Firefox doesn't ask which serach engine to use, why should IE. IE needs a default search engine or users will think the search field is broken. Why would MS default to another companys serach engine. MS can't vouch for anyone elses serach engine except for their own. If google goes bust, then IE is stuck with a page can't be displayed search result. Google probably won't go bust, but you never know; remember enron.
By the way, I use IE 7 since the first beta release and haven't had a single crash or problem with any page yet. My only complaint is I can't move the stop button next to the back and forward buttons.
The de facto situation is that MS is making people use MSN because it's bundled with the browser, not because it's better
Well microsoft probably thinks their search engine is better and is defaulting their search bar to the better search engine. If you don't think its the best, you can change it. If they set the search bar to nobodys search engine by default, people would think the search bar was broken. They need to set a default search engine, why would they use the competition's by default instead of their own. They cannot vouch for the competitions search engine, so they use theirs instead. This will die before it gets to court, google has no case.
I tried firefox for a day and hated it. It loads so slow. Tabbed browsing was nice, but I'll be sticking with IE. Why does everyone on slash dot complain abot popups and virus, you people are supposed to be geeks, can't you figure out how to protect your systems. All thats needed is virus protection software and common sense; don't click the add that promises a larger penis ect. I have never had a virus using IE, popups went away when xp sp2 included one, guess what, no more pop ups. Ever try to use OWA on firefox, or any other browser. Windows computers havn't crashed since windows ME.
I am in favor of boycotting google. The comply with the chineese government to sensor their content. They won't comply with the US government to hand over information about child pornographers. Where are their morals? Maybe the founder is in his small apartment looking at 3 year old children masturbate, and he doesn't want the government to know.
Well, this was one of the longest Windows bashing threads I have ever read. Mac and linux have been out for years, but they still can't touch MS in desktop use. I have been forced to support Mac's at the university I work at, and everyone who works in support curses and hates mac's. You can't find any info on the net to fix the daily probelms that occur with them. We also have apple support, who haven't a clue how to fix anything. When we call in with a problem, if there is any software installed besides the mac os they say sorry we can't supoort it because we don't know what you installed. Why would anyone use a mac other than its pretty monitors. If you keep virus protection and windows updates up to date, windows can't be beat. I haven't had a virus or crash on a pc since windows 98. Alot has changed since then. Come back to windows people, the rest of the world uses it, there must be a reason.
Let's addres what the president is getting away with. During war time, the president is using a computer system to monitor for code words between a suspected terrorist in a foreign country and someone in this country. When the code word is heard, a human listens in on the call to determine if either party is a threat to national security. If you are not talking with a terrorist in a foreign country, why worry. There are a million what if's - what if he spys on democrats like nixon did ect. That isn't happening, and if it did, then what he is doing is illegal because it doesn't affect our national security. If we weren't in a time of war, what he is doing would be illegal. I would expect any president to do this during war time, even Hillary. If she didn't she would not be doing her job of protecting america.
When you say bush lied before, what are you talking about. WMD - he never lied about, the info from the clinton admin was wrong and every other country around the world. Wrong info doesn't = lying. If what you proposed happens, then it would be illegal, since it doesn't pertain to national security. You could come up with a million what if's, but unless it happens, why jump to conclusions.
On December 16, 2005, The New York Times printed a story that, under White House pressure and on the authority of an executive order from President George W. Bush, the National Security Agency had been conducting warrantless phone-taps on people in the U.S. calling people outside of the country, in an attempt to combat terrorism. [2]
Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.
The above is from wikipedia; about the original NY Times report. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surve illance_controversy#The_New_York_Times_reports
Warants are still needed when both parties are in the US. Like I said, if you are not a suspected terrorist and are not calling suspected terrorist outside the country, you don't need to worry.
They could get a warrant if they knew who all the terrorists are, but they don't. So they monitor for certain code words during international calls from suspected terrorists, and if they find one, humans listen in on the conversation to see if it poses any threat. It would be a waste of time and impossible to get a warrant each time they heard one of the code words. Don't let your hatered of Bush get in the way of the truth and of common sense.
"For instance, I can't count how many times I heard Bush say "the U.S. does not torture.""
That depends on what your definition of torture is???
Taking embarasing photos of prisoners, which the US did. Or electric shock and drilling peoples ear drums with an power drill, which is what Sadam did. Which is torture, maybe both, but I'd rather be in US detention than Sadam's.
Wake up Jack ass, if you don't think there is a problem with terrorist blowing up people all over the world, start reading something other than slashdot. Get your head out the sand and your own ass. Impeach the president for protecting america from attacks, huh???? The american people elected him and would again if the elections were held today.
No one except a few liberals\dems think the president broke the law, and if it is breaking the law, then the laws will be changed; as sugested by the dems themselves. Monitoring terrorist phone calls to people in the US during a war is just common sense you idiot. Go join the Talaban.
So, they are saying that if I leave my bike outside on my lawn unlocked, and it gets stolen, the person who stole it isn't guilty. That would make me guilty for leaving it unlocked. Hmmmm, Got to love that logic.
