!5 Satans 'Orders' =bonus to || Firefox's EVOLUTION*
* IF that is NOT ALREADY CENSORED WORD from GOP BASTARDS)
God Less cuntree this is, and there is not cure for the RAGE of slaughtered ancestors
A History of Firefox: "Where Did IE7 Come From, Why and Who Cares?
(Score:5, Funny)
by RobertM1968 (951074) Alter Relationship on Monday February 06, @02:01PM (#14653511)
February 06, 2006
Where Did IE7 Come From, Why and Who Cares?
The story of Internet Explorer is long but yet lacking in detail or any real value. There are many perspectives. This is mine. IE was of course written by Spry and acquired by us at Microsoft.
Since then, we've added many new bugs (I mean features), security holes (err... features),
stolen and duplicated ideas (umm... innovations). Even more importantly, we added tons of
new code to work around things in the original Spry browser we didn't understand... tons...
and since bigger is better, that alone makes IE7 the best browser on the market.
IE7 keeps Windows users working twice as productively (doing System Restores and removing viruses)
on their machines - what other browser forces (I mean allows) a user to sit in front of their
computers doing (recovery and restore) work?
Such amazing new security ideas like sandbagging (umm.. sandboxing) IE will force IE to write
files and such to only the temp directories (though since so many viruses and spyware already
write themselves there and then execute this is another item our Marketing Department needs
to spin as an improvement).
All in all, our newest browser is bigger, (bloatier), (borrowed and outdated) feature rich and
far more (or less) secure!
Footnotes
1. Some people claimed we didn't create all the new innovations in IE7 like tabbed browsing,
but you need to remember that Time is relative. Besides, even though we were the last ones
to come out with these innovations, our amazing Marketing Team can still convince the world
we are first - we call it our 'Leading the Pack From the Rear' methodology.
2. 'How to Secure & Stabilize your browser(TM)', or 'The Mozil"
------------------$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
rude diversion: entire /. top-5s re: damn gop bastards and satans dictums
made by george WAR bush the slime from PRIMORDIAL "if" there EVER was ONE $$$ you damned $$$$ science-disbelieving pinheads $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$------
-------------------------------------
yes the guts have been spilt
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal!
(Score:5, Insightful)
Your point is reasonable, sane, mainstream and utterly feasible. However, your second point is absolutely wrong. You are making a common mistake among normal, respectable citizens. You believe that politicians are "nasty" and have a tendency to misbehave. A more realistic POV is that politicians are often "evil" and have a tendency to destroy all who oppose them.
I think Wilkerson's points are well taken. There are certain things that are constant in government, like taxes, war, power, secrets, money and lies. It doesn't really matter which party is in power. Sure, Republicans are a more obvious form of evil, but Democrats are much more subtle and insidious in power. Neither party is good for America. Both parties are corrupt.
Is it really so hard to believe that a group of wealthy businessmen, bankers and military types would conspire to "own" both parties so that no matter which way the public votes, they'll still be in power? That's not conspiracy-theory madness, that's just good business. Just look at the campaign contributions from the last few election cycles. Most major businesses & their leaders would give heavily to both parties. Why would you, as a businessman, want to piss off one of the parties? Doesn't it make sense to own both? Hell, politicians are cheap - you can rent-to-own for extremely low prices, like a couple hundred grand, but you can get back millions, if not billions of dollars in favorable legislation (tax breaks, pork, no-bid contracts, etc.). Let's not dance around the issues like we live in fantasyland: Corporate America owns the U.S. Government. They own both parties, less a few hardcore partisans and maybe a couple idealists.
You speak of crackpots, but I think you're the one dealing in crackpottery if you want me to believe that things are exactly as the (corporate) news media presents them. The truth is much more complex, and much uglier. Our politicians swear allegiance not to our liberties or the Constitution, but to the Almighty Dollar. Do they work together to keep their status/office? Of course: You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
You can call that a conspiracy. I call it business as usual.
