Slashdot Mirror


Nominations for 2003 Vaporware Awards

spin2cool writes "Wired News is now accepting submissions for its fifth annual Vaporware Awards. These awards "celebrate all those eagerly anticipated gizmos that were put off, put away or quietly put down. And, of course, those that existed merely as a figment of someone's imagination."

745 comments

  1. WMD detector by corebreech · · Score: 5, Funny

    nt

    1. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      And they say security through obscurity just doesn't work.

    2. Re:WMD detector by edalytical · · Score: 5, Insightful

      WMD definitely fall into the category of things "that existed merely as a figment of someone's imagination."

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    3. Re:WMD detector by corebreech · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Apparently you don't get it. If Hussein really did have WMD's he would've used them. If not when our troops were amassed in Kuwait before the invasion, then when finally cornered by them during the occupation.

      The fact that he didn't use them, the fact that we find him hiding in a hole in the ground certifies once and for all that there never were WMD's in Iraq.

      It was all a great big lie.

      Go sell your shit somewhere else.

    4. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i thought the CIA had sat images of the plants where everything was produced?

      the difference with Saddam and WMD's is
      that we all knew Saddam was present, but we don't know if WMD's are or were even in iraq...

      popquiz: what's the only ministry in iraq still standing?

    5. Re:WMD detector by bugbread · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Sorry, I don't really know how to interpret your question, so I'll answer it straightforwardly: If they can find a guy in a hole covered by a rock, they can easily find massive stashes of WMD.

      Like I said, I don't know exactly what you meant with your question, so I don't know if I'm agreeing or disagreeing.

    6. Re:WMD detector by twiddlingbits · · Score: 2, Informative

      Absolutely correct. It doesn't take a lot of room to store a few vials of Anthrax, or a few gallons of Nerve Gas. They could be just about anywhere, disquised as something else, stashed inside holes, false walls, or stuck down old oil wells, buried in a fake grave, etc. The only easy stuff to find is nuclear material as it has to be well shielded, which makes it harder to hide but not impossible. Saddam had 12 yrs to find ways to hide things in a country the size of California, not to mention he had friends in other Arab countries who may be minding the store. It's not going to be an easy job.

    7. Re:WMD detector by corebreech · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      So tell us all, Mr. Wizard, why have WMD's if you're not going to use them?

      HMMMM???

      Especially when you're back is against the wall and there's no other way out. Saddam Hussein is a madman, right?

      So WHY DIDN'T HE USE THE WMD's?!?!?

      ANSWER: He never had them.

      Bush lied, and that's a fact.

    8. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? There is HARD EVIDENCE that he had them - documents and records containing orders to his front line troops to use them if things got rough - and now they're magically not there any more?

      Neither of those two facts certifies that he didn't have them. We ALREADY KNOW HE DID HAVE THEM. THIS IS NOT CONTESTED.

      Pick up a fucking book.

    9. Re:WMD detector by Cereal+Box · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would he use the WMDs that he denied having? Hussein knew he couldn't win a war against the US, so his only hope was to have the US cave in because of worldwide criticism of there not being WMDs in Iraq. He figured that even if the US invaded that he could get them to back down eventually. If he used the WMDs in combat, he would instantly blow away his last line of defense -- world criticism of the US -- because the rest of the world would find out that he does indeed have WMDs and the US was justified in invading! That would change things dramatically, don't you think?

      Unfortunately for Saddam, we didn't care about the criticism. Ultimately, his gamble didn't pay off. Saddam is going to fold like Chinese laundry and the WMDs will be found.

    10. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did use them. On the Kurds. Ergo, he has had them in the past.

      He didn't cooperate with weapons inspectors. If he had nothing to hide... why not?

    11. Re:WMD detector by edalytical · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Right. They found him with one or possible two AK-47s and a pistol. He didn't even have a grenade. Nice Weapons of Mass Destruction. To quote Bill Hicks, "you can get harder shit on the streets of New York." He didn't even fire a single shot. Wow, what a ruthless killer, he was definitely a treat to national security. If he was a terrorist why wasn't his cell wired with explosives, that he could trigger to kill the 600 soldiers from the 4th infantry division as well as himself. Thus becoming a martyr and hero amongst those that want to kill Americans.

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    12. Re:WMD detector by mst76 · · Score: 1
      If you keep that in mind, how hard do you suppose it will be to WMDs?
      Maybe they should issue a $25 million reward for finding the WMD. Inventive Iraqi's will probably produce some WMD just to claim the reward. Then everybody will be happy (except the French of course).
    13. Re:WMD detector by Frymaster · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      hey can easily find massive stashes of WMD.

      1. capture bin laden
      2. capture omar
      3. capture hussein
      4. find the wmd's

      well, one out of four aint... good. even in the remedial stream 25% is still a failing grade.

    14. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i thought the CIA had sat images of the plants where everything was produced?

      The pictures (that were released to the public, at least, back when other countries were calling for evidence) were of rickety trailers and vans that were claimed to be "mobile WMD labs". Never mind the fact that the equipment and containment required for weapons-grade WMD production would never have worked in them, according to American biowarfare experts, who considered them to be deathtraps, if in fact they were used for producing weapons.

      The closest thing to a weapon of mass destruction thats been publicly acknowleged in the middle east is an old shack that was so radioactive that it would have killed anyone inside of it for more than a few minutes.

      Of course, who the hell knows what our government really has. If they'd get off this damn secrecy kick, they might turn out to actually be right, but for now, we're all just assuming they have nothing, and are working hard to hide it. Funny how anti-privacy people go on and on about "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide".

    15. Re:WMD detector by i_m_sane · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait this is America...

      25% is considered passing!

      --
      Adam Sane sanity is a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.
    16. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US does not allow biological weapons inspection of their facilities, ergo, they have illegal biological weapons. What have you got to hide?

      I suppose it explains where the anthrax attacks came from.

    17. Re:WMD detector by 8-balll · · Score: 1

      If he neverhad them, then what was that funny stuff that he used against the Iranians, Kurds, etc. Oh that's right it was a figment of their imagination....

      --
      such is life...
    18. Re:WMD detector by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh come on...it's easy to hide a few vials of anthrax or nerve gas, but it's not easy to store all the equipment needed to make it.

      The administration said there were WMDs. They said they knew where they were. They lied.

    19. Re:WMD detector by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Hint: "Pop quiz" is two words. Perhaps the only context in which you have heard them is the movie Speed, starring Keanu "Woah" Reeves. It is also used in an academic context. You may want to look into that.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    20. Re:WMD detector by scrytch · · Score: 2, Funny

      > If you keep that in mind, how hard do you suppose it will be to WMDs?

      I dropped this little eyeglass screw in a plush carpet. Took me forever to find it, I actually gave up for a day then the cat was playing around with something and I saw it was the screw, it found it in the carpet. If it took me so long to find that little thing, how hard to you suppose it will be to find unicorns^WWMD's in iraq?

      Jesus... one single person with no supplies except a box of money compared to an allegedly far-reaching WMD program. This approaches the chewbacca defense.

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    21. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um.. because he's a coward?

      What'd you expect him to do, carry a VX-loaded SCUD around with him in hiding?

      Can you get any more glaringly stupid?

    22. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      If Hussein really did have WMD's he would've used them.

      Imagine you're Saddam Hussein. Imagine, just for a second, that you are also not an idiot. It's January, 2003.

      You have a modest stockpile of chemical munitions left over from the Iran-Iraq war: artillery shells, mostly, with a few hundred bombs. The bombs are irrelevant, because you know you're going to lose every aircraft capable of conducting military operations within the first minutes of the coming war. So all you're left with is a few thousand artillery shells that can be loaded with pretty much any liquid-dispersal chemical agent: mustard, VX, whatever you have.

      You've got a choice. Use 'em, and you become an international pariah. Your enemy's accusations are known by the whole world to have been true all along. Your international support, from illicit trading partners Germany, Russia, and particularly France, evaporates. Even closest ally Syria turns its back on you. But your enemy is prepared for that kind of attack, and they're numerous. If you use them, your chemical weapons will not be sufficiently effective to turn the tide of the war. You might succeed in making a few Americans throw up, but that's about it. No military gain, and a disaster of public opinion.

      Option B: pack whatever's left--artillery shells, drums of agents, precursor agents, manufacturing equipment, whatever--into unmarked trucks and ship them across the border, through Syria, and into Lebanon. Or, even more terrifying, ship them from the fortifications around Baghdad to the state-sponsored terrorist camps of Ansar al Islam, basically handing al Qaida the keys. Deny that the weapons, which the ENTIRE WORLD already KNOWS that you had, because you ADMITTED having them in the mid-1990's, ever existed. Give up the shooting war and focus on the PR war.

      Remember: in this little mental exercise, you are NOT an idiot. Try to imagine that for just a second.

      Which do you choose? To show all your cards in a futile gesture? Or to risk everything in an attempt to discredit your enemies?

      Remember: pretend that you're not an idiot before answering.

    23. Re:WMD detector by Xentax · · Score: 1

      You can be a tyrant and still be a coward. Maybe he didn't have the courage (or whatever you call it) to go down fighting or put one in his brain himself.

      It's very easy to be a hardass when you've got the upperhand; being a tough guy when it really comes down to it is something else.

      Having said that, his sons clearly went down fighting, so I personally WAS expecting more active resistance from Saddam. Given the circumstances, maybe he was hoping to go undetected until it was too late to do otherwise. I bet he's been *almost* detected several times in the past, and they missed his hidey-holes elsewhere. Maybe he was counting on them doing so again.

      Xentax

      --
      You shouldn't verb words.
    24. Re:WMD detector by bugbread · · Score: 2, Funny

      "So tell us all, Mr. Wizard, why have WMD's if you're not going to use them?"

      Two words: Amateur Hobbyist.

    25. Re:WMD detector by ThePlague · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So he had WMDs, yet even under the threat of an invading force set out to depose him and, quite possibly, look the other way as he experiences a Mussolini moment, he "could not" use them for strategic purposes. Ok, let's buy that for a moment. Since even these extreme conditions he wouldn't use them, what does it matter if he had them at all? At worst, at the absolute worst, he was a collector, unwilling to take the toys out of the box in fear of decreasing their value.

    26. Re:WMD detector by RevRa · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I have a photo of myself with Santa Clause too. Does that mean he really does exist?

      --
      - Kate
      "DNA is life. The rest is just translation."
    27. Re:WMD detector by Kirk+Troll · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Did people expect him to have a gallon of sarin up his ass?

    28. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can find a guy in a hole covered by a rock, they can easily find massive stashes of WMD.

      They couldn't find a guy in a hole covered by a rock. They searched that stretch of road several times and never found anything suspicious. It wasn't until they received intelligence from an insider that they knew to look again.

    29. Re:WMD detector by strictnein · · Score: 1, Informative
      You don't get it, it seems. You also seem to like to pick and choose your news. You just want to deny, deny, deny. And that's fine.

      Iraqi colonel who told MI6 that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes

      Read the article. This was covered by every
      major news agency. You just seemed to have missed it.

      Login for the telegraph:
      user: thetruthhurts@doesntit.com
      pass: wmds

      Here's a few snippets for you:
      He said they were to be used by Saddam's Fedayeen paramilitaries and units of the Special Republican Guard when the war with coalition troops reached "a critical stage".

      The containers, which came from a number of factories on the outskirts of Baghdad, were delivered to the army by the Fedayeen and were distributed to the front-line units under cover of darkness.

      The devices, which were known by Iraqi officers as "the secret weapon", were made in Iraq and designed to be launched by hand-held rocket-propelled grenades. They could also have been launched sooner than the 45-minutes claimed in the dossier.

      "Forget 45 minutes," said Col al-Dabbagh "we could have fired these within half-an-hour."


      Local commanders were told that they could use the weapons only on the personal orders of Saddam. "We were told that when the war came we would only have a short time to use everything we had to defend ourselves, including the secret weapon," he said.

      The only reason that these weapons were not used, said Col al-Dabbagh, was because the bulk of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam. "The West should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," he said.

      "If the army had fought for Saddam Hussein and used these weapons there would have been terrible consequences."


      Saddam was in a whole in the ground because he was a coward. He was captured alive! With a gun at his hip, and plenty of time to use it (being that he was in a whole that had to be uncovered, a process that surely took several minutes)

    30. Re:WMD detector by strictnein · · Score: 1

      rghh...

      whole = hole

      blah

    31. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If they can find a guy in a hole covered by a rock, they can easily find massive stashes of WMD.


      They didn't just find him... Somebody told them where to look.

    32. Re:WMD detector by Cereal+Box · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No, you're missing the point. He could surely use them to say, gas the Kurds or whatever else he'd been doing for 12 years that the UN didn't really care about. Now about the US invading, his ENTIRE defense rest on the US backing down from criticism since it was widely believed by leftists all over the world that Saddam had no WMDs (despite documented evidence -- the question still remains: where did all the chemical weapons documented after the Gulf War go?). This was his big gamble and his only real saving grace. So if he were to use WMDs ONCE to win one battle out of many, he'd be up shit creek since the rest of the world would join behind the US in taking care of Saddam (because the proof of WMDs everyone wanted would be out in the open). Perhaps now you can see why strategically it would not be to his benefit to use WMDs -- it's a "win the battle, lose the war" situation.

