. That motherboard doesn't just support Cool-n-Quiet, it goes well beyond it with MSI's own motherboard technology called "Core Cell". Cool-n-Quiet is just the lower layer.
Well since its a new kind of technology (or mobile technology showing up on the desktop for the first time), I'm not surprised some motherboard maker's didn't support it at first. That was NOT AMD's fault however. MSI's motherboards do show you how far you can take the Cool-n-Quiet idea, if the motherboard is designed to support and enhance the technology.
Maybe on their laptops and such, but not on desktop machines. AMD was the first to put this technology on their mainline CPUs (Athlon64), and not just a special mobile edition of the chip. MSI's motherboards are for desktops, not laptops.
I've had "full and proper power management" on my desktop machine for nearly a year now, the CPU automatically controls its own speed based on its load, and not just throttling down, but when the load is high it will automatically overclock itself too, based on bios settings (to what degree overclocking works, of course, is dependent on the individual CPU - so you have to do a little experimenting to find out how far you can safely overclock your CPU).
The whole thing is automatic, controlled entirely on the silicon, from throttling down to 800Mhz to overclocking the CPU by as much as 15%, and I'm pretty sure no Intel chip or chip/motherboard combo (for desktops) did this at the time I got the Athlon64 and this mobo (MSI claimed at the time no one else was doing this for desktop machines).
An invasion by a pitifully small number of Cuban nationals. After it became apparent there wasn't going to be a spontaneous revolt by the Cubans against Castro (which the whole plan depended on), Kennedy decided not to intervene with the US Army to save the invaders, sending a pretty clear signal he wasn't willing to go to war with Castro.
FWIW, If NATO and the US military had not dragged their feet, those old missiles in Turkey would alreay have been removed by the time of the CMC. Granted, none of this mattered at the time, since neither side trusted the other and thus didn't believe one another, but Kennedy did recognize the USSR's point about those missiles in Turkey (as well as realizing they were useless anyway) and had ordered them removed earlier.
Where did I say that? I was just saying that as far as the CMC goes, it was a lot more complicated than "US bad, Castro good". Lots of distrust and suspicion, crucial mistakes, and misreads of the opposition on both sides. In hindsight, one thing is pretty clear though: Castro is the only one who really *wanted* a confrontation. Look at some of things Castro himself said in later interviews about the CMC. For the US and the USSR, the Cuban Missile Crisis was never planned or desired, they both just kinda blundered into the crisis.
Yep, its just you.
Thanks for that news.
Its a hopeful sign, and believable as well. I'm 38 years old, and never voted before because I never saw much point in it. Under normal circumstances I believe the Dems and Reps are close enough to one another that the differences are just measured in degrees. But not this time, I registered to vote last week, and I'm not alone (but I don't know how many of us there are and whether we can offset the Religious Right).
Something like a thousand Iraqis have died just in the last 3 weeks or so, 50 today in just one attack in central Baghdad, and we've still got ~58 days to go. I'm going out on a limb here and say Iraq will be in virtual chaos by the time our election happens, especially if our military tries to crack down on the insurgency. That should have an effect too.
Still dreaming are you, Yasser?
Doesn't surprise me, you and all your terrorist friends have always lived in a different world than the rest of us.
We're just all waiting for you to pass on soon (heard you had a heart attck some time back, how 'ya feel?), so the Palestinians can find a real leader who is willing to confront the religious extremists. Once that happens peace will arrive shortly, after all, at its heart this war is just a land dispute, so strip away the religious fanatics on both sides, and this problem can and will be solved.