Some good documentaries to check out if you want to look into how oil and the military industrial complex fits into all of this:
Why We Fight [imdb.com]
The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear [imdb.com]
This is what is truly damaging - those who should be helping the fight instead damage it by acting like crackpots. How do you expect to effect any change if unable to convince others?
Why should the truth be convenient or rational? Why does the truth have to fit inside mainstream political discourse? Why should we have to let the politicians frame the debate and define the terms? You're the one who's ruining the discourse by throwing around words like "crackpot" while doing nothing to refute the grandparent's original points. If you want to have a discussion, then by all means, let's. However, you should concentrate more on facts and reality than attacking others' viewpoints just because they don't fit into your narrow reality.
posted by USSSlavebation @ 2/07/2006 02:29:00 pm
0 comments
Welcome to the real world guys.
(Score:5, Insightful)Oct(31)=Dec(25)=> Halloween=Christmas => XMas is pagan festival=> God doesn't exist.
Re:Welcome to the real world guys.
(Score:5, Insightful)January 11 - Software Freedom Day
Re:Welcome to the real world guys.
(Score:5, Funny)Re:Welcome to the real world guys.
(Score:5, Interesting)Depends on how you define ineffective. Opium production came out of a slump after the attacks.
Seriously, I almost agree that the attack on Afghanistan could be deemed legitimate. I have no conflicting evidence.
Any person that can think and read that does not believe that the "War on Terror" and the Iraq war are made up is a moron. I flipped off Rumsfeld the other day while watching TV in a store. He was crying wolf again about the "War on Terror".
Just last week or so, a tunnel was discovered that went from Mexico to the US. It was 2400 feet long, had a cement floor, took over a year to build, and some chump got caught with 1 ton of Mexican swag.
Now, that was one operation. I forget the estimated tonnage of pot that comes from British Columbia every year (not much better than Mexican swag, but I digress). But its a bunch.
Oh, and sometimes people bring in tons of cocaine. And other stuff.
Now, how difficult would it be to replace the multi-ton cargo with say a few tons of explosives, poisons, or whatever nasty stuff a "terrorist" can think of? Zero.
The "War on Terror" is such a joke, that a few weeks ago, CNN broadcasted that there were "confirmed" bin Laden tapes saying that he was planning to attack the US or something. Read the disinformation here:
Read the rest of this comment...
Re:Welcome to the real world guys.
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://clamatius.blogspot.com/)
No, it'll be Iran if anyone.
N. Korea is effectively inviolate because any military action would result in about a zillion artillery rounds landing on Seoul [miis.edu]. 10+ million people live in Seoul. The mass carnage would never be tolerated and evacuation of the city is unfeasible.
Welcome to the American Political BiPolarity
(Score:5, Interesting)(http://ninesenatorsofshame.maclenet.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday October 05, @03:51AM)
The American Right increasingly uses the logic of non sequitur and ad hominen in their less than substantive attacks upon the left. Ironic, as well as a further indication of Contemporary Conservatism's continuing plunging fall into the abyss of moral relevance, which began in 1968 when Nixon played his "southern strategy", and openly courted the racist vote.
One ugly godawful thing to have done to the party of Lincoln.
Nixon won, and the GOP has never looked back. Now neoconivving trotskyites [antiwar.com] speak for contemporary conservatives, and self-confessed American traitors [frontpagemag.com] are welcomed with open arms in under the Big Circus Tent of Republican Inclusiveness, the party of nothing, for everybody.
Ever stop to think that maybe some people who wish to harm Americans are reacting self-defensively to previous Administrations' wrongful actions agai
Read the rest of this comment...
Re:Welcome to the real world guys.
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://wiki.ffii.org/SwpatcninoEn)
Always remember that everyone that dies had family and friends. And every disturbance to the social cohesion and structures takes away "civilisation" so to speak (just look at some of the things which happended in New Orleans after Katrina to see what happens if our thin layer of civilisation disappears because people are completely disoriented and desperate when their social structures and networks are gone or disfigured).
Maybe in some way everyone is a potential terrorist, but it takes a wh
Read the rest of this comment...
Re:Welcome to the real world guys.
