• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

112 Neutral

About Kadesh

  • Rank
  1. why linux?

    Windows pro - "Everyone" knows it - wide range of native games - tech support will never say "we don't support Linux" con - the system seems hidden, you have to dig for details that may or may not be there - no control Linux pro - made by programmers for programmers. you can't escape it - most flexible mainstream OS you'll find - nothing is ever hidden, there is always an answer to "why is it doing that?" - OS lives on the network like a fish lives in water. You'll be amazed. con - you're expected to know wtf you're doing - steep learning curve (think years) - zealots reflect poorly on you - few native games. WineX is hit or miss with 3D stuff. Non-3D games can probably be played easily under WMWare or WINE.
  2. 2 computers but only 1 keyboard, mouse, etc

    It's called XDM to host. Running an X server locally (on Windows) and running X clients on the Linux machine that connect over the network back to Windows. GDM has the most brain dead setup for it I've seen. It's a single check box in gdm-config (or whatever). Things will be running over the network so anything that has it's performance described in FPS is a non-starter. Also, XFree86/Cygwin has a "rootless" option that won't use a giant 1600x1200 "X Server Window". Stuff will appear just like native windows and dialogs. There are some performance considerations to this stuff though and I think a KVM would be the best solution. Just for some alternatives, there's probably half a dozen ways to get remote Linux X apps running on a local X server. SSH (including Putty) can forward X apps through the SSH tunnel. You can "xhost +windowsmachine" and set $DISPLAY. Then there's the mess known as X cookies. The list goes on. The great thing about Linux is that it's a very malleable system and can get as simple or as complicated as you want.
  3. Quote:Original post by Spoonster Well, it's accurate. You didn't seem too bothered with Iraqi lives, *and* you believe it's about freedom. He's got you coming and going there. If you're serious about this, I believe you've violated some of the posting guidelines. Perhaps you should be more careful before you troll. Quote:By turning a dictatorship into a permanent warzone, by getting condemned by the population and the entire islamic world. By censoring local media and doing nothing for the civilians for a year or more. By turning over the reconstruction to a group of corporations who are only interested in profits, and then tell them to go make money off the country? By invading a country without international support. And by refusing to let anyone more competent get a hand in the reconstruction. Permanent? No. Not unless the EU gets its way and the US pulls out leaving it in ruins. The "entire Islamic world" is the same region that declares jihad on us monthly and if by "international support" you mean EU countries that were exploiting UN oil for food programs along with the smaller countries too weak to oppose them, well hell yeah. Also, you're right. We should turn reconstruction over to Joe's Construction Co. down on Main St., right? Rebuilding a country requires a hell of a lot of resources and capital. I'd like to see your plan for reconstruction that doesn't involve corporations. Oh and "competent"? You mean biased and wanting in now that the hard part is done? Quote:The aggressors could pay it? The country who claims to want to help Iraq could do just that, help the country heal, instead oh helping it tear itself apart. Oh sure, the US could pay for it straight out of pocket. And by the time Iraq is a first world country, we'll be celebrating the next millenium. Quote:What you're saying is that it's okay to topple an oppressive, dictatorship and then tell them that now you've done your heroic job, it will need to be a united effort of both the US and Iraq's resources to pay for the repairing the damage caused by years of abuse by an uncaring regime. You did all this for the world, no doubt about that. I'm sure that in years to come, the Arab rebels who engaged in combat in populated areas causing thousands of civilian deaths will be looked upon with proper disgust. Fixed that for ya. Quote:The government still doesn't have actual control over their country, they don't represent the country properly (because the US didn't like certain population groups), the roadmap for reconstruction wouldn't satisfy anyone who's looked at it. Because everyone really expected them to be able to click their fingers and instantly unite all the different factions in Iraq. And rebuilding Iraq would be so much easier if we invited in all the groups that want to see us dead rather than let us lift a finger to help.
  4. Quote:Original post by Spoonster Quote:One has someone claiming, with absolutely no evidence, that she was shot at by American "snipers" in US controlled territory. That alone makes no sense. Why are Americans hiding in their own territory shooting randomly? Shouldn't snipers be, ya know, out in enemy territory, sniping enemies. Errr... Maybe because there's no really safe places in Iraq? Maybe because if they didn't have any snipers in the "US controlled" areas, they wouldn't be US controlled? In fact, I'd be surprised to see many snipers in disputed areas.YOu dont want to lie around alone there with no backup near. Thats where you have lots of troops walking around shooting, not many snipers. So, it makes perfect sense, I think. Now, if America was really the heroic saviors, she wouldn't "make up" a story about being shot at by them, would she? What you're saying is that because she doesn't have any evidence, it can't have happened. How about the alternative? The US doesn't have any evidence it didn't happen. And because in the movie they, as you say, "are indeed holding