    33. Re:WMD detector by trentblase · · Score: 2, Funny

      25% is about half, right?

    34. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so there's a massive chemical and biological weapons program, including production and storage facilities, hiding under a rock somewhere? Is that what you're trying to say? Is that what was putting the U.S. at a clear and present danger justifying this war?

    35. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So WHY DIDN'T HE USE THE WMD's?!?!?


      Bunch of reasons. If he did, he would have France, Germany, Russia, and the Arab world all against him. Also, he had hid them so well that he couldn't easily retrieve them.


      ANSWER: He never had them.


      Wrong.

    36. Re:WMD detector by TillmanJ · · Score: 1

      So tell us all, Mr. Wizard, why have WMD's if you're not going to use them?
      Two Words: Deterrent, Intimidation.
      Thank you, drive through.

    37. Re:WMD detector by Frymaster · · Score: 3, Informative
      it's easy to hide a few vials of anthrax

      a "few vials" wouldn't really count as "mass" destruction though, would it? take a look at the amount of chemical weapons the united states stores. there's a nice map available here:

      http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm

      these repositories range from 2,000 to 13,000 tonnes each. and there are nine of them.

      that's a lot more than just a "few vials"

      (nb: i am not sure how old this map is, but the us is not committed to destroying chem weapons until 2007... the purpose is to demonstrate that wmds are have "mass")

    38. Re:WMD detector by TillmanJ · · Score: 1

      ...he was definitely a treat to national security...

      You can say that again...

    39. Re:WMD detector by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Because he did use them, and he hid them when we threatened to invade.

      Next.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    40. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      but it's not easy to store all the equipment needed to make it.


      And the equipment to make it was found.

    41. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Especially when you're back is against the wall and there's no other way out. Saddam Hussein is a madman, right?"

      Right, so when he was cornered in a hole with a few guns, he shot his way out!!

      Oh wait, he didn't, did he...

    42. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just to clarify the point - do not let the lefties change the argument. Fact - Saddam had WMDs in the past - including chemical weapons which he used, bio-weapons he developed, and a nuclear program that the Israelis ended with a UNILATERAL, non-pussy UN airstrike in 1981.

      FACT - the end of the first Gulf War was predicated on Saddam accounting for the destruction of all of his WMD - both the actual weapons and the means to create them. He did not do this. Thus Clinton pulled out inspectors in 1998 and launched air strikes. Most of the remaining WMDs from the first gulf war era would now be unusable. But that is not the point. The point is, he was required under the sanctions of your precious UN to document the existence and destruction of all of those, and he did not. That is the bottom line. All the other stuff is bs. The french and russians only cared about keeping up the trade they had in violation of the UN sanctions. For all the bs talking about how the US armed Iraq, the fact is that France, Russia and China are the top three arms dealers to Iraq. France is the one that sold them a nuclear reactor in the late 70s. We can thank the ONLY democracy in the mid-east for taking care of that problem.

      After 9/11, the United States is not going to give the benefit of the doubt to someone like Saddam. Period. And you fucking pussies that don't like it can go move to a pussy country that talks crap because they continue to exist under the shield of America's protection, just like they did throughout the Cold War. That's why the US had to step in to deal with issues in Bosnia and Kosovo - cause the Euros couldn't even deal with a two bit dictator in their own backyard.

    43. Re:WMD detector by jkabbe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait this is America...

      25% is considered passing!


      It can certainly get you elected President :)

    44. Re:WMD detector by edalytical · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. No shit he can't carry a SCUD around. But you would expect him to have a better gun than a AK-47. AK-47s have been in use since at least 1949. If he can get his hands on stuff to make nuclear bombs and such wouldn't it follow that he could also get a better gun?

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    45. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Will people please stop arguing about this? What kind of right do you have to speculate on whether he would have used them or not? We don't know if he had them, and we probably never will.

      Facts:
      1) He did have them at one time (used on kurds)
      2) He hated the US.
      3) He Did not use WMD on the US. 4) He did/does not have a good understanding of his militaries capabilities or willingness to fight.

      To speculate whether he had them based on if he would or would not have used them is dumb. You don't know, you never will, get over it, He was a sick murderer, be glad we have him but give up the whole WMD thing please...

    46. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent down - offtopic and flamebait.

    47. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we invaded Iraq because of a modest stockpile of chemical munitions left over from the Iran-Iraq war?

      The same warheads we helped him create?

      This is the line you want to give us?

      And you want ME to pretend I'm not an idiot??? HA!!!

    48. Re:WMD detector by rifter · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was also widely reported that this report was bullshit and that is why Tony Blair is in trouble. British Intelligence and those who had reason to actually know what was going on were thinking it would take Saddam months to get things together for a WMD attack. He was being seriously hampered by the no-fly zone, sanctions and inspectors. The gas atack on the Kurds occurred back in the 80's when we liked Saddam and were selling him WMD. After the first Gulf War no incidents of usage of WMD nor evidence of continuing WMD programs were ever found.

    49. Re:WMD detector by fermion · · Score: 1

      Ah, but did we give the remedial student all his accommodations? Did we give him enough extra time for the search. Did we read all his reports to him. Were we sure that he understood the complicated words. Did we put him in a quite room without distractions such as alcohol or coke. If not, we cannot legally fail him.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    50. Re:WMD detector by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Your arguement is specious.

      So when Russia had it's back to the wall and didn't use ICBMs, I guess that means they didn't exist?

      Of course there are some facts you need to relize:
      1) Just because you have weapons, doesn't mean people will use them. It all comes down to the guy who pulls the trigger. If he thinks that he doesn't wish to die an ugly death for a guy he doesn't like, then he would be in likely to use them

      2)There where people from within Iraqs military saying they exisited.

      3) If they didn't exist, why didn't he let the UN weapon inspectors do there job?*

      4)British intellegence told us that they had information telling them they existed.

      5) Perhaps he was in Bahgdad and fear for his life? He is cowadly.

      *Normally I would post that because, who wants people troopng around your country? but he did sign an agreement after the '91 conflict.

      For the record, I think Bush is one of the worse presidents, ever.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    51. Re:WMD detector by VivianC · · Score: 4, Funny

      I dropped this little eyeglass screw in a plush carpet. Took me forever to find it, I actually gave up for a day then the cat was playing around with something and I saw it was the screw, it found it in the carpet.

      Great idea! We'll send a bunch of cats to Iraq!

      --
      Viv

      Gmail invites for ip
    52. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There is HARD EVIDENCE that he had them

      No, there is SOFT evidence that he "had" them.

      "Hard" evidence would be THE FUCKING WMDS THEMSELVES

      Moron.

    53. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      12 years that the UN didn't really care about.

      *ahem* s/UN/US/g

    54. Re:WMD detector by strictnein · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was also widely reported that this report was bullshit and that is why Tony Blair is in trouble

      I think you are confusing the date the material was originally released (around sept 2002) and when this interview/story was conducted (about a week ago)

      This is an Iraqi LT. Colonel stating that what was in that original report was true (and that he was the source of it)

    55. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If left alone, he probably would have gotten some if he didn't already have them.

      The thing is that he wasn't being left alone. That's what the UN inspectors were for.

      Bush has done a LOT of stupid things, but catching saddam is one thing he has done right.

      Yes, because it's OK to destroy an entire country if it means that one man is brought to 'justice' for something he wasn't doing.

    56. Re:WMD detector by ThePlague · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ah, an interesting theory. We'll forget for a moment that the entire nothern region was being patrolled by U.S./British aircraft (remember the no fly zone?). Consequently, he "couldn't" use them there either, for precisely the same reason you offer as to why he didn't use them against invaders.

      However, that begs the question of how does that affect U.S. national security, which was the nominal reason for this little adventure? I've been waiting for 18 months for an answer to that one.

    57. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So tell us all, Mr. Wizard, why have WMD's if you're not going to use them?

      Maybe because of the same reason Saddam Hussein had several weapons on his person when he was captured, yet failed to use them. Does the fact that he did not resist capture mean they were not there? NO! He knew if he came out shooting he would share the same fate as his sons.

    58. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "For the record, I think Bush is one of the worse presidents, ever.

      You only think that because you're alive right now and can see the things going on. If you lived in the south during the civil war, you probably thought Lincoln was the worst president ever because he wouldn't let the south do what it wanted and caused war.

      Every president has a list a mile long of things that could be horrible.
      Look at JFK. He stopped the nuclear crisis didn't he? Then again, he almost caused a nuclear war because he "wouldn't negotiate", even though that's what he ended up doing anyway.

      In 50 years, people will only remember bush as the guy that invaded iraq, but will have no real opinions on him.

      Please also note that I am human, and theirfore, full of shit.

    59. Re:WMD detector by dildatron · · Score: 1

      You are exactly right. Saddam knows that in this war, the biggest enemy to the US is the US. He knows that if he can discredit people, the US will in effect lose the war itself. That was his stategy.

      He knew his military couldn't compete with the US's, and rather than discredit himself and give the opposition an even stronger case, he chose to hide the WMDs and attack via politics rather than with guns. It is more effective this way, for him.

      --


      If you had nuts on your chin, would they be chin nuts?
    60. Re:WMD detector by corebreech · · Score: 1

      So when Russia had it's back to the wall and didn't use ICBMs, I guess that means they didn't exist?

      Nobody ever invaded Russia.

      Just because you have weapons, doesn't mean people will use them.

      If so, and Saddam really had WMD's, then why did they bother using any of the other weapons they had?

      There where people from within Iraqs military saying they exisited.

      How do you know this? Based on information from the same people who lied about the yellow cake from Niger? Who lied about Saddam's connection to al Qaeda?

      If they didn't exist, why didn't he let the UN weapon inspectors do there job?

      Excuse me, but he did let the inspectors do their job for many years. And nothing was found during this time.

      British intellegence told us that they had information telling them they existed.

      It's not all the fault of the Brits. The whole business about his relationship with bin Laden and the connection to 9/11 was fabricated on our end.

      Perhaps he was in Bahgdad and fear for his life? He is cowadly.

      You know, all this talk about Saddam being a coward, but if I recall correctly, Saddam saw a lot more combat than President Bush ever did.

      For the record, I think Bush is one of the worse presidents, ever.

      I think he's even worse than that. I think he's so bad, he might actually be our last President.

    61. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Riiiiiight.

      When will people stop defending Saddam? Admit he was a horrible guy will you? Fucking christ man.

    62. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't let the age of the AK47 design fool you. The AK47 is one of the most reliable weapons around. It's a very simple design that doesn't fail quickly.

      It will fire without a problem in situations where an M16 (for instance) would jam.

      It's also relatively cheap.

      Saddam could have hardly picked a better weapon to carry with him into a mudhole in the ground.

    63. Re:WMD detector by corebreech · · Score: 1

      The flip side of this is that he uses the WMD's against U.S. forces while still amassed in Kuwait, inflicting severe casualties, and receiving no greater retaliation than the invasion, which was inevitable in any case.

      He would have been seen as the man who bloodied the nose of the imperialist monsters from the west. He would have become the mother of all martyrs.

      And he *still* could've hidden.

      People say he wouldn't do that, that we would've responded with nukes or something like that, but we wouldn't have. The fallout, political and otherwise, would have been too great. We'd have gone in, just like we did, and endured very much the same campaign we are now, only it would be so much more treacherous since Saddam's forces really would have WMD's at their disposal, i.e., the U.S. could forget about using a palace or anything else as a base of operations.

      Saddam would have been way ahead had he used WMD's. He had everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

    64. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you cry that Saddam was evil and we needed to rescue all of the Iraqis he was brutilizing, then when do we go in and liberate all of the other millions who are living in evil dictatorships?

      I'm hearing this a lot today. The leftists would HATE IT if the U.S. did what you're suggesting, so WHY DO YOU KEEP SUGGESTING IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER LIKE A BROKEN FUCKING RECORD?

      So which is it - do you want us to choose our battles, battle everyone in the world at once like you just suggested, or more likely, not do a damn thing to help anyone? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the last choice is your real preference.

    65. Re:WMD detector by twofidyKidd · · Score: 1

      And they said that Kevin Mitnick could launch a nuclear strike with a telephone. Millions bought that load of FUD. Millions will undoubtely buy the story you posted about because they don't know any better. If they could find Saddam, a moving target in the literal sense, then how come they can't find some fairly stationary WMDs? I shouldn't have to explain Occam's razor to you, so I'll spare you that, but what seems more likely...those WMDs that we, the US think Saddam has are so well hidden that after all this time we still haven't found them, or that those WMDs simply don't exist? I wouldn't be surprised at this point that the Bush Administration will go as far as "manufacturing" and placing the WMD evidence they are looking for just so that their little campaign in Iraq doesn't look like it was all in vain.