(Score:5, Insightful)They don't have to. All they have to do is pay the guys who already have the smuggling apparatus in place to move their cargo.
Re:What difference does it make
(Score:5, Informative)(http://slashdot.org/~Doc%20Ruby/journal | Last Journal: Thursday March 31, @12:48PM)
I don't know what you remember, but the facts show there was a big difference.
--
make install -not war
Re:Some statements that helped start the Iraq war
(Score:5, Insightful)that isn't to say that some dems didn't speak of WMD programs in iraq after then, but just realize that using those statements from 1998 is about as disingenuous as using quotes from 1945 to 'prove' that the democrats thought germany was a threat to the US in 1973.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
Marked?
(Score:5, Insightful)The Hills are Alive With the Sound of Gunfire
(Score:5, Interesting)(Last Journal: Tuesday February 07, @05:22AM)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 - June 21, 1940), nicknamed "the fighting Quaker" and "Old Gimlet Eye," was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps and, at the time of his death, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. Butler was awarded the Medal of Honor twice during his career, one of only 19 people to be so decorated. He was noted for his outspoken left-wing views and his book War is a Racket [veteransforpeace.org], one of the first works describing the military-industrial complex. After retiring from service, Butler became a popular speaker at meetings organized by veterans, communists, pacifists and church groups in the 1930s. Butler came forward to the U.S. Congress in 1934 to report that a proposed coup had been plotted by wealthy industrialists to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Read the rest of this comment...
Re:Marked?
(Score:5, Funny)Did you miss the memo? A true American holds only one opinion on any subject. Holding multiple opinions, or recognising the complexity of any issue, is "flip-flopping", and only weak men and terrorists do that. People have lost elections for less.
Re:Marked?
(Score:5, Interesting)Give the man credit for speaking out once he found out that the system was broken. He makes a very strong argument against the way the Bush administration works.
Re:Look a little deeper
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://www.artboy.org/)
You've conflated two completely separate concepts and somehow imagine you've had a "point" made.
The motivation for an act says nothing about the actual (or even just perceived) results. We can invade Iraq for oil, and wind up even worse off than before. That the result of our actions didn't match our desires doesn't retroactively change our motivation. That your professor doesn't believe it was "worth it" has no bearing on the motivation either, it's a statement of his opinion on the cost/benefit analysis.
I don't know where you were in 2002, but the war WE were all sold was to be a few months long, we were to be greeted as liberators, and within a year Iraq's oil sales would pay us back every penny for the cost. Either they were lying or they were just as absolutely wrong as any human can be about something. Neither speaks highly of their capabilities for leadership, but their complete failure/deception is the reason we've seen little benefit. Had they accomplished what they intended/sold, we would have seen many clear benefits, both in increased oil production/market availability and greater political influence at zero direct financial cost, as it would all be subsidized by another country's oil s
Read the rest of this comment...
Re:Marked?
(Score:5, Funny)(Last Journal: Monday March 31, @01:01PM)
They used a radio button in the GUI.
Re:Disgruntled
(Score:5, Insightful)Seriously.
Possibly, but not every 06 gets their star and it's pretty clear real quickly if you will or will not. Most are neither bitter nor disgruntled - they've had fine careers; reached a level above the "done a good job" retiremnet point (i.e. LT Col or 05); and really acre about the Army (as an instituion) and it's Soldiers.
The telling point was how White and Shinseki were brushed aside because they didn't toe the line and had teh balls to say what they thought it would take to invade and occupy Iraq (every time I heard Rumsfeld talk about how several hundered thosuand was 200k not 300k it reminded me of Clinton's "that depends on what your definition of is is" defence.); it was equally telling how the Army had to go to a retired General to get a new Chief of Staff - a job that any GO would give their right nut or ovary for and the Vice Chief turns them down and umor had it so did several other GOs.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
This isn't just about the Bush cabal!
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://www.unanimocracy.com/ | Last Journal: Monday January 09, @09:55PM)
I strongly believe that the true case for war was to keep the petrodollar in power. I also believe that almost every war and military action we've been involved in since 1913 has been primarily for control of the global currency base, not for oil or trade or communism or any of the usual suspects.
