Wired had a great article on this a year ago or so. Every carrier was afraid of touching Android. They said if they used a common OS between phones, they were afraid they would become dumb carriers, and it would remove the potential to advertise each network provider having unique phones.
In reality, today providers PAY to put Blackberry OS, Web OS, the iPhone OS, and Windows Mobile on their phones. They can't customize the OS. So buying a Blackberry on Verizon is no different from buying a Blackberry on AT&T. Google offers up Android for free, and tells networks that they can even customize the software so AT&T's build of Android is unique, and they reject Android. It makes zero sense.
I desperately wanted and Android phone. I contacted customer support for several providers telling them they could have my business if they put out an Android phone. (T-Mobile basically has no coverage in Omaha, so they weren't an option). I waited an year. No Android phones came out.
So instead, I bought an iPhone. I'm not terribly happy that I have an iPhone as opposed to an Android phone. I'm not terribly happy I ended up with AT&T. But honestly, it seems like providers really didn't want my business. For all their supposed desire to find an iPhone-killer, they're ignoring the FREE iPhone-killer right infront of them.
The UI gets higher priority, or they tweaked it in a sense to make the UI seem more responsive. This does not mean your computer is really faster than using XP or Vista. In fact, despite all the claims of how "fast" 7 is, it still requires considerably more hardware than XP.
Vista had a new driver model that was terrible, which really hurt performance. It is better in 7, which helps video performance. Is it any better than XP? Not really.
The taskbar is pretty damned sweet. It not only looks good, but it is useful in helping you select the right window with Aero Peek. I now use the same feature in Linux on KDE 4 with the "smooth tasks" plasmoid.
Window tiling is fantastic. Why has kwin not implemented this yet? I don't care if it is copying. It is a great feature. I throw a window to the top, and it maximizes. I throw it to the left or right and it takes up exactly half of the screen. I can also use easy keyboard shortcuts.
Windows 7 has "library" support which can track media file across multiple hard drives or folders. Given that your music player of choice should be able to do the same thing, and really, you should just fucking organize your files, I don't see this as a huge win. But it is there.
Native ipv6 support. Linux has had this for eons, and you may be behind an ipv4 router anyway, but it counts as an improvement.
DirectX 11 for when you eventually have a DirectX 11 video card, and DirectX 11 games.
Cons:
UAC is still annoying.
Most of the Vista UI regressions are still present. You still have to use 10 clicks to perform a task that was 5 clicks in XP.
Your printer that works in XP likely doesn't have a driver in 7.
Many of your XP apps and games that had compatibility problems in Vista, still aren't going to work. In fact, even more apps will be broken in 7. I found many XP games were a real pain to get working in 7, or just plain didn't work at all. So much for 7 being great for gamers. If you get Windows 7 Ultimate, it includes a VM install of XP, but that will kill game performance. If you're ultimately just going to need XP to play games, why not stick with XP? Not to mention Ultimate is expensive, so most users don't have this capability.
I use OOo daily on Windows and openSUSE and have zero problems with it.
I wonder if part of the problem is poor packages in Ubuntu. That is certainly the case with Kubuntu. I don't really borther messing with plain Ubuntu given how much I loathe Gnome.
The only area in which I'm more productive on a Windows machine is with Photoshop because I haven't bothered to learn how to use The Gimp. In almost every other area, I am vastly more productive on a Linux box.
I love how so many people assume that Linux is just some cute, hobby OS that is designed as a diversion as opposed to anything that someone might actually use for serious computing.
The fact of the matter is that Linux is not designed to be an embedded OS [..]
Why exactly is Linux running on my TV, on cell phones, on coffee machines, ATMs, kiosks, web servers smaller than my coffee mug, etc?
Oh wait, Linux has been a fantastic OS for embedded systems from day 1 because of how modular the kernel is.
