Domain: nwsource.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to nwsource.com.
Comments · 1,621
-
No more Pringles?
Assuming you can still get Pringles after the US plant was detroyed by a tornado last month!!
We might run out of stock soon!!! -
Great News!
Since a tornado damaged the Pringles factory in Jackson, Tn, I can rely on floppies instead for the next while.
Thanks! -
How much money can one memo make for RedHat
You get to wonder if Ballmer didn't buy some RedHat stock with those billions that received from dumping Microsoft: His memo sent RedHat stock soaring by almost 10 percent. What's this called, "outsider trading"?
-
Re:RIAA
-
Re:James WoolseyIn case you weren't paying attention, here are some stories on those attacks.
* The Guardian: Iraq launches Scud missiles
* Canadian Broadcasting Corp.: Iraq lobs missiles at Kuwait
* Houston Chronicle: Patriot system proves its worth
And here are the follow-up stories, written once the over-excited journos had a chance to calm down a little and look at the evidence:
- The Guardian: "Taking sides" (BBC reported false Scud stories put out by US & UK military)
- Canadian Broadcasting Corp: " Iraqi TV reports fighting 150 km from Baghdad" (but no Scuds or WMD found in Iraq)
- Seattle Times: "Accidents cast doubts on Patriot missiles" (they didn't knock down many Scuds, but they were highly effective against British fighter jets)
- San Jose Mercury: "U.S. confident trailers were used to produce bioweapons" (no Scuds or anything else found yet really, but we definitely expect to find something really important Real Soon Now)
- The Guardian: "Taking sides" (BBC reported false Scud stories put out by US & UK military)
-
Re:FINALLY!
I would prefer fusion, but that hasn't been done yet. Next on my list would be space based solar power, but sadly that might take longer to be ready than fusion...
Ironic isn't it? Indeed, we already have *BOTH* of those things! We have a nice, safe (assuming we get real about greenhouse gasses or start wearing a lot of sunscreen) space-based solar power from, get this, nuclear FUSION. As a bonus, it's 93,000,000 miles away in case something goes wrong. Plus, we all have great view seats so we can keep an eye on things. ;-)
Other benefits: CLOSED LOOP Energy (use this solar income to convert to H2 via Hydrolysis) 2H20 + Fusion --> 2H2 + 02. No changing to the balance of sequestered carbon, distributed conversion plants (could be rooftop-based micro plants), and worldwide, to benefit all.
To paraphrase Bucky Fuller, here goes mankind, drawing down our energy endowment savings account (oil) while our paychecks (solar energy) go un-cashed. Sad, really.
It's high time we work on getting a real energy policy--something that works for all humankind, sustainably, forever.
I keep hearing about a "Manhattan Project for Energy", and now an Apollo Project for Energy.
Why not? Spread the idea! It's catching. -
Not surprising
I'm frankly surprised that the insurance company actually agreed to pay. Keep in mind that the whole idea of an insurance company is NOT to pay.
Just like they did after 9/11, companies will probably start writing exclusions for this type of loss into their policies. If they don't, the price of the insurance will go sky high to the point that companies will simply go bare as the insurance costs more than the asset it's protecting.
-
Re:Only connect
7. Microsoft recently licensed rights to use Unix from Caldera-now-SCO. This is clearly an attempt to hop onto the "Linux = Copyright Infringement" bandwagon that Caldera-now-SCO started, but there's no evidence to suggest a larger conspiracy.
A lot of people suggested that there was outside involvement before the Microsoft investment, because SCO's behavior makes no sense from a business perspective.
Microsofts investment is reported to be between 10 and 20 million dollars. That's half SCO's quarterly revenue.
If you think SCO has not been working with Microsoft for months before the lawsuit you are rather niave.
But it's not a conspiracy, it's just a business deal.
-
Here's a fun questionWhat if we make a game where the object is to shoot the chief of police in the head. Can we sell it to kids in Washington? OK, what if the chief of police that we're trying to whack is David Brame, the wife beating former chief of police of Tacoma, Washington, who shot his wife Crystal Brame, mortally wounding her and then turned the gun on himself, in front of their two children.
This is the same David Brame who also is accused of raping a woman in 1988. Of course nothing happened to David Brame. And the Pierce County sheriff's department did nothing about Crystal Brame's complaints because her husband was the chief of police.
Perhaps we can make the object of the game to shoot Tacoma cops, who are corrupt and Pierce County Sheriff's deputies, who are stupid and corrupt. Oh, and you could add Pat Frantz to the list. He's the head of the police union in Tacoma who has been threatening journalists and blaming the media for David Brame's actions.
Yeah, I think that having a game where you waste these useless and corrupt cocksuckers would be a good thing, I think that having kids play this game would be even better. -
Re:Real World vs. Top Coder...