      --


      Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
    66. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the equipment to make it was found.

      you mean the equipment to make Weather-balloons of Mass Destruction?

    67. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half the time, at least.

    68. Re:WMD detector by LousyPhreak · · Score: 0
      The containers, which came from a number of factories on the outskirts of Baghdad, were delivered to the army by the Fedayeen and were distributed to the front-line units under cover of darkness.

      'the outskirts of Baghdad' is not really THAT big an area to search, if you got proper information on more specific locations (as this source obviously doesn't) it should be possible to find it within an hour or so...

      The devices, which were known by Iraqi officers as "the secret weapon", were made in Iraq and designed to be launched by hand-held rocket-propelled grenades. They could also have been launched sooner than the 45-minutes claimed in the dossier.

      i might got some false information on this part but i for myself imagine rpgs as:
      1. take out the box
      2. aim
      3. fire
      in which case the 45 minutes shrink to a mere 5 iven if you have to add:
      1. wipe your ass
      2. get off toilet
      3. flush
      4. walk over to weapons tent

      also IF they were delivered to frontline units WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
      i still remember in the balkan war the serbs had in their media almost every day reports on shot down american fighters, yet we all know there was one fighter which crashed there (and even this one might just have crashed because of technical problems im not sure on this), which was the ONLY one ever SEEN.
      so you could bet that EVERY tiny bit even remotely associated with weapons will be shown to the world in an instant! (remember those 5-10, also not sure on the number, rocket parts found right after the end in iraq? yeah thats WMD's.

      so better grow up and ask yourself (or mor specifically good ole bush) about international rights! (wonder why no german, french, other anti iraq-war countries get NO contracts for rebuilding in iraq? search google for 'bush iraq halliburton' and check fo yourself)
      --
      -- Karma: beyond good and evil - mostly affected by posting political
    69. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love when people state "WMDs will be found" like an article of faith, like "Jesus will return" or "The Kool-Aid isn't poisoned".

      Perhaps faith blinds people from seeing inconvenient facts. Such as Colin Powell showing pictures of trucks that we were actively tracking by satellite. (Did we ever find those trucks? I can't see how we possibly couldn't have, if we were tracking them so carefully--but there wasn't anything newsworthy on board). Then there was Rumsfeld claiming we knew exactly where the WMDs were and it was just a matter of getting people into Iraq to secure them (he denies he ever said this now, but me and a good chunk of America have it recorded on video).

      So yes, finding a canister in Iraq is hard. But not when you know exactly where it is. Someone lied, and it wasn't Saddam.

    70. Re:WMD detector by Dausha · · Score: 2, Funny

      even in the remedial stream 25% is still a failing grade.

      Yes, but .250 is a decent batting average.

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    71. Re:WMD detector by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      If you keep that in mind, how hard do you suppose it will be to WMDs?

      As long as they can be camouflaged as bum-looking middle-aged dude, living in a hole, pretty easy?

      On the other hand, there is also possibility that it's comparing apples and oranges, and that hiding WMDs efficiently, securely, and in a way they can be reused, yet still not detected easily by radioactivity, or chemical leakage, is significantly more challenging task than hiding an ex-dictator.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    72. Re:WMD detector by Faluzeer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmmm Most of the evidence supporting the 45 minute claim was "rubbished" by the experts of the British Intelligence Services, a number of whom gave reports to the Hutton Enquiry (into the death of Dr Kelly). Yes, I am aware of the recent story in the Telegraph, however I am not sure that it adds _any_ creditability to the 45 minute claims...

    73. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish they hadn't used WMD as an excuse to go to war with Iraq, but the bottom line is I would have supported going to war with them just to get Saddam out of there even if they didn't have WMD. The S.O.B. killed hundreds of thousands of people. Let that sink into your head for a while instead of just brushing it off.

      p.s. Speaking of lies... did you already forget about your wonderful Mr. Clinton lying to a grand jury while in office? Government officials lie. ALL of them.

    74. Re:WMD detector by falsified · · Score: 1
      The CIA did have satellite images of everything. We have awesome intelligence. We were, according to the administration, watching all their movements and could cite exact locations of their WMD.

      Then the weapons inspectors asked for some help and we refused.

      Then the war began and we had no idea where anything was.

      The question: Did we for some reason stop using our surveillance when the war started (somehow this seems unlikely); did we never have satellite technology capable of monitoring Iraqi activities (Note: here's a satellite image of my neighborhood; or did the president lie to the entire world?

      --
      HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
    75. Re:WMD detector by TTL0 · · Score: 1, Redundant
      I can't figure out what everyone is expecting ?? a big sign that says "THIS WAY TO WMDs" ?? a factory located at "1 WMD plaza" ? WMDs next 3 exits ??? a advert that has saddam saying "just say no to WMDs" ??!?!?!?

      The UN gave plenty of time for saddam to hide the WMDs and they could be anywhere in the country or in Syria or seperated and ready for quick assembly. Saddam has been accused of many things - being stupid isn't one of them

      --
      Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
    76. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if he had used them then France, Germany etc would have joined the war (at least I would assume so...). What effect that would have, I don't know, but I don't think it would have been a better situation for saddam.

    77. Re:WMD detector by strictnein · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ughh... I really thought I was at slashdot, not Kuro5hin... anyways...

      i might got some false information on this part but i for myself imagine rpgs as:
      take out the box
      aim
      fire


      Except you're not firing explosive rounds. You think you just store biological or chemical agents in a plastic baggy? Or in a cup? Or in a jug?

      But whatever, I'm done with posting on anything even slightly politcal on slashdot... what a waste of time. For fucks sake, I voted for Gore in 2000, I'm not some right-wing biggot, I married a very liberal wife who has openly socialist parents. My mother has donated tens of thousands of dollars to very left wing orgs. But trying to have a conversation with someone left of center about an issue they disagree with is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

      so better grow up and ask yourself (or mor specifically good ole bush) about international rights! (wonder why no german, french, other anti iraq-war countries get NO contracts for rebuilding in iraq? search google for 'bush iraq halliburton' and check fo yourself)

      And I can also search for "liberal satan ass cream" and I get results too, over 2000 in fact.

    78. Re:WMD detector by jobugeek · · Score: 1

      Hussein isn't completely stupid. He knows he couldn't win a brute force against the US. But he can a PR war. His only chance at survival was world public opinion making the US back down. The second he uses chemical weapons, the whole world is looking for his head. Unfortunately for him, the US happens to have a president who doesn't give a shit what everyone else thinks.

      --
      I'm not drunk, I just have a speech impediment. And a stomach virus. And an inner ear infection.
    79. Re:WMD detector by Doomdark · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Sure, hiding a vial of almost anything, or canister of something else is easy. But for weapon-grade stuff, that's not the way it can be done. You don't fire vials with missiles or howitzers, nor do you get much results with small amounts of nerve gas. Plus, even evil crooked scientists and military lunatics prefer not to get harmed by the dangerous stuff, so packaging generally adds lots of overhead on otherwise potentially small volume.

      I mean, although I know that "even if I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't after me" is sometimes valid counter argument, is it so hard to believe that perhaps Saddam eventually thought that WMDs were NOT worth all the hassle? (after losing to Iran, getting chastised, eventually, for killing kurds with mustard gas, getting kicked out of Kuwait by coalition etc. etc.)

      Have people just been so well indoctrinated with scare d'jour; after red scare it's all these pesky terrorists and dictators taken out of b-class Hollywood movies, lumped together, every one of them being wild-eyed raving lunatics whose main mission is to destroy the earth along with western way of life. From that perspective it may be unthinkable that perhaps bloody dictators too can occasionally use their judgment, do some cost/benefit analysis of their own.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    80. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the AK-47 or Kalashnikov is an old weapon, sure, but does that mean it kills you less dead? these guns are very easy to operate, take apart, put together again, and they won't die because of a little desert sand getting into it. and it's cheap. in a fair desert battle, of US troops with laser-pointer-gps-guns (no bomber planes) and iraqi's with kalasnikovs, my money is on the iraqi's.

    81. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liberals are stupid.

    82. Re:WMD detector by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Seriously though, a few vials of Anthrax or Nerve gas are not weapons of mass destruction. If you wanted to turn them into viable weapons of mass destruction you'd need a pretty large infrastructure to produce and manufacture the chemicals and the delivery systems necessary to use them effectivley.

      So far there has been no sign of any of this infrastructure, no one has admitted they were one of the ( presumably hundreds ) of people who worked in this infrastructure and not one factory or storage facility has been found despite the presumably massive amount of satellite surveilance which Iraq has been subjected to.

      The other point is why on earth would Saddam bother to spend time and money developing this stuff when he must have been quite well aware that with the US now facing off as the enemy there would be no way he could use them and keep control of Iraq. The US didn't exactly sneak into Iraq in a surprise attack so Saddam had plenty of warning and must have realised that his time was up - if he did have any weapons then you would have thought that would be the ideal time to use them.

      As a side point the US has far more chemical weaponary than anyone claims Iraq had and so far as I remember is refusing to enter any kind of international agreements where they have to decomission them. I wonder if there were really any Iraqi scientists making big strides forwards in developing chemical weaponary technology where they might be working now ?

      Don't get me wrong, Saddam under lock and key is a good thing but I am very dubious about the existance of the fabled WMD.

    83. Re:WMD detector by outZider · · Score: 1

      Because they went in being so goddamn confident that they were there, we'd almost expect they'd have a good idea where they were. If their intelligence can't find out where they /moved/, how did they know where they were? Were they moving off of two year old information, or did we all miss something?

      --
      - oZ
      // i am here.
    84. Re:WMD detector by falsified · · Score: 1
      To further illustrate the abilities of our satellites: My house.

      My house is the grayish thing that is across from the beginning of the east-west street in the middle of the photograph. As you can see, our backyard has lots of trees and to my northeast is a church. We also have above-ground phone lines, which is clearly visible. Please keep in mind that this is the technological abilities of Mapquest and that which the USGS has made publicly available; this is not a military satellite using secret technology. We also had full flyover rights with Iraq, so the pictures could be taken from several thousand feet away rather than from inner space.

      --
      HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
    85. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woo hoo! yay! We got Saddam!

      Now bring our troops home, Bush.

      Oh, wait, you still need them there to protect Halliburton's oil supply?

      Remember, fellow Americans, when you pay your taxes this year, Halliburton is spelled with two "l"s.

    86. Re:WMD detector by Alan · · Score: 1

      The impression I got of how they found him was capturing and then "intensely interragating" (I read that as "torturing") them.

      Yes, offtopic.
      Yes, my spelling sucks.

    87. Re:WMD detector by lobsterGun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a difference between being wrong and lieing. The administration thought Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, so did the rest of the world. It appears they were all wrong.

      I don't recall any administration ever saying that they knew where the weapons were stored. Back when this whole affair was being bandied about by the security councel I did a fair bit of reading on this topic. The closest this I can recall that was anything like you describe was some satelite intel phots that Sec. State Powel presented to the UN. Nothing that was said in relation to those photos approached willfull misrepresentation of facts.

    88. Re:WMD detector by b17bmbr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      actually, if you would take a few minutes to look at david kay's report, you'd see that he had extensive programs in development. whether he actually had them or not, and that was never in dispute among any intel agency, even the french, russians, and germans, what we DO KNOW, is that he did have them, did use them, did have extensive programs, did not allow inspections, did not follow UN resolutions after gulf war, did not meet his obligations under 1441, and now, heh heh, does not have to worry anymore. if you really think they are really a figment of someone's imagination i suggest you ask the kurds. to postulate, even for a moment, that he never had them, or they never existed, puts you at the extreme fringe of people. on credible source ever said this. in fact, what scared the french before the war, and terrifies them now, is the extensive relations between chirac and husesein. if/when he talks, lots of people are gonna fry. and that scares the shit out of the germans, french, and russians. where you think lots of his weapons came from?

      whether we find them or not, is actually irrelevant. if we do, you, or dean, or martin sheen, tim sarandon, the dixie chicks etc., gonna say the war was justified? i doubt it. he was a real threat. you refuse to accept it. he ahd time to get rid of them due to the spinal flexibility of the UN.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    89. Re:WMD detector by Alan · · Score: 1

      5) he got them from various companies in the US

    90. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Of course not, stupid! Santa Clause never existed! It's Santa Claus who is real.

      Sheesh.

    91. Re:WMD detector by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 1

      What bollocks, if he had wmd's he would have used them. Do you think having to hide out in a hole was also part of the overal plan. Saddam must have known that once he lost power, even if he escaped capture, he would not gain power again.

      There is really no reason for him to hold back. I think the real reason for the lack of WMD's is that the chemical and biological weapons were used within the country against the kurds and so forth. The economic sanctions made it very hard to replenish and rebuild (as they were designed to do), with the on again off again weapons inspections at least making it hard to establish good facilities, as they would have to be up-rooted periodically and moved else where to continue operating. It may have been a cat and mouse game, but while they are shifting everything every few weeks there was not a lot of development or production possible if at all.