Iran's current oil bourse theories came along just before the power party started beating the war drums against Iraq. I posted today the link to the Cheuvreux Report [gata.org] that reconfirms my crazy tinfoil hat theories about the control of the dollar, and this time from a huge international investment bank. War is the health of the State, said Randolph Bourne. For millenia, war was always about directly controlling others. Yet in the recent centuries, war has been about controlling others indirectly -- by controlling the means of barter between people.
No matter what Bush or Rice or Clinton or Nixon or Kennedy have said, hindsight lets us see what they were really about -- making sure t
Read the rest of this comment...
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal!
(Score:5, Funny)(Last Journal: Wednesday January 18, @06:36AM)
Triple negative! Followed by postfix conjugation!! That's like 1,000,000,000 Grammar nazi points!!!!
May the Maths Be with you!
Re:This isn't just about the Bush cabal!
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://www.timoregan.com/)
Your point is reasonable, sane, mainstream and utterly feasible. However, your second point is absolutely wrong. You are making a common mistake among normal, respectable citizens. You believe that politicians are "nasty" and have a tendency to misbehave. A more realistic POV is that politicians are often "evil" and have a tendency to destroy all who oppose them.
I think Wilkerson's points are well taken. There are certain things that are constant in government, like taxes, war, power, secrets, money and lies. It doesn't really matter which party is in power. Sure, Republicans are a more obvious form of evil, but Democrats are much more subtle and insidious in power. Neither party is good for America. Both parties are corrupt.
Is it really so hard to believe that a group of wealthy businessmen, bankers and military types would conspire to "own" both parties so that no matter which way the public votes, they'll still be in power? That's not conspiracy-theory madness, that's just good business. Just look at the campaign contributions from the last few election cycles. Most major businesses & their leaders would give heavily to both parties. Why would you, as a businessman, want to piss off one of the parties? Doesn't it make sense to own both? Hell, politicians are cheap - you can
Read the rest of this comment...
Fourth estate?
(Score:5, Insightful)(Last Journal: Tuesday October 14, @12:25AM)
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
Re:Fourth estate?
(Score:5, Insightful)The parent exposes a point beyond political leanings. It makes sense. It's not about left or right rather, it is about demographics and ratings. The "news" are packaged to a demographic that interests advertisers, the so called 18-35 male audience. This is a tough crowd to attract given the variety of "entertainment" options available. In order to "sell" the news, it must be made entertaining and easy to consume. The antithesis of well researched investigative reporting.
If you bring a piece of information that makes one side or the other "bad", you are making half of your audience to reach for the remote. That's bad for ratings. Instead you bring two people of opposing views and let them talk about without ever reaching a conclusion.
This is not news.
(Score:5, Insightful)(Last Journal: Friday July 04, @07:23AM)
War is almost always a hoax, and war other than in self-defense always is.
The only just reason for war is because the alternative would be even worse - that by not going to war we would have doomed even more people to slavery or death. That is almost never the case.
It clearly was not the case here, even if every allegation made against Hussein had been true, although most of them were not. The hypothetical murder of some relatively small number (hundreds or thousands) of people, via a terrorist attack Hussein had little reason and less ability to commit, would not justify the actual murder of hundreds of thousands or millions (keep in mind the long-term effects of depleted uranium, not just on Iraqis, but on US forces as well).
This war and the mindless support US citizens have given it will go down as one of the greatest crimes of modern history, and those who knowingly support it deserve at least as bad as what is coming to them, and probably worse.
But, as is almost always true of almost every war, the innocent - including those in the US - will suffer far, far more.
That of course is one of the many good reasons not to start one.
Nonaggression works! [ruwart.com]
But Tonight on Fox...
(Score:5, Funny)Yeah, but Fox is slanted.
Wait, I thought it was PBS that was slanted.
Hillary's moving to the right!!
But Condi's a snappier dresser.
Act before midnight tonight, and we'll throw in a debate on global warming!
Step Right Up! Choose yer channel, make yer choice!
(Get away from me, Mod, ya bother me...)