I would look at a Top Coder victor the same way I would look at someone who can answer trivia questions correctly. The experience is incredibly valuable, but I wouldn't say that they are parallel at all. Most of the questions and tests are biased against people who have experience doing competitions. A veteran programmer would probably perform 10x better in a real world environment, and is much more valuable than a TopCoder winner who is still in school... but I could be wrong.
Actually it's not as simple as that. In order to be successful in TopCoder competitions, one has to be a rather smart person (in fact the 2001 winner is "the smartest guy in the world"), with good analysis, generalization and abstraction skills, and above all, a quick thinker. The problems are not trivial to dissect, and time pressure is strong.
So for a long term employment (3+ years), I would rather hire a young successful TopCoder participant (one can always gain experience but not smarts) than a regular but experienced guy. -
Main problem...
-
DRM... am I crazy or am I the last sane one?
Slashdotters defending DRM... am I crazy or am I the last sane one? I'm not sure sure anymore.
Slashdot continues to get more mainstream readership, even getting mentioned in print articles these days. As a side effect of this visibility, the activity of astroturfers has increased -- notice that the pro-MS AC(s) tend to have the same writing style and logical fallacies. When other readers put them in their place, a handful UIDs dog pile one or two posters with ad hominem attacks or the "you-just-don't-like-Microsoft" (appeal to emotion?) attack. Microsoft has a long practice of 'turfing in it's marketing:
- MSFT paid Gartner to publish MSFT material as Gartner's
- fake "grass roots" letter writing
- another fake letter writing campaign
- paid for people to hang out in AOL forums
- paid for people to hang out in ZDNet "talkback" forums
- paid for people to hang out in CompuServe forums
- MSNBC doctored Wall Street Journal material
- Stuffed an on-line ballot box
- planned to plant fake op-ed pieces in local newspapers
- funded favorable think-tank whitepapers
- 'Astroturf' PR campaign exposes Microsoft goals.
- Joseph Menn. "Lobbyists Tied to Microsoft Wrote Citizens' Letters." The Los Angeles Times; Aug 23, 2001; pg. A.1 (print)
- Windows Outstuffs Linux in Poll
- Dead People, Fake Letters, Support Microsoft - Report
- Dead people rise in support of Microsoft
- Microsoft employee's move against AOL backfires
- The Freedom to Innovate Network - an 'Astroturf' Organisation
Also, right now MS is in a panicked marketing blitz. notice all the product placement on the tech sites. The embarassing stuff just disappears from the top page less than a day, but the press releases sit there for weeks.
It makes sense. Most Windows users have both Windows and Office because it's what the OEMs had installed on the machines they bought, nothing more or less. Most of these are either apathetic or know nothin else, so they will not write. Others are pissed off at the low quality, made worse by Microsoft treating security and stability issues as PR issues -- How many times have you heard "computers" crash from BSD, Novell, QNX, Linux, or OS X users? Or is it just the MSCEs? Most remaining clients could go easily over to OS X or one of the Linux distros and the next IT boom would start, like the previous one, without Microsoft.
In short, they need DRM to survive the summer and few, except for MS and RIAA staff
-
Pringles crisis
Did anyone notice the Pringles crisis caused by a tornado last Sunday?
-
Re:Where's the beef?okay not as lazy as i said:
Longhorn
The code name Longhorn is a reference to a rowdy bar at the Whistler ski area in British Columbia. The bar lies between two peaks, Whistler and Blackcomb. Whistler was the code name for Windows XP, the operating system launched in 2001, and Blackcomb is the code name for the operating system that will come after Longhorn. -
Desktop Screen...More mac-like in that they're using MacOS X desktop images?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/403124954.
j pgGo them!
-
Re:Just kill your local land line.
Triangulation is difficult with cell-phones and generally isn't done. This article points out the difficulty in locating the origination of a cell phone call. (scroll to the end of the article).
However, I believe newer phones have GPS chips and so are much easier to locate. So if you were to get rid of your land line and were worried about being located, then make sure the cell phone you buy has a GPS chip. -
Associated Press
This is an associated press article and u can access it without the registration here
-
Bloomberg News (Seattle P-I) says MSFT in trouble
According to this news story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (the local Seattle paper, the Seattle Times is for the suburbanites), Microsoft is in severe danger of losing their shorts to Linux with their release of Windows 2003.
Maybe Paul Allen was right in diversifying out of Microsoft stock ... -
Well..
-
Re:IronyYou speak as if you speak for the Forest Service ("Our mission"), so I'll say "you" when I really mean them, not you personally, OK?
1) Your mission statement should be on your home page, or at least linked there, not buried under your "jobs" page.