Are you suggesting the Linux desktop isn't great on embedded devices? In that case, no desktop is perfect for embedded devices. However, every major desktop to market now has taken touchscreens in consideration for their UI. KDE 4 runs great on the Nokia n900.
Android was designed EXCLUSIVELY for small, embedded devices and works great.
You need to be consistent when comparing apples to apples. People always say iPhone plans are more expensive than other phone plans, when they cost the same. You pay fees on all cell phone plans.
The iPhone 3G-S is $199 on a 2 year contract, and the 3G is $99 on a 2 year contract.
Anyone who paid $350 in cash for the phone is an idiot given that they could have purchased a brand new 3G-S for $200. If you brother turned down offers of $500+ to accept $350, then he isn't very good at math either.
Your math is still pretty suspect. Google up "iphone plans" and the very first result pulls up a $99 iPhone, but you continue to insist they cost $350.
The basic AT&T voice package is $40 per month. The data plan is $30 a month for unlimited bandwidth. I assumed the average person would want some text messages as well. 200 text messages is $5. The plan is $75 for voice, unlimited data, and 200 text messages.
I'm on a family plan with multiple data plans, and unlimited text messages for everyone in the family. I have mine on automatic bill pay, and I don't recall exactly how the taxes break down, but the taxes are industry standard.
Bush never threatened France with anything. Find a quote or stop lying.
It was discovered that France was selling weapons illegally to Iraq for oil. One of these countries was in the wrong. I'll let you figure it out on your own.
Other news agencies claimed to have witnessed Palestine celebrating the attacks as well, but reporters were threatened when they attempted to photograph it.
I watched the video live, as well as replays of it. There are signs directly stating they are celebrating the death of Americans, and children were chanting "God loves us because he is killing Americans".
I can't see how Bush made the US a totalitarionist country. Congress still holds the bulk of power in this country. Obama didn't make us more of a democracy.
The only civil rights you've lost in the past 10 year were rights both parties voted on. Obama made it a huge part of his campaign to remove the domestic spying program, but then voted for FISA, and then extended the powers of the wiretap program the second he got into office.
Put down the Kool-Aid and don't attempt to spout the bullshit at me.
Anyone who suggests that the United States controls puppet governments has no clue what they're talking about. The United States has had their hands in regime changes, but many of those leaders have acted in direct opposition to American wishes.
People claimed for years that the United States had direct control over Iraq and Saddam because they helped place in power. Perhaps you don't pay any attention to Congress, where they routinely discuss how they want nothing to do with long-term nation building and control. It was a key point in approving troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that the citizens of those countries would have complete control in determining their future destiny.
The Afghani government was formed by the Northern Alliance, which existed for years before we went into Afghanistan. They held democratic elections.
That is a list of 39 nations that actually deployed troops. There were other nations that offered logistical support, naval ships, etc. but did not deploy ground troops.
If you need surgery to live, you receive it whether you can pay for it or not. The hospitals are legally required to do so.
However, as my father-in-law works for the Department of Agriculture, he gets fantastic government coverage pay pays next to nothing for his surgeries, and for chemo.
That being said, if you're poor to begin with, and can't afford insurance, then you'll likely qualify for Medicaid/Medicare, and then the transplant is 100% free.
If you can't afford insurance, but somehow make too much for Medicaid/Medicare, then bankruptcy likely won't be that bad, since you're aren't wealthy, and won't lose much.
If you make enough money that you'll really lose with bankruptcy, you make enough money to purchase insurance in the first place.
The problem isn't that options don't exist for the poor. The problem is that insurance premiums are expensive. The real solution isn't a bigger handout, but rather finding ways to bring down the cost of insurance premiums.
It is very possible for large operations to be extremely efficient. Look at WalMart. However, nothing the US federal government does is remotely efficient. That is what terrifies me of government run healthcare in this country. I can't imagine it will be more efficient.
In the US, individual hospitals compete for your business, and it is big business. I believe that competition is healthy.