      It may come out now that Saddam is captured that he quite possibly gave up on WMD production for the most part. Saddam couldn't rebuild his conventional army, and he wasn't able to get the technology to develop decent missile technology or nuclear capability. His wmd capability was very much stopped at the pre gulf war 1 days by sanctions and intense scrutiny, and his conventional army crippled and becoming obsolete.

      I think he really had no choice but to give up his military plans and instead built himself palaces, put up gaudy statues of himself and ran his country into the ground to show how "big" a man he is instead of invading other countries.

      My point is that Saddam was less of a threat during Gulf War 2 than he was in Gulf War 1.

    92. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Clinton Administration, the United Nations, Germany, Russia, and France all said there were WMDs too. Did they all lie?

      Iraq hid 30 f*cking AIRCRAFT, and you think there are no WMDs because we can't find a small lab?

    93. Re:WMD detector by GSloop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Set this in context of what was accused... ...by the president in his State of the Union message. Anyone who listened to that speech would now reasonably expect our forces to be finding "25,000 liters" of anthrax, "38,000 liters" of botulinum toxin, "500 tons" of sarin,
      mustard and VX nerve agent, and "29,984" munitions capable of delivering chemical agents -- along with a hidden nuclear weapons industry.

      If these were "realistic" estimates of what Saddam had, and they were being honest about it, it's certainly not the kind of thing one smuggles out of the country under your shirt or hidden in your trousers. It's not the quantity that can be easily and quickly destroyed, especially without
      notice.

      So, was the imagery intentially deceptive? Was it intended to simply have shock value?

      If these weapons DID exist, which, given the other statements and the credibility of the administrations, I don't believe they did - again, if they did, where are they now?

      We'd better hope either that there were NONE, of that if there were, that we find them. Because if there were and we don't, then the only answer is "we don't know who has them."

      Since the war was basically conducted to prevent the transfer of WMD to "bad-guys" or terrorists, then the very objective we used to promote the war was the outcome of it.

      Frankly, IMHO, the President gave the whole world a bill of goods that was a total crock. The was was not justifiable on the WMD grounds. What might be a reasonable justification was the brutal dictator himself.

      Yet to play that card, one would have to account for the US's part in arming and looking the other way when he did the dirty work for us. (Like attacking Iran and using WMD, which we provided intelligence data to make it more effective.) We forget how the US encouraged the Shia and Kurds to rise up against Saddam and then let them get cut down like wheat.

      No, going to war against Iraq on humanitarian grounds wouldn't sell, certainly not for the hawks in this administration. And if we go to war on humanitarian grounds, then why was Bush so opposed to our involvement in Bosnia and the other conflicts around Serbia?

      Oh, BTW, the assertion that the WMD could be in Syria doesn't fly. If the sat intelligence as Powell showed it, could supposedly pinpoint the presence of WMD so cleanly and clearly, then sending it to Syria wouldn't work either.

      Cheers,
      Greg

    94. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being wrong about something and lying about it are two distinctly different things. -- IV

    95. Re:WMD detector by Handpaper · · Score: 1
      AK-47s have been in use since at least 1949
      With good reason. Its simplicity, durability and tolerance for abuse, dust and sand make it ideal for desert environments
      In fact, they're so good that American troops are using them.

    96. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only Bush thought there were WMD, and it convinced a large part of the USA. But the majority of the rest of the world didn't believe him. I urge you to read _different_ medias (ie other than us ones!).

    97. Re:WMD detector by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      Great idea! We'll send a bunch of cats to Iraq!

      Where do I donate? That useless animal knocked over the Christmas tree again.

    98. Re:WMD detector by banzai51 · · Score: 1
      Tell that line to the Iranians, Kurds, and Iraqi disidents. Ooops, you can't. BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL VERY PUBLICALLY KILLED WITH WMDs. He had the weapons, not even France, Russia, and Germany will dispute that. The only questions were how much and what did he plan to do with them.

      Let's also think this through a little bit. He sitting there, claiming not to have them. If he uses them, he just justified the whole US position. All support against the war goes out the window. His only option is to bore the US to death and hope they leave so you can climb back into power. Plus the little fact that no matter what you have, the US has in greater quantity and nastier doses. If you are a Middle-Eastern dictator on the Post-9/11 Shit List, do you really think the US is going to think twice about nuking you if you use a WMD first?

    99. Re:WMD detector by slavetrade55 · · Score: 1

      That's wrong. Find me a quote where any French, German, Russian or any other official said "Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction". The whole reason the UN issued the final resolution calling for Saddam to cooperate with weapons inspectors was because everyone believed Iraq *did* have WMD. There are lots of ways to argue that the war was wrong (there is a difference between disarmament and invasion), but saying that no one really believed Saddam had WMD in the first place is wrong.

      --RMT

    100. Re:WMD detector by banzai51 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      You make a good point, one that I lean to (he used up most of his WMDs). However, its like you can't be a little bit pregnent. If he uses them at all, then saying we only had a little left over after gassing the Kurds becomes unbelievable. Plus there is the question of retaliation. Whatever he can launch against US forces, the US can lauch back at him ten fold and then some. He isn't going to 'win' in his mind if Baghdad is glowing in the dark for the next 10,000 years.

    101. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think he's even worse than that. I think he's so bad, he might actually be our last President.

      Try not to think. Leave it to those of us that are more qualified to do so.

    102. Re:WMD detector by ccp · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      and the WMDs will be found.

      Even if they have to be made just in order to be discovered...

    103. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STFU all you whiny offtopic bitches. Your opinions are worthless.

    104. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To whatever jerk kept modding Cereal_Box comments as Offtopic, remember that Metamoderation will be revenge.

    105. Re:WMD detector by cthrall · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Think for a second. Saddam has always been about one person: Saddam. His hatred for the US stems from the fact that we prevented him from getting at the Kuwaiti oil fields. Giving away his WMD gets him NOWHERE, because he still loses. If he had them, he would have used them.

      You're confusing al Qaida and religious hatred with the secular warmongering of Saddam. They're not the same, which is why this argument doesn't hold true.

    106. Re:WMD detector by jsebrech · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The problem is not that saddam isn't a bad man. The problem is that if you define iraq as rogue because of what saddam did in the 80's, half the planet is rogue. China is rogue, because of what they're doing in tibet, and how they disregard basic human rights like freedom of speech. Saudi-arabia is rogue, because of government ties to terrorism. Israel is rogue, for what they're doing to the palestinians (not that the palestinians are angels, but two wrongs don't make a right). And so on...

      Some people might even call the US rogue, for blatantly disregarding basic laws like the international rights of pow's and human rights in how they treat captured "enemy combatants". Examples of infringed rights: pow's have a right to be returned to their country after the cessation of major hostilities. Most people captured in afghanistan haven't been returned, even if there's no proof they did anything else than defend their country. Another example: the way people in guatanamo bay are presumed guilty and are refused a fair trial (the lucky ones will go before military tribunals, but I wouldn't expect impartiality from those, the unlucky ones will just stay locked up indefinitely). Let me quote from the declaration of human rights:

      Article 9.

      No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

      Article 10.

      Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

      Article 11.

      (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

      (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.


      To sum up my point, cleaning up the world brute-force would be nothing short of WWIII. It's an inherently flawed strategy. You cause much more damage than the problems you're trying to fix. Any solution towards world peace needs to be political (look back in history, how many times has piece resulted from a treaty, and how many times has it resulted from total military victory?). And I wouldn't go around putting blame on other countries, because every country in the world is rogue in some way or other.

      Besides, why is it ok that politicians lie? As a people, we shouldn't accept that, and we should hold them accountable. It was right to go after clinton for lying while president, it's right to go after bush for the very same reason now. A leader of the world should never, ever, knowingly lie, even if the truth is embarassing or damaging. If we can't trust our leaders, who can we trust?

    107. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing that was said in relation to those photo's indeed, but a lot of things were said to mold the public image that a war against iraq was worthwhile even when they were known to be false. For example, the aluminum tubes that were supposedly used for making radioactive material. Bush was personally aware that the intelligence community considered it more likely that they had benign purposes, but he still went on TV claiming that they were meant for use in the construction of A-bombs. A bit of research will easily turn up more misrepresentations.

    108. Re:WMD detector by ccp · · Score: 1

      So when Russia had it's back to the wall and didn't use ICBMs, I guess that means they didn't exist?

      The last time Russia (or rather the URSS) had its back to the wall was in 1942.
      You're suggesting they should have used nuclear weapons against themselves in the 90's? Weird. very weird...

    109. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The united nations did not say there were wmd's. They said they couldn't prove there were none, which is a big difference. This was the reason for the inspections, to verify there were none. Had the inspectors been allowed to stay they would have come back within the year and said "there are no wmd's", but the US and the UK pre-empted that possibility. Besides, in hindsight we can see the decision to invade iraq was based on gut feelings, not on evidence. I have a sneaking suspicion the US pre-empted the UN's inspection process on purpose because they knew it would result in a no wmd's statement, and wanted to invade regardless (and knew that with a un statement of no wmd's the american people would be much more storngly opposed to invasion).

      Hiding chemical weapons is a lot more difficult than hiding aircrafts, because unless you're really careful, chemical weapons leave trace residues where ever they were transported. None of those residues were found, so either the iraqi's were utter geniuses with respect to hiding chemical weapons, or there were no wmd's.

    110. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check this torrent:

      http://209.152.175.5/torrents/700/UNCOVERED%20(H i- Q)%20Why%20Bush%20REALLY%20attacked%20Iraq%20(56m% 20Xvid).avi(1).torrent

      (no this link is not clickable)

    111. Re:WMD detector by banzai51 · · Score: 1
      So tell us all, Mr. Wizard, why have WMD's if you're not going to use them?

      Because it is a MAD world. The US and Soviets (now Russia) have mass fields of WMDs. But by your logic Nuclear Arms must not exist because no one is currently using them, eh?

    112. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Oh, you mean he had about 2,500 nuclear warheads like the US does? That's a real threat. The point is, depending on what side of the line you stand on you can always choose to see the other side as a threat. There is no hard proof of WMD, there is no proof of anything Iraq could shoot up in the air and bomb America with. You are choosing to ignore the facts and live your life in fear. Don't take my word for it:

      "In Jordan and Indonesia, well over half of those asked felt the United States posed a greater danger to world peace and stability than al Qaeda.

      In five of the 11 countries polled, a majority of respondents believed the United States was more dangerous than Iran, named by Bush as part of an "axis of evil" with Iraq and North Korea.
      - From a survey of 11,000 people in 11 countries Link

    113. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but Clinton lied about a blowjob. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. One of those lies resulted in a lot of jokes on Jay Leno. The other lie resulted in dead U.S. soldiers.

    114. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, those Brits sure have good intel. First the they uncover how Iraq was buying uranium in Africa and now this!? I feel safe enough to sleep at night.

    115. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehwat offtopic but..

      > whether we find them or not, is actually
      > irrelevant.

      Its too bad that the rest of the world (and about half of the American population) disagrees.
      Bush and others in his government have repeatedly claimed Saddam did have WMD, and could use them against the coalition or even other countries that everyone simply knew were beyond his reach.

      He did have them in the past, and he had programs to maintain the technology and be able to make them again... now let me tell you something, despite havign signed a whole bunch of treaties to NOT develop them, the USA still has programs for exactly the same purposes, maintaining the knowledge and eb able to make them when needed. You don't think it is a tiny bit hypocrit to do so yourself and not allow others to do so for the simple reason you do not agree with those others?
      If you believe in the so often heard call to bring democracy, then you should start with behavign in a democratic way or shut the fuck up.

      Why the WMD issue was played out as it was is because it played on the fear of people, and allowed Bush and Rumsfelt to further their own agenda.

      That they got rid of a rather horrible dictator as a result is considence, them and their friends have helped so many horrible dictators to power that removing one now is pretty irrelevant.

      If you ever think to brign justice, you haev to prove what you say, and if you can't, you CAN NOT bring justice, and suggesting otherwise is deception at least, and in my dictionary it is called a blunt lie.

      Now, I am glad that Saddam is gone, that is a good thing, but if you believe that that solved any problem except for maybe solvign oppression in Iraq, you are completely cluyeless as to what the real problems are in the Middle East. I'd say that the current situation in Iraq is quite telling for how clueless the USA government really is with regards to how to deal with the Middle East.

    116. Re:WMD detector by pyros · · Score: 5, Funny
      And I can also search for "liberal satan ass cream" and I get results too, over 2000 in fact.

      Without commenting on the validity any opnions regarding the justification of the war, that is the best rebuttal of google evidence I've ever seen.

    117. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say we did know (The US I assume) he had WMD, and yet how many have been found... wait for it nothing!