2) If you really mean that "Listening to people" line, then why this proposed change? And why attempt to "put a torch to citizens' rights to challenge federal agencies' land-use decisions"?
3) If you really mean those "Protecting" and "practice good stewardship" lines, then why promote "salvage logging" when it's been shown to cause more harm than good?
-
Re:IronyNo, you haven't been paying attention. Visit the U.S. Forest Service's web page. Even their About Us page doesn't state their Mission Statement, if they have one. Under this Administration, their goal -- as is the goal of every Federal Department -- is to maximize profits for contributors to the Republican Party. The Forest Service cares not about saving trees, but cutting them.
Flamebait? Maybe, but it's true.
-
Re:IronyNo, you haven't been paying attention. Visit the U.S. Forest Service's web page. Even their About Us page doesn't state their Mission Statement, if they have one. Under this Administration, their goal -- as is the goal of every Federal Department -- is to maximize profits for contributors to the Republican Party. The Forest Service cares not about saving trees, but cutting them.
Flamebait? Maybe, but it's true.
-
"Spaceship Galileo"? Or "Rocket Ship Troopers"?
See that last sentence in the story? Who made the mistake? Paul Allen, or the Times's writer?
Sci-Fi Today, the Seattle PI, and The Seattle Times all got it right.
Only the Times and The Tacoma News Tribune have it wrong.
The Tacoma paper deserves special recognition for combining the Times story and AP wire reports, then getting the error into their lead sentence. -
"Spaceship Galileo"? Or "Rocket Ship Troopers"?
See that last sentence in the story? Who made the mistake? Paul Allen, or the Times's writer?
Sci-Fi Today, the Seattle PI, and The Seattle Times all got it right.
Only the Times and The Tacoma News Tribune have it wrong.
The Tacoma paper deserves special recognition for combining the Times story and AP wire reports, then getting the error into their lead sentence. -
Of course the most obvious source isn't checked...
With thier major media outlet biases that are ingrained even though people don't realize it they forget to check those slightly "smaller" sources.
The Seattle PI
Seattle Times
Vulcan Ventures.
Hmm.. Perhaps Mr. Allen's own COMPANY might have a little use. -
Of course the most obvious source isn't checked...
With thier major media outlet biases that are ingrained even though people don't realize it they forget to check those slightly "smaller" sources.
The Seattle PI
Seattle Times
Vulcan Ventures.
Hmm.. Perhaps Mr. Allen's own COMPANY might have a little use. -
Seattle P-I Link
If Paul sneezes, you can be assured it will be "in the P-I".
Free news here: Sci-fi museum Allen's latest out-there trek -
The Seattle PI
Another short article on this.
-
Why the "Movies" article classification?Though chrisd wrote "NYTimes online was the only one carrying the story according to Google News, so this is all you get.", yes, if searching for "paul allen sci fi", but if you try "paul allen project", "paul allen science" for instance, you find a few others. And it's NOT MOVIES. It's about "literature":
- Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
Paul Allen... is expected to announce today his plans to build a Seattle facility to celebrate science-fiction literature in the same way his Experience Music Project honors popular music....
Jason Hunke, a spokesman for Allen's project management and investment firm Vulcan Inc., declined to identify the author or confirm any specific plans for the project beyond its location. But he did say the goal of SFX would be to entertain and educate the public about the place of science fiction in our culture.
"As a genre, it's much broader than just 'Star Wars' or 'Star Trek,' " he said. - Another story at The Seattle Times:
"The "Science Fiction Experience," or SFX, will "celebrate the broadest and most dynamic genre of our time, capture our imagination, offer new perspectives on society and culture, and invite us to ponder the universe's infinite possibilities," according to a statement from Allen's projects and investments company, Vulcan Inc... Details will be provided at a morning news conference with Allen, Seattle Center director Virginia Anderson, EMP's CEO Robert Santelli and a surprise 'award-winning, best-selling' science-fiction writer. Seattle Center spokeswoman Beau Fong said the new facility will be in the space that formerly housed the EMP's Artist's Journey, a virtual-reality amusement-park-style ride. It featured a computer-generated James Brown hosting a block party titled Funk Blast. It was supposed to be one of the museum's hallmark features but quietly closed in January."
- Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
-
Why the "Movies" article classification?Though chrisd wrote "NYTimes online was the only one carrying the story according to Google News, so this is all you get.", yes, if searching for "paul allen sci fi", but if you try "paul allen project", "paul allen science" for instance, you find a few others. And it's NOT MOVIES. It's about "literature":
- Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
Paul Allen... is expected to announce today his plans to build a Seattle facility to celebrate science-fiction literature in the same way his Experience Music Project honors popular music....