Poor Colin Powell
(Score:5, Insightful)(Last Journal: Tuesday December 06, @01:10AM)
He should have either run for President or gotten out after Clinton and not come back.
Bush & Cheney took all the credibility he had built up and wasted it by sending him to the U.N. to tell fairytales.
You can read the speech here [cnn.com] but it isn't really worth doing, as so many of the facts provided in that speech have been proven false and were apparently known to be false at the time the speech was given.
o0t!
Re: Poor Colin Powell
(Score:5, Insightful)I detest him for not having the moral fiber to resign.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re: Poor Colin Powell
(Score:5, Insightful)Inside, he proved nearly ineffective ungainst the Rumsfield/Cheney "cabal". By resigning, he would have cast an extremely bright light on the shadowy claims of Bush & co, he would have staked out a clear place for Republicans who don't blindly follow the party line, and he would have been an extremely popular presidential candidate, should he have chosen to run,
It's true.
(Score:5, Funny)He didn't *know* it was a hoax... apparently.
(Score:5, Insightful)I suspect this would be the likely defense if there *were* an investigation (which I don't expect) - "It wasn't *me* - I had no idea!"
The part that I find to be *more* damning is where he lists the items that the "intelligence community" *failed* to predict - fall of the Soviet Union, etc. The implication seems to be that the entire system is so flawed that preventing "hoaxes" like this in future will be difficult because it's almost impossible to know what is and is not true and whether or not you have all the data.
He's able to label the Iraq situation as a hoax only in *hindsight*, as he examines data not available to him at the time. This seems similar to the analyses done after 9/11 where there were suggestions (again, in hindsight) that the "intelligence community" should have known and been able to prevent 9/11 from happening. Hindsight's 20/20, after all...
Have fun,
Nathan 'Nato' Uno
http://web.unos.net/ [unos.net]
Lack of responsibility
(Score:5, Interesting)We need some sort of accountability system that would force politicians to pay for their mistakes. Require them to publicly estimate cost of war and take all outstanding costs from their personal bank accounts. Wolfowitz estimated war to cost around half a billion, and so far we ended up with more than $200 billion (yes, two hundreen billion US dollars) of extra costs. If Bush & Co were forced to pay all outstanding costs, they would've estimated the cost of war honestly, and people wouldn't be misled into supporting war.
Same thing for human cost. Require pro-war politicians to gather signatures. It's way too easy to say "I support a war" while sitting at home in front of TV. Make a law that starting a war would require million or so legally binding signatures from people to cover in case we run out of troops. There's always so many vocal pro-war supporters, but when it comes to actually fighting the war we always seem to run out of people. Make war supporters actually carry the cost of war, and they will actuall
Read the rest of this comment...
Re:Lack of responsibility
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://alieninsurance.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 31, @04:12PM)
You are insinuating the rest of the world thought Iraq had WMDs. Most of the rest of the world did not believe Iraq had WMDs. Bush was, in fact, going against the world's opinion, not with the world's opinion. According to UN inspectors, Iraq could not have significant amounts of WMDs, nor could they have concealed WMD development programs.
These findings were verified by US inspectors after the initial phase of the war.
How many Iraqis have been saved from torture, mutilation, and rape?
Less than have died as a direct result of the war. Much fewer than those that have been mutilated as a direct result of the war. Seems we carried on the use of torture.
You're probably right about the rapes, though.
If our goal is to stop state-sanctioned torture, mutilation, and rape, why aren't we in Sudan right this minute? More people are being killed there than have ever died by Saddam Hussein's orders.
Were you oppsed (sic) to Clinton's actions in Kosovo/
At the time? Yes. But he at least had UN backing. As it turned out, we were really fighting al Queda there, unlike in Iraq which was known to be antagonistic towards al Que
Read the rest of this comment...
The right war for the wrong reasons
(Score:5, Insightful)I can't really speak to what the Bush administrations true motives were. I suspect, that, mostly, Bush did think that Saddam Hussein was a growing threat to the US and the Western World, and didn't want to give him any chance to acquire any more WMD than he had. Maybe they sexed up the intelligence (which, btw, if they did do, I don't condone).