And if you need a heart transplant to live, but can't pay for, US hospitals are legally required to try and save your life. They can bankrupt you with the bill if you don't have insurance, but you still get the heart transplant.
I was up in Edmonton (Camrose actually) visiting relatives and they were talking to me about how all Americans were evil and bloodthirsty. We wanted to control the world, and then kill everyone. But Obama was the first American who didn't want to kill everyone, because he was the only American with morals.
They explained that is precisely what Canadian media had explained to them. I got a little ill.
I was also a little offended at all their anti-American rants, giving they were directly insulting me as an American. I was also shocked that they think a guy who votes fives times against "born alive" bills is the only American who respects life to be a massive joke.
My father-in-law is from Canada. They couldn't diagnose his brain cancer because they didn't have access to an MRI machine (I know they have more MRI machines today, but access to the best medical technology is still lacking in Canada). He came to the US, and they saved his life. He is a big fan of private health care, having directly experienced England and Canada's health care systems growing up.
I also find it interesting that many places in Canada are largely getting away from their "perfect" health care system, and adding more and more private options.
The term illegal implies the US broke law. The US followed their own law for declaring war, and following international law as well given that the UN approved both actions.
I'm checking your links. You're first one suggests Osama Bin Laden isn't responsible for 9/11. Funny, because he admits to it and no one else has claimed responsibility. We have 9/11 conspirators who admitted to it in trial as well. You link claims there is no evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11.
The link also claims that no one in Afghanistan attacked the US, thusly the invasion was illegal. Afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban. Osama Bin Laden publicly admitted that he had formed a partnership with the Taliban. He performed multiple terrorist attacks against the United States while operating as a guest of the Taliban. Osama Bin Laden was indicted in US court, and the Taliban refused extradition.
You insist there is no proof, but even the UAE and Saudi cut diplomatic ties with the Taliban, and called for the Taliban to hand Osama Bin Laden over.
Again, the Taliban and Northern Alliance were in an existing civil war, both claiming rightful ownership of Afghanistan. NATO didn't attack Afghanistan. NATO attacked the Taliban. I think if you ask the Afghani government, they'll tell you that NATO liberated them.
Women are just beginning to have rights for the first time even in Afghanistan, thanks to deposing the Taliban.
Your second link seems to suggest that it isn't morally acceptable to go into Iraq, because it is an act of aggression. But it is morally acceptable to preemptively attack and sabotage military bases as an act of aggression, because you're worried they will eventually commit war crimes.
That is akin to pro-lifers killing doctors in the name of life.
You can't argue for and against preemptive aggression in the same breath. Regardless, the link only suggests the action is immoral.
It never says the courts for US action in Iraq to be illegal, because it wasn't illegal.
You can't escape the facts that the UN Security council did acknowledge the war as being legal and valid.
It is legal by every definition. That point isn't in contention. Arguing otherwise merely means you wish to ignore all facts.
If you wish to say you don't like the war, or you don't find it just, then go ahead. But again, you will likely do so in the face of a number of facts.
I also want to add that I'm not opposed to giving financial relief to foreign nations.
I think it is the right thing to do. I also agree that we should continue to give to nations if they need it, even if they don't seem to like us.
I think I would draw the line at giving money to Palestine, given that they refuse to show that they're using the money for food/medicine and not to build bombs and kill civilians. We could send over food/medicine packages as opposed to writing checks to Hamas.
I think Bush did largely ignore domestic issues on many fronts. And I don't believe that Bush was a great president by any stretch of the imagination. But he wasn't this horrible, evil, warmonger that people made him out to be either. In fact, immediately after 9/11, there was popular support to go into Iraq, because people assumed there was a connection there. Bush urged us not to rush into Iraq, saying there was no evidence of a connection. He urged diplomacy for another two years.
When diplomacy fails, and Bush says Iraq is part of the war on terror, people twist it to say Bush is lying and saying Saddam was directly linked to 9/11.