Jason Hunke, a spokesman for Allen's project management and investment firm Vulcan Inc., declined to identify the author or confirm any specific plans for the project beyond its location. But he did say the goal of SFX would be to entertain and educate the public about the place of science fiction in our culture.
"As a genre, it's much broader than just 'Star Wars' or 'Star Trek,' " he said. - Another story at The Seattle Times:
"The "Science Fiction Experience," or SFX, will "celebrate the broadest and most dynamic genre of our time, capture our imagination, offer new perspectives on society and culture, and invite us to ponder the universe's infinite possibilities," according to a statement from Allen's projects and investments company, Vulcan Inc... Details will be provided at a morning news conference with Allen, Seattle Center director Virginia Anderson, EMP's CEO Robert Santelli and a surprise 'award-winning, best-selling' science-fiction writer. Seattle Center spokeswoman Beau Fong said the new facility will be in the space that formerly housed the EMP's Artist's Journey, a virtual-reality amusement-park-style ride. It featured a computer-generated James Brown hosting a block party titled Funk Blast. It was supposed to be one of the museum's hallmark features but quietly closed in January."
- Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
-
Er, try a Seattle paper, eh?
You have a NYT-phobia for some reason you might want to try a paper here in Seattle. The picture is better and very much younger. It looks to be about from the time M$ sold software on paper tape.
-
Re:Shrine? Bah.
The guy should do something worthwhile with his bucks
Like maybe donate money to save forests? or to "sustain" the Seti Project? and severl other things.
I'm not a big Paul Allen fan, but hell, he's rich, he's allready been a bit of philanthropy - let him build a Sci-Fi shrine if he wants to -
Re:Nothing good to post???
- Only in a military dominated dictatorship does the minority make the rules.
Of course. But how do you KNOW the majorities opinions? What if it is a time critical matter that cannot WAIT until the next election period? Protesting is one assured way to make the full force of public opposition to something heard. 10,000 letters can be dismissed, but ten thousand people gathering in every major city in a country is a DARNED effective way to get a message across.
- The United States is a Democratic Republic. We have a process in which to 'listen to the damn people.' It's called elections.
Which, as stated, is ONLY effective on a every so many year basis. Protests are a GREAT way to get the point across that this ONE PARTICULAR issue is one that is NOT going to be forgotten when the next election session rolls around.
- That's different from shutting down a city or country until the government does what you want.
Going out in the streets for a day shouting out slogans is HARDLY the same thing.
Rallies and Protests have been used in the United States since almost the beginning of our nation, and who the hell are we to go about saying that just because they INCONVENIENCE us that they should not be allowed?
Medical Services should be rerouted around the problem. Now if some dick heads stand in the WAY of an ambulance, then yah, charge them, but as a terrorist? What the hell? MOTIVE here people MOTIVE. They may be a dumb ass, but they aren't spraying us with anthrax.
Hell the very fact that they are OUT THERE PROTESTING shows that they CARE about the nation. GOOD FREAKING IDEA, jail the LAST FEW CITIZENS WHO CARE ABOUT THIS NATION.
Briliant, really smart idea there. . . .
- However, it does not have the right to cause mass violence or economic hardship.
Of course not, and there are ALREADY EXISTING laws against that.
Why the HELL should somebody get 25 to life for BLOCKING TRAFFIC when they can get less than that for MURDER or BRUTAL ASSAULT.
Is joe-freaking-shmoes commute time going to be given MORE importance than cases like this here?
- We the people have already formed a government in which our voices can be heard in non-violent ways. Attempts to undermine this organization with ways other than voting, working through your representatives, or peaceful non-disruptive protest is an assault on democracy,
What about peaceful protests that then spill over into the streets? Under possible abuses of this Oregon law, I can easily imagine an overzealous police force arresting literally HUNDREDS of protestors.
Hell, I'll shout, swear, and heckle the protestors while they ARE protesting, but I ain't gonna lock them up.
Now once they DO start breaking stuff, I do believe there are CURRENT laws to deal with that sort of thing. Should some of those laws be strengthened? Maybe a wider range of sentences for the judge to choose from, but 25 to life is essentially equivalent with murder 1. Unless it can be SHOWN that PEOPLE DIED and that the defendant KNEW IN ADVANCE for SURE that SOMEBODY would DIE, such as say erecting barricades around a hospital ambulance entrance,
then this crime is NOT equivalent of murder 1 and either way it is NOT terrorism under 99.99% of the circumstances. (I could imagine some terrorist group using blockade tactics but that is a completely separate issue from a loyal American citizen holding a protest)
-
This makes perfect sense...
Think about it.
Spammers usually define spamming as "That which they do not do."
Here, we have a case where Microsoft is simply redefining software piracy as "That which we do not do."