Why do I feel this was the right war? Perhaps my limited knowledge of history is incorrect, but, it is my current understanding that Europe and the US have played 'chess' with the Middle East for most of the 20th century, and that, to a large extent, Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq because earlier administrations had propped him up. The U.S. has, purportedly, done some very bad things in the region, including: Iran had, at one time, a democratic government. The CIA apparently helped overthrow the democratic government and install a dictator (I don't know that he was a *bad* dictator per se, but still), which lead to the Iranian revolution which installed the current Theocracy we all know and love. It my understanding that the US then propped up Saddam Hussein as a sort of first-line-of-defense against Iran.
Read the rest of this comment...
Very, very interesting
(Score:5, Insightful)(Last Journal: Thursday February 02, @01:17PM)
Having said all that, it's becoming more and more worrisome to me the degree to which the administration apparently ignored or possibly fabricated evidence. I remember saying at the time that it was a fool's errand to use WMD and/or terrorism as the reason to go to war, and that it seemed more like slick marketing than actual strategery. We had plenty of reasons to go in, and none of them had anything to do with WMDs or terrorism. Like the fact that the Iraqi forces habitually fired on US and UK aircraft patrolling the UN mandated No Fly Zones (considering that just prior to the war, I was working in the Turkish command center that controlled the Northern No Fly Zone and had friends and, literally, family flying over Iraq, yeah, I kinda took it personally).
But apparently someone, somewhere, decided that overt acts of aggression in violation of a cease-fire agreement weren't sufficient reason to justify reopening
Read the rest of this comment...
Re:Very, very interesting
(Score:5, Interesting)(Last Journal: Monday February 04, @02:31PM)
First, and with respect to your service, impugning the character of Jack Murtha is beneath you. It's little better than when "Mean" Jean Schmidt did so on the house floor, and is disrespectful of the Representative's service and, even more importantly, his dedication to the well-being of our troops.
Second, you mischaracterize Rep. Murtha's proposal. Should you care to read it, it's available here. It calls for large-scale redeployment at "the earliest practicable date," which Murtha has in the past estimated as requiring about six months. This is hardly equivalent to "leaving right now." [loc.gov]
Third: rather than debate the "immediacy" of the representatives plan, many supporters of the administration have chosen to take issue with the notion of an "artificial timetable." Obviously you're free to agree or disagree with the idea, but keep in mind that a sizeable portion of the Iraqi National Assembly recently released a statement in which they called for that very timetable. Even more recently, they repeated that demand:
Read the rest of this comment...
It's Still Happening
(Score:5, Interesting)Here are some current "facts" from the Bush administration that are being accepted without question by the media and most of the US population:
If we withdraw from Iraq the terrorists will win.
This statement seems to imply that unless the USA maintains 100,000+ troops in Iraq for many years then the insurgents will overrun Iraq and set up Bin Laden as a dictator of Iraq. This is obviously false at a number of levels. At a most basic level, the insurgents lack the capability to defeat the Shiite militias. In the broader picture, even if the USA sets up a stable democracy after many year of occupation, there is no guarantee that the Iraqi people will not elect a government with strong ties to organizations that the USA considers to be terrorist organizations. Whether it is a good idea for the USA to maintain substantial trooop levels in Iraq for many years to come is unclear without substantial impartial detailed study. If these studies have been done at all, the results have certainly not been presented to the American people. Instead, we are merely given some simplistic message about how th
Read the rest of this comment...
That's a pretty good hoax then
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://slashdot.org/)
In another news story today...
(Score:5, Insightful)Re:Yawn...
(Score:5, Funny)(http://elgoog.rb-hosting.de/)
Re:Old News
(Score:5, Interesting)Would you personally be willing to die to "stay the course"? Would you ask your children to die for this cause? You're assuming that we can win the war in Iraq. If we can't win, then letting more of our bravest and most patriotic citizens die needlessly is equivalent to murdering them.
If anyone in this administration, including the president, lied or ignored evidence in order to push this war on the people, then they should be executed for treason.