    118. Re:WMD detector by cmdr_beeftaco · · Score: 1

      Of course he had WMD and probably a reefer in the glovebox too. If I learned one thing from all these years of watching COPS, it's that guilty people run and guilty people hide in spider holes. If he didn't have WMD then tell me why was he running for the authorities? Why did he consent to a search of his spider hole without a warrent? And tell me what exactly he was doing in an eight foot hole with a portable fractional distiller, 300 grams of extra-fine African Uranium and 300 petri dishes?
      I'll you the hard truth, Saddam is a cracked-up-nerve-gas-junkie with a serious lack of respect for authority and bouts of dellusion and paranoia (sure Blackhawk helicoptors are following you and men are repeling down ropes after you). The best thing for Saddam is for the authorities to get him off the street and get him some help.

    119. Re:WMD detector by operagost · · Score: 1

      We waited until we were attacked in 1941 to enter WWII, and some Europeans are STILL furious about that. So which way do you want it- do we defend the world or just us?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    120. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Changing Baghdad in a radiactive waste would be a very sure way to achieve the opposite of one of the stated goals of the war, it would cause an inmediate and direct thread against the USA unless you decide to take the rest of the Arabic subcontinent with it.

      The American government, and a substantial part of its population seems to be utterly clueless about the underlying problems in the area that once used to be called Arabia, people there still dream of a united Arabia, and if you ever put any efford into knowing somethign about it, you'd also know that destropying Baghdad will be viewed by Arabs like taking out one of the major symbols of the USA with the city it is in around it.

      If Saddam would have seen no chance to win and no chance to survive, he'd definitely have used WMDs. For him the loss of Baghdad would have been irrelevant if he would no longer be there anyway.
      (This is also what happened at the end of WWII in Germany btw when a comparably insane dictator realized he had no chance, not even in his dreams)

    121. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      where you think lots of his weapons came from?

      Lots of his weapons came from USA, from the time when he was at war wit Iran.

      The US government never cared what its supported dictators did in their own country, as long as they were on the "right side"

      Hussein even asked for permission to invade Kuweit, and got it from the Amarican ambassador.

      Hussein had two big problems:

      - He was no longer useful to the USA.

      - And more important: his invasion in Kuweit damaged the business of Bush jr. So it was personal between Bush and Hussein.

      That he was a dictator makes a convenient argument, but the US has happily supported other dictators, or overthrown democratic governments to replace them with dictators, so this is not the real reason.

    122. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but if the Iraqi army would have had WMDs ready to use, they would have been found. The factt hat they are not rather confirm that the report you point at is bullshit.

    123. Re:WMD detector by operagost · · Score: 1
      Well, you need a little more. About 43% should do it.

      Yes, more people voted for Bush in 2000 than for Clinton in 1992.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    124. Re:WMD detector by Tonytheloony · · Score: 2, Informative
      what scared the french before the war, and terrifies them now, is the extensive relations between chirac and husesein

      Just got to love when you state your wacky opinion as proof. That France sold weapons to Iraq when it was considered a western ally is nothing new, so did the US. It's always amusing when the neocons show the video where Chirac shakes Hussein's hand as proof that France still supports him. You know what? I saw a similar video in which Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam.

      Apparently you haven't seen it.

      --
      The quickest way to become an atheist is to study the Bible thoroughly.
    125. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa there! We're already *way* offtopic in the first thread. Please save your political discussions for Fark

    126. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did the fact that they managed to find a single man hidding in a cave but no WMD or WMD facilities strike you as strange?
      It seems to me that the latter would have been easier to uncover, and they've been looking for it for a longer period of time...
      How many more lies will the Bush government have to tell and how many more obvious proofs will people like you have to be shown before they start realizing that this was totally made up?

    127. Re:WMD detector by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      "38,000 liters" of botulinum toxin,

      Hey, they did find the botulinum. Not quite 38,000 litres, but they did find a vial with 50mg or so of the toxin in someone's fridge.

      After being trumpeted on Fox News for a week the serious press pointed out that you can hardly go arround invading countries for possession of Botox.

      The thing that gets me about the whole business is the idiots who ask 'if Saddam didn't have WMD why didn't he allow the inspectors in?'. Its a clever trick, you ask a question with a completely false statement. The UN weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq and did a very thorough job of investigating. Iraq was forced to destroy a number of rockets whose range exceeded the range allowed by 5-10%.

      It should be obvious to anyone but a complete administration dupe that the US did not invade Iraq to find WMD. The decision to invade had been taken long before. The risk of leaving the inspectors in place was that they would report back that Iraq had no WMD. Iraq was invaded because the administration knew it had no WMD.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    128. Re:WMD detector by dnoyeb · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dude please. We've all heard it before. We KNOW he HAD them because we gave them to him. The issue was not HAD but HAVE. So what he has the ability to house, use, distribute WMD, we all know that. But does he have any NOW. Appearantly that answer was no, and still is no.

      War could have and should have been justified for legitimate and available reasons. Manufacturing a reason just removes credibility.

    129. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gosh, you're right. Ok, since the whole military campaign was predicated on a lie we should just let Saddam go, hell we should put him back in power to. Then we'll just apologize for blowing stuff up. Actually Saddam would probably thanks us for exposing all the Iraqi dissadents who are opposed to his rule. We should round them up too so Saddam can execute them all.

      I really don't care if we knew or didn't know that Iraq had WMD. At the end of the day the Iraqi people are far better off without Saddam and the Baathists in power. In the long run we are probably saving millions of lives. Do you really think that Saddam wouldn't have tried to invade one of his neighbors again? He flouted all the UN sanctions from day one after the first gulf war. He was very disruptive to the region. I think we should do MORE of these types of operations, overthrowing all the dictators around the world who are abusing their own people and contributing to terrorism in other countries. It seems as though you are more concerned that a Dictator was overthrown due to some potential lies (I think the truth remains to be seen about Iraq's WMD).

    130. Re:WMD detector by Eisenstein · · Score: 1
      From tons of biological and chemical agents lying around, uranium bought in Niger and "45 min to use WMDs" we came to "he surely had a program". Well, well.

      if/when he talks, lots of people are gonna fry. and that scares the shit out of the germans, french, and russians. where you think lots of his weapons came from?

      I think the country which has to fear the most regarding of use of chemical weapons are the USA.

    131. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are correct, the US government is clueless as to how to deal with the US. The only corect way is to leve large glass craters in the desert

    132. Re:WMD detector by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      The administration has yet to produce evidence to make me believe what they believed, even if wrong. I can't see how they came to their conclusions based on what they have presented.

    133. Re:WMD detector by Eisenstein · · Score: 1

      Bush and Powell talked about several ten of thousands of tons of various agents. Nothing you hide in the fridge of your local 7-11.

    134. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BwahahahAHAHa

      Real insightful post there, jackass. Next time think if you have anything worth contributing to the discussion before you hit the 'reply' key.

      Score:-1 (Irrelevant)

    135. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Tell you what. Lets play a game.
      I have to hide 200 half gallon jugs in the state of Texas. I have 10 years to do it. I have no budjet. You have one year to find them. If you fail I get to for real kill you and all of your family. Want to play?

    136. Re:WMD detector by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There is really no reason for him to hold back. I think the real reason for the lack of WMD's is that the chemical and biological weapons were used within the country against the kurds and so forth.

      The dirty little secret here is that chemical weapons don't really work. You require pretty high concentrations to actually kill people. A case in point here is the Tokyo subway sarin attack which lead to 11 deaths out of 5000 people seriously affected. Even in the highly confined subway spaces the actual deaths were relatively light compared to the deaths that could have been caused with a moderately large explosive device.

      In a battlefield setting chemical weapons make even less sense, you can't use anything that you don't have a protective suit for or else your troops get killed when the wind changes.

      There are a couple of chemical weapons like napalm that can arguably be effective in limited circumstances - e.g. dropped on civilians from helicopters. But conventional weapons can typically achieve the same effects more easily.

      Nuclear is a completely different issue. The one concrete verdict the UN inspectors delivered is that they did not believe Saddam had nuclear weapons capability.

      However as a direct result of the idiot in the Whitehouse's big stupid mouth the other two members of the axis of evil have either aquired nuclear weapons (North Korea) or will soon acquire them (Iran). And with the US army currently over committed in Iraq there is not the slightest chance that the US will be able to do anything about the fact.

      OK Iran has recently made suggestions about inspections. Don't believe them, they would be complete and utter fools not to develop a nuclear weapon, if Bush is elected in 2004 the only way Iran will be able to avoid an invasion is by being able to plausibly threaten a retaliatory attack on Israel.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    137. Re:WMD detector by code_echelon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "For the record, I think Bush is one of the worse presidents, ever."

      One small alteration on this statement for me
      For the record, I think Bush is the worst president ever.

    138. Re:WMD detector by drakaan · · Score: 1

      Just curious...how so? I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on WMD, and am just about to read the interview with the Iraqi officer mentioned in the post you're responding to. How does not finding WMD make that report BS, though (assuming the officer isn't lying)?

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    139. Re:WMD detector by drakaan · · Score: 1
      I wouldn't be surprised at this point that the Bush Administration will go as far as "manufacturing" and placing the WMD evidence they are looking for just so that their little campaign in Iraq doesn't look like it was all in vain.

      Although possible, I *hate* that argument for the single reason that it swings occam's razor the other way...wouldn't the simplest explanation (if they were found) be that it took a long time to find them? Just a thought. I'll shut up now.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    140. Re:WMD detector by smackjer · · Score: 1

      Not that you'd find a lot of respect for Rumsfeld around here, anyway...

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    141. Re:WMD detector by sher1 · · Score: 1

      >> blah blah blah common rhetoric blah blah blah I am one of those Americans who didn't want to have our troops there and wish that it could have been avoided. Truth is, I wish they could all come home now, or tomorrow, or the day after but as soon as possible. However, I don't think that removing a known criminal and murderer is a bad thing. I don't think that it was a coincendence and I don't think that the Iraqi's (those not supporting Hussein) feel it was a bad idea. I also don't think that the US knows what is best for the Middle East. But apparently, neither do they. Unless you count the thousands of years of unending war and hatred as being the best for the region. As long as the Middle East, or anyone else for that matter, continue to act like petulant children, they will continue to be treated as such.

    142. Re:WMD detector by twiddlingbits · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      For the record, I think Clinton was THE worst president ever. I think Reagan was one of the best. I think Bush has potential to be very good but not one of the best, a lot depends on his second term. You don't have to be great, just effective.

    143. Re:WMD detector by pi+radians · · Score: 1

      where did all the chemical weapons documented after the Gulf War go?

      Chemical weapons have a short shelf life. They would not have lasted 12 years anyhow.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    144. Re:WMD detector by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      Most of those chemical weapons are WWII-era mustard gas, phosgene, tear & CS gas and other blistering agents... which need to be used in great quantity to have any useful effect. They are also deadly in their stored form, so disposal (usually incineration) is difficult, hazardous and expensive.

      Nerve gasses are lethal in tiny quantities and are stored in a relatively inert state.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    145. Re:WMD detector by smackjer · · Score: 1

      "Iraq was invaded because the administration knew it had no WMD." I don't follow. The reason for the invasion was because Iraq had no WMD? Huh?

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    146. Re:WMD detector by ThePlague · · Score: 0

      Just us, the primary duty of any state. We didn't enter WWII until it did concern us, and not one second earlier.

    147. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think North Korea gets off so lightly, especially in comparison?

    148. Re:WMD detector by drakaan · · Score: 1, Troll
      so better grow up and ask yourself (or mor specifically good ole bush) about international rights! (wonder why no german, french, other anti iraq-war countries get NO contracts for rebuilding in iraq? search google for 'bush iraq halliburton' and check fo yourself)

      Google results notwithstanding...there are a couple of good (IMHO) reasons not to award contracts to German or French companies (or *any* companies other than US or Iraqi ones). The most obvious reason is that the source of the reconstruction funds is (ta-daa!) US taxpayer money. I'm already not a big fan of just giving the money away with no repayment plan, but I'm even less in favor of giving it away to people who don't directly benefit from it (Iraqis), or aren't helping fund it (me/you/KBR).

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    149. Re:WMD detector by jkabbe · · Score: 1

      I was referring to the fact that about half of elligible Americans vote and slightly less than half voted for Bush last time. So typically about 25% of voting-age Americans decide who the president will be.

    150. Re:WMD detector by smackjer · · Score: 1

      The reason for invading Iraq was not because they didn't have WMD. Cuba doesn't have any either, and we're not invading them.

      There were other reasons for the invasion.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    151. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just open your eyes

    152. Re:WMD detector by Eight+01 · · Score: 1

      The U.S. didn't agree to give up it's nuclear warheads as a condition of a cease-fire agreement. Iraq did.

      If they didn't want to cooperate with the U.N., they shouldn't have signed the Gulf War cease fire.

    153. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't figure out what everyone is expecting ?? a big sign that says "THIS WAY TO WMDs" ?? a factory located at "1 WMD plaza" ? WMDs next 3 exits ??? a advert that has saddam saying "just say no to WMDs" ??!?!?!?

      Nah. Some WMDs would be enough for me.