When Obama first started running, I liked him. I told friends he was my favorite candidate. But frankly I find myself liking him less and less all the time. I think the thing that really killed it for me was finding out he voted 5 times against a "born alive" bill.
I know people have differing opinions on abortions (especially at the different time frames) but when you kill babies that are born and survive outside the womb, you really fucking lose me there.
It should be noted, that one thing I really liked about Obama, was that he went across party lines to support things he believed in, even if it was unpopular. For instance, he called out Democrats in Congress for their weak bill, and supported Bush on a bill that would call for immediate and drastic increases in fuel economy from American car companies if we were going to give them money. Sadly, the much weaker bill passed, but few politicians seem to care about doing the right thing. They only care about making their party look good at the expense of the other party.
The only reason Flash is important is because it is so widely adopted.
In a scenario in which most web developers drop Flash, and Adobe abandons it, then how much does it matter that a third-party can't fork it and continue it?
We need more standards in the web. Forks hurt standards. In very specific scenarios (like Flash and Java) I think a "patch-only" system will protect against forks, while allowing for community development.
It certain beats a situation where Adobe ignores Linux users and community development is not possible. Compromise may be the only way to get Adobe to open up, and I'm all for that.
What exactly is your definition of an illegal war?
The UN Security Council said they would have voted against going into Iraq as a UN effort, but the vote never took place. Technically, the UN's cease-fire agreement said if Iraq did not fully comply, the cease-fire was null and void, and UN military action was authorized. The security council find Iraq in violation of the cease-fire some 75 times.
The US went into Iraq with the direct support of over 30 nations. When the coalition displaced Saddam, the UN officially recognized the US control of the nation as a soverign leadership in the UN before Iraq had its own government in place. In effect, the UN recognized the war as being legal and valid.
Congress voted for it, and the UN ended up approving it. How was that illegal?
Afghanistan was already in civil war before we got there. We supported the side that was ousting a terrorist regime who initiated military conflict with the US on 9/11. We remain in Afghanistan at the request of the Afghani government. The UN recognized this as valid as well. Congress voted for it.
Again, how are either of these illegal?
Please look up the definition of illegal and get back to me.
Slashdot Mirror
There are supposedly 50 Android phones in the works. I'm sure some will have keyboards. The Motorola Calgary has a keyboard for instance.
Exactly.
Some people want real keyboards. Some people want expensive phones with the best possible features and tons of storage. Some people want cheap phones.
Wired had a great article on this a year ago or so. Every carrier was afraid of touching Android. They said if they used a common OS between phones, they were afraid they would become dumb carriers, and it would remove the potential to advertise each network provider having unique phones.
In reality, today providers PAY to put Blackberry OS, Web OS, the iPhone OS, and Windows Mobile on their phones. They can't customize the OS. So buying a Blackberry on Verizon is no different from buying a Blackberry on AT&T. Google offers up Android for free, and tells networks that they can even customize the software so AT&T's build of Android is unique, and they reject Android. It makes zero sense.
I desperately wanted and Android phone. I contacted customer support for several providers telling them they could have my business if they put out an Android phone. (T-Mobile basically has no coverage in Omaha, so they weren't an option). I waited an year. No Android phones came out.
So instead, I bought an iPhone. I'm not terribly happy that I have an iPhone as opposed to an Android phone. I'm not terribly happy I ended up with AT&T. But honestly, it seems like providers really didn't want my business. For all their supposed desire to find an iPhone-killer, they're ignoring the FREE iPhone-killer right infront of them.
I was running the beta. I didn't upgrade to the RC. I do have a copy of 7 Ultimate from the party pack I have yet to install.
I will be very happy if backwards compatibility for XP games has improved.
I wouldn't say that boot times or UI are faster than XP, but that is my experience.
Pros:
Cons:
I use OOo daily on Windows and openSUSE and have zero problems with it.