Since Microsoft has also been known to spam, and has tried to weaken anti-spam laws in their favor, it comes as no surprise to me that the left hand has no idea of what the right is doing when it comes to handing out software.
Spammer logic. Amazing -- and kind of frightening -- how contagious it is.
-
Re:Guess what? This is the...
That Bush quote is completely out of context. Furthermore, your date is incorrect, showing that your source is unreliable. Quick Googling gives lots more information about this quote. Bush was referring to his struggles with Congress, and that if it were a dictatorship, he would not have to deal with that; he was not implying that he would take over the government.
Unlike Hitler, Bush has personally not made any attempts to sieze power for himself, has not rallied the populace by promising expansion of American territory, has not created a youth program designed to create the Fascisti of tomorrow, has not destroyed the Reichstag, and so on. Comparing G. W. Bush to Hitler is stupid. -
Re:But the sanctity of the home
Funny you should mention it, even in this day and age people still gotta take it to the scotus to get protection under the sanctity of the home clause. Those guys definitely got themselves a whole heapfull of hassle because somebody didn't like them.
-
Re:This is a joke right?
Actually, no, no it isn't.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A522 41-2002Dec29.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/88244_sean24 .shtml
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/iraq gate/iraqgate.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 003/03/02/IN123519.DTL
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/17/iraq.chemical.su it/
Defend your viewpoint, ass! -
in other news Bush goes on holiday !!
-
Contradictions from the experts
Russ Cooper, moderator of the NTBugTraq security list and a security expert for TruSecure Corp., seems to be contradicting himself in two stories on the same day (or is being misquoted). Make of this what you will...
This story quotes Cooper: "I do expect that in the next seven to 10 days we're going to see a worldwide wave" of attacks, probably via an Internet worm, Cooper said Wednesday. "And it will be effective."
And this story quotes Cooper: ""I doubt we will see an attack based on this," Cooper said. "It's pretty unlikely any such exploit attempt will get legs."" -
Re:Won't even be honored; like $99 TV
if you had read the link that the parent poster had given, it explained why it didn't need to be honored.
~Jon~ -
Re:Won't even be honored; like $99 TV
Here is a link to that story about that 36-inch TV for $99 on Amazon. People sued to get the TV for the advertised price, and lost.
-
Inaccurate storyUmmm, unless Digital Impact is planning on sending out e-mail with fraudulent header information, they won't be violating Washington State law as it stands. The poster of the story doesn't seem to have read the text of the law he provided a link to.
The current law can be found here. A report on a successfully prosecuted case can be found here. If one reads either, it's easy to see that the current law only applies to fraudulent headers.
Given that the current law only covers fraudulent headers, I doubt that Microsoft is maliciously trying to destroy the current law.
However, last year the senate introduced bill 6568 which extended the old law to require that commercial e-mail contain ADV: as the first 4 characters of the subject line. That bill passed the senate with flying colors. Unfortunately, it got locked up in committee in the house and died.
House bill 5734 is a watered down version of last year's senate bill 6568.
I don't like Microsoft much. That said, the story at the Seattle Times is riddled with half-truths and inaccuracies. For example, it claims that 5734 completely exempts ISPs. The senate summary of the bill says
Interactive computer services may not be held liable for acting as an intermediary between the sender and the recipient of commercial spam sent in violation of the law, or for providing transmission over its computer network or facilities of commercial spam that is sent in violation of the law.
So, ISPs aren't liable for transporting SPAM, as they aren't liable for transporting copyrighted material or child porn. They can still be liable for originating, or aiding in the origination, of spam. I think that's a reasonable exemption.I'd be really interested in knowing whether lobbyists that are partially funded by Microsoft also supported senate bill 6568 from last year. If so, this is definitely unjustified Microsoft bashing. However, if their lobbyists locked it up in the house then we can villify them for weakening a good bill.
Too bad the article doesn't comment on that, and I don't have a way to find out.
-
Re:Living with the consequences
Scumbags like Washington State supreme court justice Bobbe Bridge or our President and Vice President?
-
Re:Iraqi lives and future vs an ancient battery.Hi, K.
North Korea is arguably a far greater threat to US security than Iraq. The message to the world is thus: Get nukes as fast as you can! That's a very bad message to send.
You see it as a message. I see it as a piece of reality that hasn't changed since 1945. Once you have nuclear weapons, you become effectively unattackable. That's what makes this so urgent. Hussein with nuclear weapons will be unstoppable, and he has a proven history of attacking his neighbors and annexing their land. He did it to Kuwait, and tried to do it to Iran. I think that the prospects of an "Iraqi Empire" covering the middle east are very real and a nuclear-armed Hussein would be impossible to contain. He isn't sacrificing his country to build nuclear weapons for nothing. He expects to get his investment back manyfold once he has them.
