Slashdot Mirror

By January or February of 2007, more american lives will have been lost in Iraq than were killed on September 11th.

Actually, we're almost certainly at that point already.

3,030 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks, including WTC, Pentagon, and Shanksville. Wikipedia says 2,973. In the ballpark anyway.

icasualties.org says 2,885 US military personnel have been lost in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

What people forget is that those who died at the World Trade Center were not all Americans. Conservatively, 10% of those on the scene must have been foreign business people, consultants, workers on H-class visas, foreign student interns, and international visitors. Wikipedia says about 316 were non-Americans.

So if you're comparing Americans to Americans...

"Are random searches effective in keeping everyone safe?"

Random searches wouldn't have stopped the 9/11 terrorists. They used box cutters to threaten lives, but if such searches had been in place they would have used dental floss garrotes or their bare hands for the same purpose. Several times people have successfully defeated the searches just to prove it could be done and do not prevent even untrained citizens from bringing contraband on planes.

Random searches are not effective in keeping us safe. What they are effective at is lulling the public into accepting routine violation of their constitutional rights under the guise of protection. Back in the 80s, during the cold war, the paranoid and abusive treatment of travelers by the USSR due to "national security" concerns was properly seen as proof of a fascist government and held up for scorn and ridicule. How sad it is that we have allowed the destruction of a few buildings and loss of 3030 lives to turn us into what we fought against. Something several wars with much higher losses both economic and human failed to do. Many free and democratic nations suffered repeated terrorist violence before 9/11 but did not allow it to warp their societies. In contrast we have sacrificed our rights as citizens and our values as a country in response to a single attack and promote such sacrifices of rights and values by our allies.

The random searches and other intrusive treatment of passengers has not resulted in the conviction of many (any?) terrorists, but it has endoctrinated millions to accepting treatment they would not have tolerated previously. In pursuit of physical safety, we have sacrified liberty. A libertarian might say that the undefined risk of pre-9/11 security was less objectionable than the daily violation of the rights of tens of millions of citizens that takes place under post-9/11 security. It is worth thinking about.

Where I work we have Macs and PCs. No one refers to a Mac as an Apple. We call them G5s because we have some G4s and need to identify the model sometimes.

Anyway, a mac is a Mac, not an Apple in our house. ;)

. . . you do realize that Apple Corps and Apple Records are both the same company?

Uh, yeah, and Apple computers is a corporation and Apple Records is but most won't associate Apple Corps with a record company. Just my opinion.

Apple doesn't sell Beatles music.

Which one?

Neither Apple sells Beatles music. Apple Corps doesn't sell Beatles music - in fact, they don't sell music at all. Apple Computer is the one that sells music.

Gotcha! Apple computers sells music. Apple Corps/Records, the music company, doesn't.

But you may have a point. I can't find any references at the moment that Apple Corps does anything but own an apple logo and sue Apple computers.

Didn't Michael Jackson buy the Beatle copyrights?

So what does Apple Corps really own except a name and apple logo?

I'm guessing it's Yoko.

My guess is it is not.

Japanese born Yoko Ono is not only John Lennon's widow with a net worth of $775 million, she is a granddaughter of billionaire Zenjiro Yasuda, one of Japan's top zaibatsu industrialist leaders. Yasuda Bank had the largest deposits in Japan at the end of World War II. Yoko's father worked for Yokohama Specie Bank in Hanoi from 1941-1945. After World War II ended, the zaibatsu cartels (defined) that backed and built Japan's war machine were broken up. More on Yoko Ono. See Yoko Ono, Hero of Gun Control. For more on Yoko's grandfather Zenjiro Yasuda, see Yasuda Zaibatsu, now Fuji Bank.

qz

1. Use a wiki. Mediawiki works fine for me, it's easy to use and should be easy for you guys to pick up. Plus I'm sure you'll find more uses for it.
2. Barring that, get a large 16 month calendar... either a whiteboard one that you can wipe off every month, or one of these that are a foot and a half by two and a half feet. I'm going to guess you don't need to plan ahead too far in advance.
3. If your needs aren't that great, there's nothing wrong with just a regular ol' 12 month calendar.

Actually the M16 "just works, desert or jungle". The M-16 got a (deservedly) bad reputation in Vietnam, but the weapon and its variants (M-14 carbine, M-249 SAW) are highly reliable these days. The M16 is lighter, more flexible and superior in just about every way to the AK-47.