I wonder if part of the problem is poor packages in Ubuntu. That is certainly the case with Kubuntu. I don't really borther messing with plain Ubuntu given how much I loathe Gnome.
The only area in which I'm more productive on a Windows machine is with Photoshop because I haven't bothered to learn how to use The Gimp. In almost every other area, I am vastly more productive on a Linux box.
I love how so many people assume that Linux is just some cute, hobby OS that is designed as a diversion as opposed to anything that someone might actually use for serious computing.
The fact of the matter is that Linux is not designed to be an embedded OS [..]
Why exactly is Linux running on my TV, on cell phones, on coffee machines, ATMs, kiosks, web servers smaller than my coffee mug, etc?
Oh wait, Linux has been a fantastic OS for embedded systems from day 1 because of how modular the kernel is.
Are you suggesting the Linux desktop isn't great on embedded devices? In that case, no desktop is perfect for embedded devices. However, every major desktop to market now has taken touchscreens in consideration for their UI. KDE 4 runs great on the Nokia n900.
Android was designed EXCLUSIVELY for small, embedded devices and works great.
I'm sorry, what exactly was your point again?
You need to be consistent when comparing apples to apples. People always say iPhone plans are more expensive than other phone plans, when they cost the same. You pay fees on all cell phone plans.
The iPhone 3G-S is $199 on a 2 year contract, and the 3G is $99 on a 2 year contract.
Anyone who paid $350 in cash for the phone is an idiot given that they could have purchased a brand new 3G-S for $200. If you brother turned down offers of $500+ to accept $350, then he isn't very good at math either.
Your math is still pretty suspect. Google up "iphone plans" and the very first result pulls up a $99 iPhone, but you continue to insist they cost $350.
The basic AT&T voice package is $40 per month. The data plan is $30 a month for unlimited bandwidth. I assumed the average person would want some text messages as well. 200 text messages is $5. The plan is $75 for voice, unlimited data, and 200 text messages.
I'm on a family plan with multiple data plans, and unlimited text messages for everyone in the family. I have mine on automatic bill pay, and I don't recall exactly how the taxes break down, but the taxes are industry standard.
Or perhaps the $99 iPhone that costs $75 a month for the service plan.
I'm not sure there ever was a a $350 iPhone. It was $600, then $400, then $200, and now there is a $99 model.
Bush never threatened France with anything. Find a quote or stop lying.
It was discovered that France was selling weapons illegally to Iraq for oil. One of these countries was in the wrong. I'll let you figure it out on your own.
Here is a great article on the Palestinian video.
http://internetscofflaw.com/2008/04/21/urban-legend-claims-palestinian-911-celebration-video-is-fake/
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.asp
Other news agencies claimed to have witnessed Palestine celebrating the attacks as well, but reporters were threatened when they attempted to photograph it.
I watched the video live, as well as replays of it. There are signs directly stating they are celebrating the death of Americans, and children were chanting "God loves us because he is killing Americans".
I can't see how Bush made the US a totalitarionist country. Congress still holds the bulk of power in this country. Obama didn't make us more of a democracy.
The only civil rights you've lost in the past 10 year were rights both parties voted on. Obama made it a huge part of his campaign to remove the domestic spying program, but then voted for FISA, and then extended the powers of the wiretap program the second he got into office.
Put down the Kool-Aid and don't attempt to spout the bullshit at me.
Poland actually deployed troops.
How were they not part of the coalition?
Anyone who suggests that the United States controls puppet governments has no clue what they're talking about. The United States has had their hands in regime changes, but many of those leaders have acted in direct opposition to American wishes.
People claimed for years that the United States had direct control over Iraq and Saddam because they helped place in power. Perhaps you don't pay any attention to Congress, where they routinely discuss how they want nothing to do with long-term nation building and control. It was a key point in approving troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that the citizens of those countries would have complete control in determining their future destiny.