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox doesn't ask which serach engine to use, why should IE. IE needs a default search engine or users will think the search field is broken. Why would MS default to another companys serach engine. MS can't vouch for anyone elses serach engine except for their own. If google goes bust, then IE is stuck with a page can't be displayed search result. Google probably won't go bust, but you never know; remember enron. By the way, I use IE 7 since the first beta release and haven't had a single crash or problem with any page yet. My only complaint is I can't move the stop button next to the back and forward buttons.
The de facto situation is that MS is making people use MSN because it's bundled with the browser, not because it's better Well microsoft probably thinks their search engine is better and is defaulting their search bar to the better search engine. If you don't think its the best, you can change it. If they set the search bar to nobodys search engine by default, people would think the search bar was broken. They need to set a default search engine, why would they use the competition's by default instead of their own. They cannot vouch for the competitions search engine, so they use theirs instead. This will die before it gets to court, google has no case.
I tried firefox for a day and hated it. It loads so slow. Tabbed browsing was nice, but I'll be sticking with IE. Why does everyone on slash dot complain abot popups and virus, you people are supposed to be geeks, can't you figure out how to protect your systems. All thats needed is virus protection software and common sense; don't click the add that promises a larger penis ect. I have never had a virus using IE, popups went away when xp sp2 included one, guess what, no more pop ups. Ever try to use OWA on firefox, or any other browser. Windows computers havn't crashed since windows ME.
I am in favor of boycotting google. The comply with the chineese government to sensor their content. They won't comply with the US government to hand over information about child pornographers. Where are their morals? Maybe the founder is in his small apartment looking at 3 year old children masturbate, and he doesn't want the government to know.
Well, this was one of the longest Windows bashing threads I have ever read. Mac and linux have been out for years, but they still can't touch MS in desktop use. I have been forced to support Mac's at the university I work at, and everyone who works in support curses and hates mac's. You can't find any info on the net to fix the daily probelms that occur with them. We also have apple support, who haven't a clue how to fix anything. When we call in with a problem, if there is any software installed besides the mac os they say sorry we can't supoort it because we don't know what you installed. Why would anyone use a mac other than its pretty monitors. If you keep virus protection and windows updates up to date, windows can't be beat. I haven't had a virus or crash on a pc since windows 98. Alot has changed since then. Come back to windows people, the rest of the world uses it, there must be a reason.
Let's addres what the president is getting away with. During war time, the president is using a computer system to monitor for code words between a suspected terrorist in a foreign country and someone in this country. When the code word is heard, a human listens in on the call to determine if either party is a threat to national security. If you are not talking with a terrorist in a foreign country, why worry. There are a million what if's - what if he spys on democrats like nixon did ect. That isn't happening, and if it did, then what he is doing is illegal because it doesn't affect our national security. If we weren't in a time of war, what he is doing would be illegal. I would expect any president to do this during war time, even Hillary. If she didn't she would not be doing her job of protecting america.
When you say bush lied before, what are you talking about. WMD - he never lied about, the info from the clinton admin was wrong and every other country around the world. Wrong info doesn't = lying. If what you proposed happens, then it would be illegal, since it doesn't pertain to national security. You could come up with a million what if's, but unless it happens, why jump to conclusions.
On December 16, 2005, The New York Times printed a story that, under White House pressure and on the authority of an executive order from President George W. Bush, the National Security Agency had been conducting warrantless phone-taps on people in the U.S. calling people outside of the country, in an attempt to combat terrorism. [2] Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications. The above is from wikipedia; about the original NY Times report. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surve illance_controversy#The_New_York_Times_reports
Warants are still needed when both parties are in the US. Like I said, if you are not a suspected terrorist and are not calling suspected terrorist outside the country, you don't need to worry.
They could get a warrant if they knew who all the terrorists are, but they don't. So they monitor for certain code words during international calls from suspected terrorists, and if they find one, humans listen in on the conversation to see if it poses any threat. It would be a waste of time and impossible to get a warrant each time they heard one of the code words. Don't let your hatered of Bush get in the way of the truth and of common sense.
Do you talk with Terrorist in the middle east on the phone? If not, don't worry, no ones listening to your calls.
"For instance, I can't count how many times I heard Bush say "the U.S. does not torture."" That depends on what your definition of torture is??? Taking embarasing photos of prisoners, which the US did. Or electric shock and drilling peoples ear drums with an power drill, which is what Sadam did. Which is torture, maybe both, but I'd rather be in US detention than Sadam's.
Wake up Jack ass, if you don't think there is a problem with terrorist blowing up people all over the world, start reading something other than slashdot. Get your head out the sand and your own ass. Impeach the president for protecting america from attacks, huh???? The american people elected him and would again if the elections were held today. No one except a few liberals\dems think the president broke the law, and if it is breaking the law, then the laws will be changed; as sugested by the dems themselves. Monitoring terrorist phone calls to people in the US during a war is just common sense you idiot. Go join the Talaban.
So, they are saying that if I leave my bike outside on my lawn unlocked, and it gets stolen, the person who stole it isn't guilty. That would make me guilty for leaving it unlocked. Hmmmm, Got to love that logic.