I can't tell you whether the M16 works in desert or jungle scenarios, since I've never used it under such conditions. However, I've used it in an arctic setting, and I must say that was not pleased at all with it based on what the cold, snow and ice did to the performance. Normally, I used the G3A3, which is very good under these conditions, albeit a bit too heavy and cumbersome if you don't have it fitted with a retractable stock. The M16 is very accurate, I'll give you that; the AK47 is equally accurate as well on single shot - on "family": forget it!

IMHO, if I had the option of choosing between the AK47 or the M16A2, I'd go for the Kalashnikov without a doubt. This because I want piercing power(7.62x39mm), versatility and a well documented reliability. But in the end, debating either weapons proposed superiority, would be like comparing ye olde apples and oranges.

Here's an interesting article I found recently.

Isn't gasoline pretty dangerous stuff? I mean, I know it's quite flammable. Does anyone remember the Happy Land fire?

Which brings my question - how do you stabilize gasoline so it's not so flammable? A car accident could spell disaster if not properly contained.

To be less sarcastic, c'mon. Cars drive around all day long with thin-walled steel 20-gallon tanks of flammable liquid hydrocarbon fuel, and they rarely rupture. Considering that to get useful vehicle ranges with hydrogen fuel, you need to have the fuel tank pressurized to several thousand psi, you're going to be making it out of rather thick steel with a helluva safety margin. Then there's the fact that hydrogen's a lot lighter than air, so if by some horrendous accident (which will involve energies more than sufficient to kill the vehicle occupants anyway) the tank does rupture, the hydrogen's going to head for the stratosphere as fast as bouyancy allows, instead of pooling on the pavement in flaming puddles.

The reactivity of hydrogen is a concern, but it's a small and easily-handled one. Where to get the hydrogen is a far larger issue.

You're right. 12 years of diplomacy isn't enough. Yeah right.

There were very many links to terrorists, you just refuse to believe them, not the least the fact he had for years been paying the families of suicide bombers $10K-$25K each. Also Saddam did have WMDs and programs, try reading the Kay report for a change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2003/04/27/walq27.xml

http://vikingphoenix.com/public/rongstad/military/ terrorism/raid_ansar_al-qaida.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/27/iraq/mai n551246.shtml

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0402/p01s03-wome.htm l

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/cfr/stories/iraq/

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text2003 /0430trrpt.htm

well, somtimes the truth is stranger than any (bad) sci-fi. ;-)
links provided:
one
two
three
four
(scroll to end)

There is a link here of history of the atomic bomb. Oh, and it includes directions on how one is built as well.

On August 2nd 1939, just before the beginning of World War II, Albert Einstein wrote to then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Einstein and several other scientists told Roosevelt of efforts in Nazi Germany to purify U-235 with which might in turn be used to build an atomic bomb. It was shortly thereafter that the United States Government began the serious undertaking known only then as the Manhattan Project. Simply put, the Manhattan Project was committed to expedient research and production that would produce a viable atomic bomb.

This and this link describe the Japanese atomic bomb program. Germany sent a submarine to Japan carrying uranium oxide, a needed element in building an a-bomb, but it surrendered after Hitler's defeat and was confiscated by the U.S. This uranium could have been used in the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Another good link is here.

There was reason to fear that Germany might win the race to produce the bomb. Fission had been discovered in Germany, and German scientists were at least as able as anyone else to assess its significance. Moreover, it seemed ominous that Germany had stopped the sale of uranium ore from the rich mines in Czechoslovakia. Up until mid-1941, concern over a German bomb had been stronger in Britain than in the United States. About that time, however, the sense of urgency began to pervade U.S. nuclear scientists.

There is a link here of history of the atomic bomb. Oh, and it includes directions on how one is built as well.

On August 2nd 1939, just before the beginning of World War II, Albert Einstein wrote to then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Einstein and several other scientists told Roosevelt of efforts in Nazi Germany to purify U-235 with which might in turn be used to build an atomic bomb. It was shortly thereafter that the United States Government began the serious undertaking known only then as the Manhattan Project. Simply put, the Manhattan Project was committed to expedient research and production that would produce a viable atomic bomb.

This and this link describe the Japanese atomic bomb program. Germany sent a submarine to Japan carrying uranium oxide, a needed element in building an a-bomb, but it surrendered after Hitler's defeat and was confiscated by the U.S. This uranium could have been used in the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Another good link is here.

There was reason to fear that Germany might win the race to produce the bomb. Fission had been discovered in Germany, and German scientists were at least as able as anyone else to assess its significance. Moreover, it seemed ominous that Germany had stopped the sale of uranium ore from the rich mines in Czechoslovakia. Up until mid-1941, concern over a German bomb had been stronger in Britain than in the United States. About that time, however, the sense of urgency began to pervade U.S. nuclear scientists.