The Afghani government was formed by the Northern Alliance, which existed for years before we went into Afghanistan. They held democratic elections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq
That is a list of 39 nations that actually deployed troops. There were other nations that offered logistical support, naval ships, etc. but did not deploy ground troops.
I can't prove a negative.
However, do yourself a favor and read the 9/11 Commission reports.
Come back to me with a direct quote where Bush said Saddam was directly connected to 9/11.
In fact, I'm currently reading through an archive of Bush's speeches on 9/11, and there is not one mention of Saddam.
Actually you're the one lying.
If you need surgery to live, you receive it whether you can pay for it or not. The hospitals are legally required to do so.
However, as my father-in-law works for the Department of Agriculture, he gets fantastic government coverage pay pays next to nothing for his surgeries, and for chemo.
DOS wasn't terrible.
And Gentoo was fun many moons ago.
TandyOS was pretty terrible.
Bankruptcy likely won't destroy your family.
That being said, if you're poor to begin with, and can't afford insurance, then you'll likely qualify for Medicaid/Medicare, and then the transplant is 100% free.
If you can't afford insurance, but somehow make too much for Medicaid/Medicare, then bankruptcy likely won't be that bad, since you're aren't wealthy, and won't lose much.
If you make enough money that you'll really lose with bankruptcy, you make enough money to purchase insurance in the first place.
The problem isn't that options don't exist for the poor. The problem is that insurance premiums are expensive. The real solution isn't a bigger handout, but rather finding ways to bring down the cost of insurance premiums.
It is very possible for large operations to be extremely efficient. Look at WalMart. However, nothing the US federal government does is remotely efficient. That is what terrifies me of government run healthcare in this country. I can't imagine it will be more efficient.
In the US, individual hospitals compete for your business, and it is big business. I believe that competition is healthy.
And if you need a heart transplant to live, but can't pay for, US hospitals are legally required to try and save your life. They can bankrupt you with the bill if you don't have insurance, but you still get the heart transplant.
I was up in Edmonton (Camrose actually) visiting relatives and they were talking to me about how all Americans were evil and bloodthirsty. We wanted to control the world, and then kill everyone. But Obama was the first American who didn't want to kill everyone, because he was the only American with morals.
They explained that is precisely what Canadian media had explained to them. I got a little ill.
I was also a little offended at all their anti-American rants, giving they were directly insulting me as an American. I was also shocked that they think a guy who votes fives times against "born alive" bills is the only American who respects life to be a massive joke.
My father-in-law is from Canada. They couldn't diagnose his brain cancer because they didn't have access to an MRI machine (I know they have more MRI machines today, but access to the best medical technology is still lacking in Canada). He came to the US, and they saved his life. He is a big fan of private health care, having directly experienced England and Canada's health care systems growing up.
I also find it interesting that many places in Canada are largely getting away from their "perfect" health care system, and adding more and more private options.
I never said might makes right.
The term illegal implies the US broke law. The US followed their own law for declaring war, and following international law as well given that the UN approved both actions.
I'm checking your links. You're first one suggests Osama Bin Laden isn't responsible for 9/11. Funny, because he admits to it and no one else has claimed responsibility. We have 9/11 conspirators who admitted to it in trial as well. You link claims there is no evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11.
The link also claims that no one in Afghanistan attacked the US, thusly the invasion was illegal. Afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban. Osama Bin Laden publicly admitted that he had formed a partnership with the Taliban. He performed multiple terrorist attacks against the United States while operating as a guest of the Taliban. Osama Bin Laden was indicted in US court, and the Taliban refused extradition.
You insist there is no proof, but even the UAE and Saudi cut diplomatic ties with the Taliban, and called for the Taliban to hand Osama Bin Laden over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
Again, the Taliban and Northern Alliance were in an existing civil war, both claiming rightful ownership of Afghanistan. NATO didn't attack Afghanistan. NATO attacked the Taliban. I think if you ask the Afghani government, they'll tell you that NATO liberated them.