I can't see how funding terrorism plays a vital role for suicide bombers. They would have found ways to blow themselves up regardless of financial support. I think the role money plays in terrorism is greatly exaggerated.
Hussein is paying about $25,000 to the families of each suicide bomber. It was $10,000. Then the suicide bombing started to slow down, the bounty was raised to $25,000, and the suicide bombings started to pick up again. According to this 2001 article,, unemployment in the Palestinian territories was at 38%, and the average per-capita income fell from USD2000 to USD1680.
In other words, if you become a suicide bomber, the reward to your family is equivalent to about 15 years guaranteed salary. The average per-capita income in the United States is $30,000. 15 years salary at that rate would be $450,000. The poverty line in the United States is defined at around $13,500. 15 years salary at that rate would be around $200,000. I don't want to dispute the exact numbers, but it's pretty clear that the amount of money being supplied to the poverty-stricken families of suicide bombers is enough to lift them out of poverty and live comfortably for many years, even after they lose their home after Israeli retaliation. It's not just a token payment. It's an active form of recruiting that is very successful. Delivering your immediate/extended family from poverty is a huge incentive to become a suicide bomber, and with that incentive gone, recruiting suicide bombers is going to be much more difficult.
While a prosperous Iraq may incite revolutions in other countries, it is also quite likely to have the opposite effect. Remember that many of these countries have been extremely rich, yet have oppressive regimes, and seeing US as an evil force from outside is going to make oppression stronger.
That's exactly why we can't replace Hussein with another oppressive strongman. But that's my point -- the "liberation" has to be real, or it won't serve the purpose of shutting down the terrorist organizations. Again, this requires a huge chance in U.S. policy. We now have to follow through on our words. This is Bush's risk. If he can't follow through on his promise of democracy, then this will be a disaster.
You give "just a little support" to the regimes of Uzbekistan and Kirgistan. It's deja-vu all over again...
I'll have to defer to you on that ... I don't know what we are doing there. Hopefully a success in Iraq will result in a wholesale change in U.S. diplomatic strategy.
it wouldn't be hard at all to detect nukes if they had them, radioactive dust would remain at the sites where experiments were conducted, easily detectable.
I know a lot about nukes also, and all that a lack of radioactive evidence means is that they are working the U235 route, not the Plutonium route. But we knew that already.
There are two ways to make a nuclear bomb -- you can either extract U235 from natural uranium, or you can build a reactor and breed plutonium. Hussein's original plan was to breed plutonium, hence the breeder reactor that was destroyed by the Israelis. Since then, it's almost certain that he has switched over to an all-U235 weapons program, which is much more expensive, but has the advantage of being virtually undetectable.
A U235 weapon can be created without any radioactive evidence. Basically, you start with natural uranium, and use isotope separation technology to isolate the U235. No radiation or nuclear waste is created in the process. This is why the discovery of UF6 gas centrifuge technology is so disconcerting. It points to a nuclear weapons program that can be easily and perfectly concealed.
Also, the only reason that the U.S. conducted a test-firing of an atomic bomb was because of the extremely complex technology required to make a plutonium implosion bomb work. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima, on the other hand, was a U235 bomb. A U235 bomb is much, much simpler. It's basically a cannon, with a U235 ring at the breech end, and a U235 slug as the "bullet". One moving part. You fire the cannon, and when the bullet enters the breech, it creates a critical mass, and the fission reaction runs away. The U.S. was so absolutely convinced that the Hiroshima bomb would work that they dropped it untested. Once you have the U235, building an atomic bomb is much, much easier then building a plutonium bomb. If you overbuild it even slightly, it's practically guaranteed to work.
I would be a lot more concerned with terrorists setting off a nuke in a US harbor they built inside a container in a ship than Saddam building nukes.
Agreed, which is why a missile defense system is obsolete. If your mission is to destroy a U.S. city, then launching a missile means national suicide, where as if you sneak a bomb into a harbor you are likely to get away with it. That's another reason why a covert nuclear weapons program is so dangerous. Plus, just an observation, The Al Quaida planners appear to be huge Tom Clancy fans. Crashing airplanes into buildings is right out of Debt of Honor., and presumably they've gotten their hands on a copy of The Sum Of All Fears.
I don't know that much about biological and chemical weapons, but lets note one thing: There's nothing you can do with bombs that you can't do with inspectors in a fast helicopter. You could look for similar things ...