guns or at least something in their hands", they should be shot? Where's the crime in holding "something" in your hands? I dont see whats so crappy about this evidence. How about the 4,300 dead civilians one? The one about the wedding? (That one is old though) What more do you need? Is this "crappy evidence"? Doesn't it matter? If you don't care about that, it's simply disgusting. As for John Kerry and Vietnam, I fail to see what that has to do with anything. What he did may or may not have been wrong, but it has absolutely no bearing on Iraq. You're saying that because Kerry once shot a Vietnamese, and the woman getting shot at didn't have any evidence, she must be lying, and 4,300 dead civilians doesn't matter? Excuse me while I'm sick. This is a perfect example of the anti-US faction putting words in people's mouths. We're all either barbarians or clueless idiots, right? I mean, I'm for the war in Iraq so I must be cheering the deaths of all those "ragheads", right? Yeah, the more of them that die off make room for American megacorporations to move in and steal all that oil while Iraqis sit in squalid huts without even running water. Right? Reread the damn post. Then make a sensible argument. I'll just ignore this one for now unless you really want me to rip it to shreds.
  5. Quote:Original post by Yann L flangazor: thanks :) You know, even though I might come off as blatantly anti-American, I'm not. I'm sure that many Americans, even those that support the Iraq war, do so for genuinely noble motives. They believe that the Iraq war will free and help a population that was formerly oppressed by an evil dictator. They also believe that this war will make the world more safe from terrorism. I respect those feelings. But unfortunetaly, they are based on an illusion, an illusion carefully constructed by very well crafted propaganda. I blame it on the lack of unbiased information available in the US media, and also on the fact that many Americans don't care about other cultures, being too egocentrical. But the largest blame is on the Bush administration. It's disgusting to see how the feelings of the general population are being exploited by the means of patriotism and fear, in order to disguise the administrations criminal intentions and corporate agendas as noble and humanist goals. But I just cannot stand two types of individuals, regardless of their nationality: those that value life differently based on origin, and those that seem to suffer cognitive dissonance as soon as they are presented with facts they cannot refute. Especially the former ones make me go wild: while 9/11 was seen as a horrible criminal attack on civilian lives (and it surely was), the innocently murdered civilians in Iraq are just being wiped away with the back of their hands, "oh yeah, well, people die in wars". Yes, people die in wars. And 9/11 was an act of war, although not from Iraq. You suffered civilian casualties, and we were all shocked about this. But please value the life of the Afghan and Iraqi victims just as high as the ones of your own. An Afghan or Iraqi life is just as worthy as an American life - not more, and not less. This must be the most geniunely insulting post of this whole thread. Executive summary: "Anyone supporting the US in Iraq is either a racist biggot who cares nothing for Iraqi lives or a misguided fool who mistakenly believes it's actually about freedom." As for the rest of your statements, you haven't provided any evidence. Would an independent Arab democracy in the ME promote or discourage peace, cooperation with Western powers, and terrorism? How is the US preventing the reconstruction of Iraq? How do you propose that Iraq pay for its brand new infrastructure? Where are average-Joe US supporters cheering the deaths of Iraqi civilians? Where did you learn to see the future and know that the US will never let Iraq standalone despite evidence to the contrary (new Iraqi government, the hand over, roadmap for reconstruction)?
  6. Quote:Original post by flangazor I'm not interested in taking any sides. Just wanted to do some legwork for Yann et al. Americans bombing journalists Americans bomb Iraqi wedding Americans bomb Afghani wedding 4,300 Iraqi civilians killed from 19 March through the end of April (a month and a half) Falluja siege; 271 civilians killed up until April -locals say up to 600 civilians Gunship shooting Iraqi soldiers; "At no point in the video can we see any weapons in the hands of the Iraqis." Video of Marine killing injurded Iraqi insurgent -Real Video (which I cannot view, so I cannot comment on) Uhh, did you read those articles at all? One has someone claiming, with absolutely no evidence, that she was shot at by American "snipers" in US controlled territory. That alone makes no sense. Why are Americans hiding in their own territory shooting randomly? Shouldn't snipers be, ya know, out in enemy territory, sniping enemies. Another was a friendly fire incident between US forces and US forces. I don't see what your point is here. Friendly fire, regrettably, happens sometimes. The gunship video is absurd. The poster alone says he doesn't know how to interpret IR videos AND there is no background or context to the video. My own amteur interpretation of the video, from watchin how their outreached arms swing in synch as they run, is that they are indeed holding guns or at least something in their hands. I think this is just digging and hoping that people just assume the US troops are firing at innocent Iraqis. The "marine shooting injured Iraqi" now has a small, almost forced disclaimer saying comments, background, and the movie itself may have been taken out of context. Regardless, John Kerry shot a wounded Vietnamese in the back and you're suggesting that we should all vote for him. This is pretty crappy evidence if this is all you can muster.