Women are just beginning to have rights for the first time even in Afghanistan, thanks to deposing the Taliban.
Your second link seems to suggest that it isn't morally acceptable to go into Iraq, because it is an act of aggression. But it is morally acceptable to preemptively attack and sabotage military bases as an act of aggression, because you're worried they will eventually commit war crimes.
That is akin to pro-lifers killing doctors in the name of life.
You can't argue for and against preemptive aggression in the same breath. Regardless, the link only suggests the action is immoral.
It never says the courts for US action in Iraq to be illegal, because it wasn't illegal.
You can't escape the facts that the UN Security council did acknowledge the war as being legal and valid.
It is legal by every definition. That point isn't in contention. Arguing otherwise merely means you wish to ignore all facts.
If you wish to say you don't like the war, or you don't find it just, then go ahead. But again, you will likely do so in the face of a number of facts.
I also want to add that I'm not opposed to giving financial relief to foreign nations.
I think it is the right thing to do. I also agree that we should continue to give to nations if they need it, even if they don't seem to like us.
I think I would draw the line at giving money to Palestine, given that they refuse to show that they're using the money for food/medicine and not to build bombs and kill civilians. We could send over food/medicine packages as opposed to writing checks to Hamas.
I think Bush did largely ignore domestic issues on many fronts. And I don't believe that Bush was a great president by any stretch of the imagination. But he wasn't this horrible, evil, warmonger that people made him out to be either. In fact, immediately after 9/11, there was popular support to go into Iraq, because people assumed there was a connection there. Bush urged us not to rush into Iraq, saying there was no evidence of a connection. He urged diplomacy for another two years.
When diplomacy fails, and Bush says Iraq is part of the war on terror, people twist it to say Bush is lying and saying Saddam was directly linked to 9/11.
When Obama first started running, I liked him. I told friends he was my favorite candidate. But frankly I find myself liking him less and less all the time. I think the thing that really killed it for me was finding out he voted 5 times against a "born alive" bill.
I know people have differing opinions on abortions (especially at the different time frames) but when you kill babies that are born and survive outside the womb, you really fucking lose me there.
It should be noted, that one thing I really liked about Obama, was that he went across party lines to support things he believed in, even if it was unpopular. For instance, he called out Democrats in Congress for their weak bill, and supported Bush on a bill that would call for immediate and drastic increases in fuel economy from American car companies if we were going to give them money. Sadly, the much weaker bill passed, but few politicians seem to care about doing the right thing. They only care about making their party look good at the expense of the other party.
The only reason Flash is important is because it is so widely adopted.
In a scenario in which most web developers drop Flash, and Adobe abandons it, then how much does it matter that a third-party can't fork it and continue it?
We need more standards in the web. Forks hurt standards. In very specific scenarios (like Flash and Java) I think a "patch-only" system will protect against forks, while allowing for community development.
It certain beats a situation where Adobe ignores Linux users and community development is not possible. Compromise may be the only way to get Adobe to open up, and I'm all for that.
What exactly is your definition of an illegal war?
The UN Security Council said they would have voted against going into Iraq as a UN effort, but the vote never took place. Technically, the UN's cease-fire agreement said if Iraq did not fully comply, the cease-fire was null and void, and UN military action was authorized. The security council find Iraq in violation of the cease-fire some 75 times.
The US went into Iraq with the direct support of over 30 nations. When the coalition displaced Saddam, the UN officially recognized the US control of the nation as a soverign leadership in the UN before Iraq had its own government in place. In effect, the UN recognized the war as being legal and valid.
Congress voted for it, and the UN ended up approving it. How was that illegal?
Afghanistan was already in civil war before we got there. We supported the side that was ousting a terrorist regime who initiated military conflict with the US on 9/11. We remain in Afghanistan at the request of the Afghani government. The UN recognized this as valid as well. Congress voted for it.
Again, how are either of these illegal?
Please look up the definition of illegal and get back to me.