    154. Re:WMD detector by twofidyKidd · · Score: 1

      Actually, you have a point. It would also bring into play Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice, that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

      Razors, and I'm not talkin' Gillette, have been appearing somewhat frequently in my discussions on /. and I can't imagine that's a good thing...

      --


      Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
    155. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of his weapons came from the U.S? Really?

      How come all those weapons I saw the Iraqis using were Russian or French? The guns, the rockets, the missiles, even the buried fighter jets were all Russian or French.

      Sorry to burst your fantasy with some reality.

    156. Re:WMD detector by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      I really should just leave this alone....

      The only reason they found Hussein was because they had informants who told them where he was.

      Assuming the WMD exist, its going to take someone telling us where to look in order to find them. Random searches are simply a long, looong shot (IMO).

    157. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The war was justified by Iraq's non-compliance with the U.N. resoutions. These resolutions called on his total cooperation. No one involved in the inspection program thinks that Saddam was being fully cooperative.

      What Saddam did with his WMD is secondary. What IS important is that he was obligated to cooperate with the inspectors to confirm what happened to the WMD. He did not do this.

    158. Re:WMD detector by hurtstotouchfire · · Score: 2, Funny
      (ahem) Does anyone else find the frequent, unexplained use of the acronym WMD slightly humorous?

      The Gulf War II Drinking Game:
      "Drink when:
      The words 'Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction' are used.
      x2 if its shortned to 'WMD'"

    159. Re:WMD detector by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between being wrong and lieing. The administration thought Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, so did the rest of the world. It appears they were all wrong.

      I'd still say they lied, since IIRC, Powell had a press conference about their evidence against Saddam that would give them good reasons to start a war. Evidence being the key word here.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    160. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think almost everyone agrees that the U.S. has made mistakes in the past with Iraq and Iran. I'm just tired of hearing them used as justification to preventing us from doing anything proactive now.

      Where are the WMD? Who knows. It makes me wonder why Saddam didn't just come clean with the inspectors. If it really was a pride issue like Saddam himself claims, it was a very stupid and foolish gamble that he lost.

    161. Re:WMD detector by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      I strongly believe, unfortunately, that Bush & co lied to the entire world. And got Blair to do so as well. I can't understand the reason behind needing to go so far as to lie to start a war though. Was it for some "we saved Iraq from their horrible dictator" PR? That sounds weird since countries seldom spontaneously launch a massive attack against a country just to make things democratic over there. Or maybe it was because of Bush's paranoia, thinking Saddam was funding Al-Qaeda to a great extent? But that's still risking to cause a whole lot of trouble for themselves if they're completely wrong. Hmm

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    162. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why do you think North Korea gets off so lightly

      WMD don't really come into it - Seoul is within artillery range of North Korea.

    163. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Korea has a very strong, dug-in military right on the border of an ally of America. Any war with N. Korea would result in a huge attack on South Korea, probably resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Furthermore, much of N. Korea is on the verge of collapse and starvation. Toppling an already delicate system would mean massive relief would have to be prepared in advance. This aid would be far, far greater an obligation than what we now have in Iraq.

      Or was your question rhetorical, along the lines of "if you can't do everything, you shouldn't do anything"?

    164. Re:WMD detector by mikerich · · Score: 1
      Hey, they did find the botulinum. Not quite 38,000 litres, but they did find a vial with 50mg or so of the toxin in someone's fridge.

      It was a reference strain of botulinum at that, not the form used in bioweapons.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    165. Re:WMD detector by mikerich · · Score: 1
      The reason for invading Iraq was not because they didn't have WMD. Cuba doesn't have any either, and we're not invading them.

      There were other reasons for the invasion.

      Because we knew that Iraq couldn't put up a decent fight?

      If the UK and US were to try the same with Cuba they might have to put up with taking casualties.

      Which would look lousy in the re-election videos.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    166. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It makes me wonder why Saddam didn't just come clean with the inspectors

      You seem to have discounted the possibility that he did come clean and that there were no WMDs. That's certainly the view of the inspectors themselves, and you would think they know what they're talking about. Unfortunately, of course, that doesn't jive with the political agenda of the cabal in washington dc

    167. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the left was so goddamn confident that Afganistan and Iraq would dissolve into anarchy and starvation which would kill millions of people. Remember "the Afghan Winter"?

      Now both Iraq and Afgahnistan are recovering from years of repression. They have both been given a historic chance to make thier lives better. Lives are already better for most people.

      The "right" gave liberal values to two oppressed countries through revolutionary action while the "left" howled about not getting involved in foriegn affairs and not trying to help the brown people who are unable to appreciate freedom or prosperity.

      Funny how the sides have changed.

    168. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Picking fights we can win is a great criteria in choosing which fights to take on. Would you rather we pick fights that we can't win? I know a lot of posters here would.

    169. Re:WMD detector by TheLoneDanger · · Score: 1

      They could be just about anywhere, disquised as something else, stashed inside holes, false walls, or stuck down old oil wells, buried in a fake grave, etc.

      I would imagine if you were going to hide anything from the Bush regime, it wouldn't be in anything having to do with oil.

      --

      "But I trust in the people's capacity for reflection, rage and rebellion." -Oscar Olivera
    170. Re:WMD detector by js7a · · Score: 1
      It was also widely reported that this report was bullshit

      What so many people are forgetting is that before, 9/11, the Bush administration agreed that Iraq didn't have WMD.

    171. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the inspectors said that Saddam wasn't being fully cooperative:

      "Clearly Iraq needs to do more by way of cooperating, particularly on unresolved disarmament issues, which are clearly issues of substance," said Ewen Buchanan, a spokesman for Blix.
      - Feb 20, 2003

      Asked whether there was any evidence that Iraq wants to disarm, he said, "I do not think I can say there is evidence of a fundamental decision, but there is some evidence of some increased activity."
      - Feb 26, 2003

      HANS BLIX: If I asked, say, give me four more months, I think I can settle it in that period. That sort of suggests I have confidence that they would cooperate sufficiently. I would not dare to give any check on that, that they would do so, because the track record has not been good.
      -- March 5, 2003

      But Blix also said the cooperation has not been "immediate," as required by the United Nations.

      Blix also said Iraq's recent steps to cooperate with inspectors had not covered all of the banned weapons programs and that Iraq had tried to attach conditions to its cooperation.
      -- March 7th, final Blix report

    172. Re:WMD detector by mikerich · · Score: 2, Interesting
      actually, if you would take a few minutes to look at david kay's report, you'd see that he had extensive programs in development.

      Which one of David Kay's reports? Kay's most recent report conceded that there were NO production plants manufacturing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Some work had been done in the lab on bacteria, but they had not been weaponised.

      Kay's belief on Iraq trying to manufacture centrifuges to make enriched uranium is not supported by the IAEA or the American Department of Energy.

      whether he actually had them or not, and that was never in dispute among any intel agency, even the french, russians, and germans, what we DO KNOW, is that he did have them, did use them, did have extensive programs,

      All of which were destroyed by the UN after the first Gulf War. Even the supposed 10 000 litres of anthrax is nothing more than the maximum amount of liquid growth medium that could have been created from the missing stocks - all of which would have expired now.

      The only thing that brought those inspections to an end was that the very same David Kay had allowed his inspection teams to become covers for British and American intelligence. The Iraqis objected to spies wondering around their country under UN cover (and can you name another country that refused to allow intrusive inspections? Here's a clue)

      Kay's spent much of the last few years saying what a great idea it would be to attack Iraq (here and here and here and here and here and here) to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. So if they aren't found, it's David Kay who is going to look stupid. He's already had to do some serious back-pedalling on the nuclear programme, centrifuges, those trucks that were supposedly mobile labs

      The BBC's 'Panorama' got some good quotes out of Kay. I recommend a read of the transcript.

      But why blame David Kay, here is an assessment of Saddam Hussein's capabilities straight from the top:

      'He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction, he is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.'
      Colin Powell. (24th February 2001)

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    173. Re:WMD detector by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      There was data that showed that Iraq still had chemical weapons:

      There was the pile of missing warheads that Iraq claimed to have destroyed, but refused to present documentation on.

      There was the pile of missing material that could be used in the construction of chemical weapons.

      There was testimony from defectors that they had worked on chemical weapons programs.

      There was Iraq's histroy of deception and obstruction of UN inspectors.

      Bearing just the above data in mind, it's easy to see how an otherwise intelligent person could draw the conclusion that the Iraqis were hiding a chemical weapons program. Once that conclusion was drawn, all other evidence was interpreted in such a way as to reinforce that conclusion.

    174. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to email your vaproware suggestion for Duke Nukem Forever. I think your vote will help it become the winner for 3 or perhaps 4 years running.

    175. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it isn't just him. There are currently some extremely anti-American guerrillas in Iraq, who are willing to kill both innocent Iraqi civilians and themselves. These people seem to have no trouble getting hold of conventional weapons from the former Iraqi army, and we can be sure that they would have used them. (Maybe they yet will...)

    176. Re:WMD detector by dcam · · Score: 1

      I didn't. The hundreds of thousands of people I marched with in Sydney didn't think Iraq had WMD. Neither did the hundreds of thousands who marched all around the world. Most of the world thought Iraq didn't have WMD.

      The point is your administration failed to do decent intelligence work on Iraq. They *wanted* to believe that Iraq had WMD and looked for intelligence that supported this view.

      Before you dismiss me as a professional protestor, this was my first time I had been part of a protest. God willing this is the last time I will see such an apalling stupid action that I am driven to protest.

      --
      meh
    177. Re:WMD detector by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      Why would Saddam wait to win the "PR war" and still be captured and imprisoned for live or given the death penalty? He could have used his WMD to waste Israel and become a great martyr for Arab history.

    178. Re:WMD detector by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      but what does Saddam gain from winning the "PR war"? He would still be captured and killed. Once the US started lobbing Tomahawks at Baghdad, he could be pretty certain that the US meant business. He could have used to WMD to take out Israel or Kuwait.

    179. Re:WMD detector by smackjer · · Score: 1

      So we're NOT taking casualties in Iraq? Tell that to the families of the soldiers who are coming home for Christmas... in a box. Do you honestly think that if we were to invade Cuba, that Cuba could win?

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    180. Re:WMD detector by Maudib · · Score: 1

      Actually there was a pretty clear understanding before the war even began that many of the weapons had been smuggled into Syria. This wouldnt be the first time that Saddam "hid" his weapons in another country. He did the same thing with his airforce in Gulf 1. Except he made the idiotic choice of sending the plans to Iran. They still have them I think.

    181. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However as a direct result of the idiot in the Whitehouse's big stupid mouth the other two members of the axis of evil have either aquired nuclear weapons (North Korea) or will soon acquire them (Iran). And with the US army currently over committed in Iraq there is not the slightest chance that the US will be able to do anything about the fact.

      Ahahaha. So let me get this straight - Bush apparently said words that "magically" created nuclear weapons for NKorea and Iran? You think they bought a nuclear power quickstart package off the internet last year or something? You do realize Santa Claus is not real, right?

      The incompetent CIA already knew that NK had nuclear capability before Clinton ever left office. Bush did not "cause" that, he acknowledged it. It's like the same dumbass hippy argument that says Bush "caused" the terrorists to hate us by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq - so I guess 9/11, and the embassy bombings in Africa, and the USS Cole, and the 1st attack on the WTC were all love pats. Only after the evil Bush came did they actually hate us.

      North Korea has been working on nuclear weapons since Bush's father was in office. They were left to continue working on them in peace throughout Clinton's presidency. In fact, Jimmy Carter got a Nobel Peace prize for negotiating the fraud treaty where we PAID North Korea to continue their secret nuclear program.

      But let me get this straight - since you sound like one of the people who opposed our going into Iraq. Your words - And with the US army currently over committed in Iraq there is not the slightest chance that the US will be able to do anything about the fact. The logical conclusion of your comments is what, that we should have invaded North Korea instead? So it is wrong to invade before someone gets more weapons that they have used before, but we should invade a country that already has nukes? If you don't believe that, then why did you make that remark. I'll guess the answer is because you are a classic inconsistent liberal who will throw whatever mud on the wall you can. No need to have a consistent view of foreign affairs, just attack evil Bush. Whatever he does must be wrong, no need for you to give a legitimate alternative.

      Wait, let me guess, you are now going to spout the democratic presidential line (excepting Lieberman) that if we just held hands with the french and cooperated with the world, all these problems would melt away? Sure - the French would sell them the nukes right up to the brink of war, then expect us to save their asses yet again. And why not, the French sold Iraq their nuclear capability in the late 70s, but those damn Zionists went and blew it up in 81. Why is it that the US is always assumed to have the worst motives - but somehow Russia and France are acting only out of their deep moral convictions. Surely they didn't oppose the war because they have been the biggest arms deals to Iraq over the last 20 years, or to protect their oil contracts with Saddam.

    182. Re:WMD detector by Atryn · · Score: 1
      There was the pile of missing warheads that Iraq claimed to have destroyed, but refused to present documentation on.