First, we don't know where most of the weapons are, and we won't be able to begin finding them until the U.S. has taken control of Iraq and wiped out Hussein's secret police network. Once that is done, we will easily find the weapons, using the same powerful technique that we used in the Gulf war. Bags of money. Most of the weapons systems found in the last war were found by bribing soldiers and officials. It's the most cost-effective system ever. You can spend a million dollars trying to track down a weapons system, or you can find someone who knows, and give them $10,000. It's the most basic, oldest, low-tech form of intelligence known to man, but it won't work until we're on the ground, and have wiped out the existing regime and secret police network.
Second, something that people seem to forget, the purpose of the inspectors was not to find the weapons. The resolution was that the inspectors would be led to the weapons, and would verify their destruction. This is not happening. One or two bombs every couple of weeks does not count. If Hussein were really complying with Res. 1441, the inspectors would be busy monitoring the destruction of thousands of missiles and weapons systems, and thousands of gallons of biological and chemical agents per day.
Third, the only reason that Hussein is allowing the inspectors in is that he is confident that they won't be able to find anything.
And finally, by all evidence, the inspectors have been compromised. According to Blix, they have all been offered bribes, and some of them have accepted those bribes. The Iraqis have infiltrated the inspection teams, and are being tipped off as to where the inspections are going to be. The best explanation as to why they are doing this seems to be that the inspectors see their primary role not as disarming Iraq, but in preventing war. In other words, if they admit that the inspections have failed, then they feel that they will be responsible for the war. As a result, they have now shifted from their intended role -- overseeing Iraqi destruction of their own weapons -- to a new role of working with the Iraqis to deter a U.S. attack. Hence the microscopic "progress", the dribbling out of weapons here and there. The Iraqis voluntarily hand over two weapons, and the inspectors call this a sign of progress and declare that they need more months. It isn't "progress."
In other words, the entire inspection process is a sham. It's purpose is now delay, not disarmament.
What if the inspectors continue to "inspect" Iraq for five more years, until Hussein successfully test-fires an atomic bomb, announces that Iraq is now a nuclear power, and kicks the inspectors out? Is this implausable? It appears to be Hussein's entire long-term strategy!
For example I regard the "depleted uranium" craze as a complete panic with no basis in reality.
Agreed. Depleted uranium is about as radioactive as the surrounding sand. however, large segments of the media appear to be completely ignorant about this detail. In reality, those birth defects and cancers are far more likely to be caused by exposure to chemical weapons, which the Depleted Uranium crowd conveniently forget have been used by Hussein against the Iraqi people time after time.
[U.S. attack vs revolution] To attempt an answer, it is extremely important for a people to have their own destiny in their own hands.
Internal revolutions rarely turn out well. They tend to result in a power struggle that is won by the most ruthless of the internal factions.
As an example of what we're trying to do, after the U.S. military victory in Afghanistan, the U.S. brought the factions together, provided a building with military guard, and pretty much told them to go in and not come out until they had created a representational government. Now you can argue about whether it is working or not, but if the Taliban had been ousted by a violent revolution, this would not have happened. Those warlords would not have been sitting together in a room. They would have been battling it out for control of the country. The purpose of U.S. occupation of Iraq is:
1) To prevent a power vacuum and the resulting violent power struggle.
2) To safeguard the new government against foreign invasion. (Saudi Arabia has been floating the idea of sending in "Arab peacekeepers")
3) To ensure that the new government is formed peacefully, with the participation of all of Iraq's internal factions.
None of which would come to pass in a violent revolution.
Only if they can convince a lot of people that they do have an enemy, it is possible for the theocrats to retain power. And right now, the US is that enemy. If the US seize to be that enemy, there will be a lot more room for improvement in Iran.
I think that the U.S. actively turning Iraq into a prosperous democracy will have an enormous effect on the Iranian people. They will want it too, and will be much more likely to turn to the U.S. to help make it happen.
Far more then if the U.S. stands by and does nothing. That's what we are doing now, and it isn't making us very popular. Besides, right now, Hussein's grip on Iraq is so strong that the odds of a revolution any time soon are practically zero. I think that it's a fantasy option. It's only possible with the sort of massive covert aid that I'm arguing is doomed to be a long-term strategic failure.
As for Bush recent speech, it wasn't really anything new there, as far as I can see.
Up until that speech, the message was "disarm Hussein." That speech was, "Bring democracy to the Arab world." That's a huge shift, and based on the current wave of articles on arabnews, the Saudis don't like it a bit. As a matter of fact, they're pissed off and freaking out. For good reason. If the U.S. succeeds in converting Iraq into a democracy, then the Saudi general population -- the vast majority who are not part of the monarchy -- are going to want the same thing, and the monarchy will be doomed. And that's part of Bush's secret strategy. The Saudis are part of the problem. It's just that they don't fully comprehend that we know it and are working, in the long term, to eliminate the threat of the Saudi monarchy to world peace. The Saudis are easily worse then Hussein as far as being a danger. I still haven't forgotten the Saudi "Terror telethon", where they raised $100,000,000 in contributions and handed the money over the Arafat. It isn't that we're ignoring them ... they're just much further down on the list.
