Windows Vista and MS Paint accessory

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Does Windows Vista ship with MS Paint as an included accessory? Thanks for
your prompt reply.
 
kj said:
Does Windows Vista ship with MS Paint as an included accessory? Thanks for
your prompt reply.
Click to expand...


Yes it does:

Start > All Programs > Accessories > Paint

Saucy
 
Yes. It looks just slightly different with the color pallete now being on
top and the tools looking slightly more modern. It has a new cropping
feature, but otherwise it's still the same old Paint.
 
Or Kj--

Like so many things you want to pull up, just type paint into the search box
above the start button or mspaint or paintbrush into the run box.

If you want some bells and whistles for paint, there is always
http://www.getpaint.net/

CH

Tellin it like it is...

Iraq until the draft for years and years and troops run out April
2008--Osama had it right about the democrats. They have backbones made of
jello. Years more of death and money hemorrhage to the tune of 3 Billion a
week.

i.e.

TIME TO TAKE A STAND

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: September 7, 2007



Here’s what will definitely happen when Gen. David Petraeus testifies before
Congress next week: he’ll assert that the surge has reduced violence in
Iraq — as long as you don’t count Sunnis killed by Sunnis, Shiites killed by
Shiites, Iraqis killed by car bombs and people shot in the front of the
head.

Here’s what I’m afraid will happen: Democrats will look at Gen. Petraeus’s
uniform and medals and fall into their usual cringe. They won’t ask hard
questions out of fear that someone might accuse them of attacking the
military. After the testimony, they’ll desperately try to get Republicans to
agree to a resolution that politely asks President Bush to maybe, possibly,
withdraw some troops, if he feels like it.

There are five things I hope Democrats in Congress will remember.

First, no independent assessment has concluded that violence in Iraq is
down. On the contrary, estimates based on morgue, hospital and police
records suggest that the daily number of civilian deaths is almost twice its
average pace from last year. And a recent assessment by the nonpartisan
Government Accountability Office found no decline in the average number of
daily attacks.

So how can the military be claiming otherwise? Apparently, the Pentagon has
a double super secret formula that it uses to distinguish sectarian killings
(bad) from other deaths (not important); according to press reports, all
deaths from car bombs are excluded, and one intelligence analyst told The
Washington Post that “if a bullet went through the back of the head, it’s
sectarian. If it went through the front, it’s criminal.†So the number of
dead is down, as long as you only count certain kinds of dead people.

Oh, and by the way: Baghdad is undergoing ethnic cleansing, with Shiite
militias driving Sunnis out of much of the city. And guess what? When a
Sunni enclave is eliminated and the death toll in that district falls
because there’s nobody left to kill, that counts as progress by the Pentagon’s
metric.

Second, Gen. Petraeus has a history of making wildly overoptimistic
assessments of progress in Iraq that happen to be convenient for his
political masters.

I’ve written before about the op-ed article Gen. Petraeus published six
weeks before the 2004 election, claiming “tangible progress†in Iraq.
Specifically, he declared that “Iraqi security elements are being rebuilt,â€
that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward†and that “there has been progress
in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own
security.†A year later, he declared that “there has been enormous progress
with the Iraqi security forces.â€

But now two more years have passed, and the independent commission of
retired military officers appointed by Congress to assess Iraqi security
forces has recommended that the national police force, which is riddled with
corruption and sectarian influence, be disbanded, while Iraqi military
forces “will be unable to fulfill their essential security responsibilities
independently over the next 12-18 months.â€

Third, any plan that depends on the White House recognizing reality is an
idle fantasy. According to The Sydney Morning Herald, on Tuesday Mr. Bush
told Australia’s deputy prime minister that “we’re kicking ass†in Iraq.
Enough said.

Fourth, the lesson of the past six years is that Republicans will accuse
Democrats of being unpatriotic no matter what the Democrats do. Democrats
gave Mr. Bush everything he wanted in 2002; their reward was an ad attacking
Max Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, that featured images
of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Finally, the public hates this war and wants to see it ended. Voters are
exasperated with the Democrats, not because they think Congressional leaders
are too liberal, but because they don’t see Congress doing anything to stop
the war.

In light of all this, you have to wonder what Democrats, who according to
The New York Times are considering a compromise that sets a “goal†for
withdrawal rather than a timetable, are thinking. All such a compromise
would accomplish would be to give Republicans who like to sound moderate —
but who always vote with the Bush administration when it matters — political
cover.

And six or seven months from now it will be the same thing all over again.
Mr. Bush will stage another photo op at Camp Cupcake, the Marine nickname
for the giant air base he never left on his recent visit to Iraq. The
administration will move the goal posts again, and the military will come up
with new ways to cook the books and claim success.

One thing is for sure: like 2004, 2008 will be a “khaki election†in which
Republicans insist that a vote for the Democrats is a vote against the
troops. The only question is whether they can also, once again, claim that
the Democrats are flip-floppers who can’t make up their minds.
 
Back
Top