      There was the pile of missing material that could be used in the construction of chemical weapons.

      Suppose the IRS came to you and audited you for the past ten years. They then charge you with obstructing justice for failing to provide all of your receipts for the past ten years. Your reponse of "I threw them away, even shredded some of them!" is laughed out of court because you failed to document your destruction of the receipts.

      I'm not saying that receipts = WMD, or that Iraq is or isn't telling the truth. But, I do think that anyone who believes Iraq, in its dictator-controlled chaos over the past 10 years, kept "good records" of anything, much less of what they were destroying, has far too high an impression of the functionality of their society.
      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    183. Re:WMD detector by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 0, Troll

      unless by "we" you mean various French and German chemicals companies, you're talking out your arse.

    184. Re:WMD detector by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      A better example is Nazi Germany, which had Sabin and all manner of nasty chemical weapons, significantly more advanced than those of the Allies, but of course didn't use them.

    185. Re:WMD detector by j3110 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lets make it a little more realistic. You have to make a biological weapon, hide both the weapon and the lab, and you have to do it with hundreds of people roaming Texas. Oh yeah, and you have to do it without equipment, money, or chemicals more deadly than pesticide. Oh, I almost forgot, you have to do this with periodic bombings, and ruthless murderers all looking for a way to get more power. I almost forgot, you have a country full of pissed off people dieing from diseased water and lack of medicine.

      Look, Saddam lacked the science, equipment, and materials to make WMD. He couldn't even clean his water. Making biological weapons isn't easy. The best you could do is try to make mustard gas from the salt in the salt water the same way that subs do on accident. Which, if he could get chlorine, I think he would have at least used some of it to purify his water to at least make it appear legitimate.

      I'm really sick of the analogy "It's easy to hide milk jugs in a place the size of Texas". It's not easy to make, and people were dieing all the time because he couldn't even make the SIMPLEST biological weapon (mustard gas/chlorine) for cleaning his water.

      --
      Karma Clown
    186. Re:WMD detector by GSloop · · Score: 1

      Clear understanding by whom?

      If we had such great intel we could tell exactly which bunker they (the WMD) were in, then how exactly did they smuggle them into Syria without us knowing.

      Can you point to a SINGLE definitive statement that the administration has make to back this accusation?

      Goodness. Kind of hard to smuggle tens of thousands of liters of WMD without being noticed.

      Cheers,
      Greg

    187. Re:WMD detector by j3110 · · Score: 1

      You're post gave me another arguing point.

      I think the key point to the entire arguement now is if Saddam can't even hide himself, how is he going to hide a WMD? WMD are measured in tons, he's measured in kilograms. Saddam didn't require a lab to be created either.

      I think it's pretty ridiculous that people actually believe he had any amounts of toxins that would classify as a WMD when he couldn't even hide himself. Which would you be more concerned with, your own safety, or the safety of your weapons?

      I like your post... I'll be using that arguement now that Saddam has been captured as further evidence of a complete lack of WMD program, because it's the most compelling evidence that we have thus far of the lack of a WMD program. (Which we shouldn't have to prove the non-existance of something that no one has found evidence of.)

      --
      Karma Clown
    188. Re:WMD detector by mikerich · · Score: 1
      So we're NOT taking casualties in Iraq? Tell that to the families of the soldiers who are coming home for Christmas... in a box. Do you honestly think that if we were to invade Cuba, that Cuba could win?

      Of course the Coalition is taking casualties in Iraq, but compare it to the rate dead men were returning from Vietnam and you will see that the armed forces of the Allies have got off remarkably lightly. At its peak, Vietnam was killing over 500 GIs a week, no wonder Johnson was finished.

      Nowhere did I say that America couldn't win against Cuba, but the Cubans would almost certainly make it a bloody affair, so much so that I doubt any President could survive. Some wars aren't worth winning, a war against Cuba would be one of them.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    189. Re:WMD detector by mikerich · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Would you rather we pick fights that we can't win?

      Actually I'd rather we didn't go round picking fights at all. But then I'm old-fashioned like that when it comes to sending people off to die.

      Fighting when you're threatened is different from 'pre-emptive defence' against countries that can't harm you.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    190. Re:WMD detector by j3110 · · Score: 1

      I despise the UN for making me side with Bush on any issue :) If we are paying the bill, I think we are to be the ones that decide where that money should go. If MS was crying that I wasn't buying their software I'ld tell them to go screw themselves, it's my money. Whiney French/German people aren't going to change my mind on that issue. It's not about "we took a risk" it's about "it's our damned money". I don't have a problem with them not paying it back after all the damage done by the sanctions that we wouldn't let the UN lift to keep the Iraqis healthy, and besides, technically, we're the ones that destroyed their country.

      That said, the problem with the issue is that Bush can't handle foreign relations. He's the worst president in history (except maybe Andrew Jackson) at handling foreigners. If he just said, "It's our money, we're going to spend it how we see fit." instead of trying to twist a knife in their side, it would go over much better. He wants to control everything, and he doesn't care about anyone else's opinion. He's funny to watch, but it's hard to laugh when people are really suffering and/or dead partly because of his decisions.

      --
      Karma Clown
    191. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you are pretty happy with the way Ruwanda turned out then.

    192. Re:WMD detector by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Do you have even a vague basis for your supposition that the US would, today, employ chemical weapons? Or are you just being silly?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    193. Re:WMD detector by Moofie · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I don't know about you, but I keep a pretty impressive missile in my trousers.

      : )

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    194. Re:WMD detector by Lord+Prox · · Score: 1

      Look, Saddam lacked the science, equipment, and materials to make WMD. He couldn't even clean his water.

      Does not != could not. I could make WMD in my garage if I were so inclinded. Take chemestry next semister.



      Did I just feed a troll? I am not sure.

    195. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations.

      What could've been an amusing discussion of vaporware coupled with the inevitable retreaded Duke Nukem Forever/Flying Car jokes is now instead a bunch of warmed-over, recyled-from-this-weekend, boring policital-wanking.

      YUO R TEH WINNAR OF TEH INTARWEB!

    196. Re:WMD detector by Dukael_Mikakis · · Score: 0

      I dropped this little eyeglass screw in a plush carpet. Took me forever to find it, I actually gave up for a day then the cat was playing around with something and I saw it was the screw, it found it in the carpet.

      Great idea! We'll send a bunch of cats to Iraq!


      If we do that, it'll be the most pussy nuzzling up to carpet since Lillith Fair!

    197. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right... except Iraq doesn't have any nuclear warheads.

    198. Re:WMD detector by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      "Iraq was invaded because the administration knew it had no WMD." I don't follow. The reason for the invasion was because Iraq had no WMD? Huh?

      If the administration had really been concerned about the WMD issue they would have allowed the UN inspectors to complete their work. The principal advocates of the war, Wolfowitz and Perle barely mentioned the WMD issue until Blair made it clear that he could not invade without causus belli. Reports of the administration discussions were that nobody considered WMD the top reason for war but it was the only one that everyone could agree on.

      Once the administration had made WMD into their purported reason for war they were stuck, if the UN came out and said that Saddam was WMD free the opportunity to invade would be ended. On the other hand if they invaded and found no WMD they could probably fool the US public into believing the operation was a success. After all it was going to be a cakewalk - remember?

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    199. Re:WMD detector by u-238 · · Score: 0

      like the imaginations of the some 180,000 kurds that died from iraqi gassing in '88

    200. Re:WMD detector by yourmom16 · · Score: 1

      And why not use them if you have them? They weren't an effective deterrant, so why not put them to use?

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
    201. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You men he'd be killed without a trial rather than with a mock trial

    202. Re:WMD detector by yourmom16 · · Score: 1

      Saddam had nothing to lose from using them, that he wouldn't have lost anyway. So why didn't he use them?

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
    203. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference between being wrong and lieing.

      The burden of proof falls on the accuser either way, though. To then turn around and say "Oh, but Saddam was a very bad man" just begs the question.

      The rest of the world is rightly scared of the United States; "pre-emptive" attacks, with justifications invented by the attacker on flimsy or no evidence, have the potential to escalate. I hate to say it, but look at the behaviour of Germany in the 1930s. Invading other countries on similarly flimsy pretexts. Afghanistan, Iraq... next to Syria... then what? Iran? North Korea (probably not, if they already have nukes)?

    204. Re:WMD detector by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
      I'm not some right-wing biggot... But trying to have a conversation with someone left of center about an issue they disagree with is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

      Perhaps that should give you pause for thought about the philosophical underpinnings of modern liberalism. Are you really sure it's the right wing which is "bigoted"?

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    205. Re:WMD detector by kubrick · · Score: 1

      But trying to have a conversation with someone left of center about an issue they disagree with is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

      Sense isn't politically exclusive to one side of the debate or the other... I think your sentence is just as correct when it reads

      But trying to have a conversation with someone about an issue they disagree with is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

      Call it the diminishment of public debate. Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" sums up the reasons why, but for all the effect it had he may well not have bothered.

      And I can also search for "liberal satan ass cream" and I get results too, over 2000 in fact.

      That in itself is worth a +5. :) Interestingly, "bush satan ass cream" gets over 5,000, "clinton satan ass cream" around half that. Just checking...

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    206. Re:WMD detector by bonzomcgrue · · Score: 1

      >Wait this is America...
      >>25% is considered passing!
      >>
      >>It can certainly get you elected President :)

      Or at least governor of California.

    207. Re:WMD detector by bechthros · · Score: 1

      that was 1988. let me ask you a question: how long do you think bacteria live outside of any growth medium? 15 years? How long do you think highly volatile and reactive chemicals last? 15 years? We can't even get *food* to last more than a few months on the shelf (outside a can anyway). We have a *food preservative industry* to make sure that bread, cheese and other food products made from bacteria can stay on shelves for just a few months. And food isn't designed to blow up and kill anybody, and if it were, it's shelf life would be considerably shorter. Think, people, think.

      Let me ask you another: How did he get all that gas to use on the Kurds 15 years ago? Who sold it to him? And what does that do to any pretense of morality on the part of said sellers of WMD?

      Let me ask one final question, if you're even still reading: If we were absolutely certain that he posessed WMD, what scared us so much about the UN inspectors? What was Bush so afraid of that he had to pull the plug on them?

      You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about how divided Americans are against each other. Now, complete this sentence: Divide and...

    208. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA has chemical weapons, that is no secret.
      Accordign to the president of the USA, you do not make those to not use them, so according to the president of the USA, the USA will use them.

      Or are you sayign that all of the sudden the rules are different when it comes to judging the USA?

      I think that that is one of the main objections peopel have to the way the USA behaves. Start judging yourself with the same standards as others, and you will see that virtually all of the USA hate will be gone.

      Go on with the current bullshit and shortsightedness, and you end up with the same old bipolar world that we have known for half a century, only this time the 'enemy' will not be so 'wise' as to let a bunch of nukes stop them.

    209. Re:WMD detector by Doomdark · · Score: 1
      Saddam didn't require a lab to be created either.

      :-)

      But some people claim he was/is a frankenstein, and it would make lots of sense he came from a test tube or something! Yeah, I'd assume he was made same way all other humans are actually.

      And yes, I agree in that it'd be reasonable to require proof of existence, rather than proof of non-existence; especially since latter is in general impossible to really prove... if you find it, it exists, if not, you may still have doubts.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    210. Re:WMD detector by macjohn · · Score: 1

      Well, they just had a Sarin leak last weak at the Umatilla weapons something-or-other here in Oregon. Sarin! Apparently they have war-heads full of the stuff. SARIN! Like right next to I-84 and few miles from the Columbia river! Why on earth do we have bombs full of Sarin???!!!

      --
      --Hi. I'm in Portland and it's raining. This appears to be a permanent condition.
    211. Re:WMD detector by Kelz · · Score: 1

      I believe was is speaking of the BUSINESS relations between Chirac and Hussein. They skirted around UN sanctions and made huge oil deals with them.

    212. Re:WMD detector by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's not talking out his ass at all. Rumsfeld worked with the Reagan and Bush I administrations as a special envoy to Hussein back when we were propping him up in the Iraq-Iran war. Part of that deal involved suppling him with the chemical weapons he used to gas 20,000+ Iranians and a few thousand Kurds. This is old news that was vetted back '90. We've been seriously fucking with that part of the world since '45. Given that the Bush administration went on the defensive months ago over the apparent lack of WMDs I've got to wonder where all the armchair hawks have been getting their news.

    213. Re:WMD detector by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      By all reports, the Iraqi government was meticulious when it came to record keeping. That they didn't have or wouldn't produce the records detailing the destruction of the ordinance is somewhat interesting.

      Taken by itself it does not indicate that they did or did not destroy any weapons, but it an act that is out of character for the Iraqi government. When viewed against the backdrop of their obstruction and subversion of the inspection process it could be seen as an indication that they are hiding something.

    214. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww, whatsamatter, nobody paying any attention to your trolls anymore mister overly trollish guy?

      That's just so sad. I think I'll cry you a river.