The US has very likely destroyed the UN.
Sorry, but the U.N. died with the fall of the Soviet Union. It isn't much of a loss. It's packed with dictatorships and tyrants. The U.N. was really a proxy organization for U.S./Soviet relations. I will agree that the U.S. has been very liberally handing out the rope for the U.N. to hang itself, but the problem is that the U.N. has gone from being pro-democratic to being pro-terrorist and pro-dictatorship. The U.N. has run its course. It will collapse and be replaced, perhaps by an institution that demands representational government as a condition of participation.
one of my favorite one-liners is "Violence is always the last resort of the incompetent" (Isaac Asimov).
I don't know the context of the quote, but it is woefully incomplete. Just because you're using violence doesn't mean that you're incompetant. It can also mean that you're defending yourself, or preventing greater violence, or liberating a people from a tyrant. This war is all about preventing greater violence and ending ongoing violence.
I really can't think of any justice system or science that can work without [the] principle [that] "the burden of the proof is on the claimnant"
International relations have never worked that way. A "justice system" presupposes a greater authority. There is no "greater authority" in world politics. It certainly isn't the U.N., where a small number of large democracies are outnumbered by dozens and dozens of small dictatorships. I reject the theory that the United States must, as a matter of some principle, treat a murderous dictatorship in the same manner as a representative democracy. This theory seems especially popular with dictators and corrupt governments, but I don't buy it.
If the U.S. goes in, and finds no WMD, and if the Iraqis rise up against us, then history will be our judge and the prestige and influence of the U.S. will be diminished. If on the other hand, we go in, and find bunkers full of nerve gas and chemical weapons, and mass graves, and operating uranium gas centrifuges, and completed nuclear bomb assemblies waiting for the uranium components, and widespread evidence of Iraqi government atrocities, then it will be a different story.
I personally think that the Iraqi people will be dancing in the streets once they are rid of Hussein, and with the sanctions lifted, Iraq will become the richest industrial democracy in the Middle East. And then the other Arab dictatorships will collapse. And then the threat of terrorism will cease, because the general population will choose security and wealth over terrorism and death. To quote again from Bush's speech:It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world -- or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim -- is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life.
Bush is tapping into a deep, powerful well. As I said, either you believe that he's sincere, or that he's lying and it's business as usual. I think that he's sincere in his beliefs and intentions in this instance. If you don't think that he's sincere, then you won't trust him. It all comes down to that basic assessment. ... In our desire to be safe from brutal and bullying oppression, human beings are the same. In our desire to care for our children and give them a better life, we are the same. For these fundamental reasons, freedom and democracy will always and everywhere have greater appeal than the slogans of hatred and the tactics of terror. -
Female Starbuck?
Looks like someone else is thinking the same thing.
-
Re:Mmm... Seattle Times, eh?
I'm not really familiar with how things work in Seattle
Well the two major papers. SeattleTimes and SeattlePI are the same damn company!
Talk about freedom of press! -
Re:Mmm... Seattle Times, eh?
I'm not really familiar with how things work in Seattle
Well the two major papers. SeattleTimes and SeattlePI are the same damn company!
Talk about freedom of press! -
Ballmer in today's articleThe one linked in the writeup is from yesterday. Ballmer is interviewed today, and in a section about upcoming challenges for MS, says:
"It's got Unix roots. Unix has had historic strength, but at the end of the day, I'm quite sure we can out-innovate and deliver sort of a better solution than the work of a bunch of uncoordinated hobbyists."
-
Re:Off Topic, but...
Also, Microsoft doesn't pay dividends. At least not yet. If Bill has his way, they never will.
They do, starting this year. See their press release or do a google search. Gates got 98 million in cash. -
Economy
Some background info from a world trade law student:
One: European governments are subsidizing Airbus development costs, which according to the U.S. violates WTO rules on subsidies. Of course, neither the EU nor the Bush administration can really be considered champions of unrestricted free trade.
[rant] Although economists and common sense agree that free trade results in a net wealth benefit (note that this doesn't imply a "fair" distribution of that wealth), special interest groups that have much to lose from free trade (unproductive industries, unions) find it easier to exert political influence in favor of protectionism than the average person-on-the-street, who stands to lose a few cents a day on account of a specific protectionist measure, of which he is generally not even aware. [/rant]
Two: There is of course no economical or technical reason at all to distribute this kind of megaconstruction project all over Europe. It is estimated that all the silly moving around of pieces increases construction cost by a two-figures percentage. The reason, of course, is a political one: every nation wants a piece of the cake...