    215. Re:WMD detector by Demolition · · Score: 1

      Do you have even a vague basis for your supposition that the US would, today, employ chemical weapons?

      I don't think that Eisenstein meant that the U.S. would employ chemical weapons. Rather, I believe he's stating that the U.S. is more likely to be the target of a chemical weapon attack by a terrorist organization.

      D.

    216. Re:WMD detector by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1
      if you really think they are really a figment of someone's imagination i suggest you ask the kurds. to postulate, even for a moment, that he never had them, or they never existed, puts you at the extreme fringe of people.

      That is like marginalizing someone who claims the Germans don't have any gas chambers. They did. Then we kicked their asses. They don't have them anymore.

      Keep in mind when you talk about Hussein's armament that we bombed the shit out of him during the Gulf War, subjected his retreating Republican Guard to a fish-in-a-barrel type of decimation, and then kept him in check throughout the Clinton administration with "no-fly" zones and occasional shellings. Yes, he kicked out the inspectors, but he also stood up on the world stage right after 9/11 to say, "Whoa, Dudes... It wasn't us!" His desire to maintain a hold on what he had left trumped the most basic standards of public dignity. In other words, he nearly begged to spared from another thrashing. Stalinesque dictators with big guns just don't behave like that when dealing with the outside world.

      if/when he talks, lots of people are gonna fry. and that scares the shit out of the germans, french, and russians. where you think lots of his weapons came from?

      What's he going to say? That he he got his WMDs from the West? We already knew that, and pointing the finger at France, Germany, or Russia will do nothing but prompt them to remind us that we gave him WMDs to use against Iranians. Should he say -- as he already has -- that he didn't have any WMDs? Again, we already knew that -- just as you really know that.

      whether we find them or not, is actually irrelevant.

      No it isn't. We've just shown the world that we're willing to throw a punch without being able to prove beforehand that it's justified. At first we just looked like assholes. Now, we look like liars.

      if we do, you, or dean, or martin sheen, tim sarandon, the dixie chicks etc., gonna say the war was justified?

      Why would that make any difference? He didn't even invade Israel let alone Hawaii.

      he was a real threat.

      He was a threat to Iran, Kuwait, and, on a smaller scale, Israel before we decided he was too big for his britches. Then he was just a threat to Iraqis. This guy couldn't even be called a Paper Tiger because he wasn't roaring.

    217. Re:WMD detector by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Ah. That wasn't totally clear. Thanks for fixing my misunderstanding.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    218. Re:WMD detector by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      No you didn't just feed a troll. You simply missed the point entirely. Prepare to have your home invaded. I won't feel safe knowing that you might be able to make a WMD if you feel inclined and then think about maybe using it against me.

    219. Re:WMD detector by corebreech · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting the part where we're invaders.

      Is it your estimation that Russia would not use their WMD's were we to invade?

      Do you honestly think we wouldn't use our WMD's if we were invaded?

      No, right?

      So why is it you feel Saddam Hussein wouldn't use WMD's when we invaded Iraq?

    220. Re:WMD detector by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      Why has this been modded "flamebait"? Could someone else explain why WMDs weren't used against our troops?

    221. Re:WMD detector by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1
      He didn't have them when we crossed his borders because he couldn't make them himself. He had them when he fought the Iranians and the Kurds because we sold them to him.

      P.S. Cool nick.

    222. Re:WMD detector by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      No thank you. I won't drive through. Hussein already proved he was willing to gas the Iranian neighbors that he wanted to conquer. I can't fathom why he wouldn't gas invaders who made it clear that they wanted him eliminated. He wasn't being driven from Kuwait. He was being driven from power completely. The opening salvo of the war was a direct missile strike on his life. He had already publicly proven himself capable of mass murder, had nothing to lose, and must have been pissed. If he actually had any WMDs he would have used them.

    223. Re:WMD detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Take chemestry next semister.
      Take English next semester.
    224. Re:WMD detector by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1
      So when Russia had it's back to the wall and didn't use ICBMs, I guess that means they didn't exist?

      What are you talking about? Russia hasn't been invaded since WWII. They never claimed to be free of ICBMs. Are you talking about the former Soviet Union? It collapsed under the weight of its Communist economy... Again, what are you talking about?

      There where people from within Iraqs military saying they exisited.

      No, there were Iraqi scientists during the lead-up to the war claiming that they weren't working on bad shit, and there have been scientists coming forward after the fall of Baghdad who claim the bad shit (nuke or otherwise) just couldn't be pulled off. The only one who has given the finger to any serious bad guy stuff is Chalabi, but he's a lying sack of shit who won't come clean however noble his end may have been. Could you point out one Iraqi not on that stupid deck of cards that "knows" about Hussein's WMDs and then explain why they haven't been able to provide us with the evidence we need to be exonerated in the eyes of the doubting... uh, Earth?

      If they didn't exist, why didn't he let the UN weapon inspectors do there job? --> Normally I would post that because, who wants people troopng around your country? but he did sign an agreement after the '91 conflict.

      He signed an agreement after the '91 conflict because he lost and had to either keep what he had (which didn't involve a loss of territory or sovereignty) or go through a little more "loosing". As far as the inspections go, we were the ones who said fuck it.

      British intellegence told us that they had information telling them they existed.

      No they didn't. We went to them with our secret intelligence -- the kind that says, "Hey guys, we have the proof but can't make it public." -- and Blair told the rest of the world that we were on to something. We had to bring them on board.

      Perhaps he was in Bahgdad and fear for his life? He is cowadly.

      Huh? If he had bad shit he could have used it at the southern border.

      For the record, I think Bush is one of the worse presidents, ever.

      There have been worse presidents certainly. I was with the guy to a degree up until he sidelined Afghanistan and Terrorism for declaring war on Iraq. I've got to wonder just what the fuck you think this guy has done that's so bad if it doesn't involve the bullshit he 's embraced over Iraq.

    225. Re:WMD detector by beowulfcluster · · Score: 1

      Mapquest is a good start but it really needs to add some crosshairs to the image and a 'fire' button next to it to be truly useful, as a stress releiver if nothing else.

    226. Re:WMD detector by 8-balll · · Score: 1

      Well since you took what I said and ran in the other direction... All I was replying to was the statement that he never had WMD... I know perfectly good and well who supplied him, the US and every other country that wanted hin to beat the Iranians.. I'd love to sit here and give a great big speech about how Bush had this reason or that, but I can't and won't, I'm not allowed in those meetings. And since you want to bring it up when has the US every completely agreed on anything?? If you come up with one answer, I assure you it's wrong. Just remember that the US is a democracy(actually it's a republic, but that's another discussion..), atleast we have the right to disagree, we're supposed to, that's how we work out the problems in this country.

      --
      such is life...
    227. Re:WMD detector by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1
      There was data that showed that Iraq still had chemical weapons:

      Where?

      There was the pile of missing warheads that Iraq claimed to have destroyed, but refused to present documentation on... [and a] pile of missing material that could be used in the construction of chemical weapons.

      Reagan on Iran-Contra, "I don't remember."

      There was testimony from defectors that they had worked on chemical weapons programs.

      Like Chalabi's testimony about money changing hands between Hussein's government and Al-Quaeda? He claimed to have documentary evidence but couldn't produce it. In fact, half of Washington thought him a fraud, but they couldn't trump those that wanted to believe him.

      There was Iraq's histroy of deception and obstruction of UN inspectors.

      No doubt. Should that be enough for an invasion?

      ...an otherwise intelligent person could draw the conclusion that the Iraqis were hiding a chemical weapons program. Once that conclusion was drawn, all other evidence was interpreted in such a way as to reinforce that conclusion.

      If you really want to draw that conclusion you can, but the only "intelligent" conclusion was "we don't know", which would have softened or made irrelevant the "whoops, guess not." If we were arguing about whether or not some new airship would fly we could say lets give it a shot and see if it works. Since we were talking about a course of action that would involve the death of American soldiers (none of whom have parents in the Administration), the spending of billions of dollars (how badly does a crap economy affect Rumsfeld or Bush?), and a major loss of credibility with much of the world I don't see how an "intelligent" person wouldn't have wanted a little more certainty.

      Would it kill us to take a deep breath and look at how far things have gone? Iraq has consumed civic conversation in our country for the past 18 months despite a number of problems (like post 9/11 unemployment) that have continued unabated. We're actually debating whether or not a defeated "enemy" might have been able to harm us or someone we like. How's this for a principal: if we don't know for sure a that a foreign country can fuck us, we shouldn't hit the freak switch -- especially when the button-masters are in no danger of going without health care, income, or children, and they never put themselves at physical risk when they were too young to be given war-creating power.

    228. Re:WMD detector by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Ahahaha. So let me get this straight - Bush apparently said words that "magically" created nuclear weapons for NKorea and Iran?

      Stating that you intend to invade a country is a good way to cause it to build a defense. The axis of evil statement was a clear invasion threat.

      North Korea has been playing with nuclear weapons for some time but has been playing an extortion game where they have been trading not actually assembling the components for foreign aid. The GOP in Congress decided to kill Clinton's deal to buy off North Korea, then Bush killed the North/South dialogue. Result we now have no dialogue, no talks on unification and North Korea pointing three to five nuclear warheads at Seoul.

      The situation in Iran is that they had been persuing nuclear technology but the democratic and clerical factions had both avoided actually building a device lest the other faction gain control of it. When Bush threatened to invade the Iranian factions agreed it was necessary to bury their differences and build weapons as fast as possible.

      Bush's fifteen seconds of talking trash have made the world a much more dangerous place.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    229. Re:WMD detector by BCoates · · Score: 1

      Part of that deal involved suppling him with the chemical weapons

      I never heard about that. Link?

      --
      Benjamin Coates

    230. Re:WMD detector by Maudib · · Score: 1

      Considering that Iraq had been smuggling thousands of barrels a month of oil into Syria for the past decade, and continued to do so up until the war began, I would imagine that it would have been quite easy to smuggle the weapons out.

      The Bush administration never commented on this as they wanted to limit the scop of the war to Iraq, however many many Israeli intelligence officers have said as much.

      If you consider the administrations actions towards Syria since "the conclusion of hostilities", one can deduce pretty quickly that the Syrians were holding out on something important.

      In the last two weeks prior to the invasion, Saddam invited inspectors back in to Iraq. Why wait until and invasion is imminent unless you were still busy covering up the crime. Both Syria and Saddam were Bathist regimes, there was an alliance between the two predicated on Iraq's need for hard cash, which only Syria could provide vis a vis oil smuggling.

      1. He hid weapons abroud during time of war before.
      2. Syria and Iraq were political (bathist) allies.
      3. The smuggling infrastructure was well established.
      4. Syria has WMD ambitions.
      5. After years of steadfast refusal, Saddam suddenly has a change of heart on inspections.

      Ok, its not hard evidence, but it is a pretty strong case and a logical move on his part.

    231. Re:WMD detector by GSloop · · Score: 1

      IMHO, this is incredibly flimsy "evidence." Actually it's just speculation.

      As for inspectors, they were in country for quite some time before the invasion - Much more than two weeks.

      If you're right, then much of what we went to war over was completely wrong. In fact, the war resulted in the transfer of WMD into the hands of different parties.

      Not only that, but given the implication that the US knew EXACTLY where the WMD was, and evey move it made - the scorning of Blixt and the inspectors as wimpy ill informed and ill skilled - and that the US could walk in and in ten minutes find the WMD must have been a lie.

      Either they're are lieing now to cover up its movement and the loss of control over WMD, or they were lieing before when they dramatically overstated their knowledge of location and actual possession of WMD.

      How about some links to said Israei intelligence reports. (Never mind that Israel has a serious vested interest in seeing Syria under millitary siege - thus more than adequate reason to lie.)

      If Saddam made a deal with Syria, how come he didn't run to Syria? One would be hard pressed to force Syria to give him up - millitary pressure or no. (Given our allowing dictators to run - such as the Shaw of Iran etc, one would fail to see how we could have any leverage with the world.)

      Frankly, I don't think Iraq did have any viable quantities of WMD before the war. The inspectors tended to back up those conclustions, though they also found the co-operation less than stellar.

      You can't exactly smuggle antrax in a bunch of oil barrels either. Any transfer would likely result in massive contamination of the area of the transfer and result in detection.

      A much more plausable theory is that no significant WMD existed. The WMD we all heard about was a threat from Saddam to his neighbors - not that he really had any, but that he wanted people to think he did. Without WMD, Iraq was much more vulnerable to attack from it's neighbors - namely Iran.

      Sure, it was a bad gamble, but lose at the American's hands, or loose face, honor and perhaps your life from your enemies. Neither was a great option.

      If I were Saddam, frankly, I'd be pissed at the US. He was nothing more than a water-boy for us. He attacked Iran and was supported by us. April Glasspie (sp) told him that his dispute with Kuait was in internal Arab affair and we didn't have an opinion in how he solved it. He invaded, after checking with us and getting what he considered was an "OK" and then we come kick his ass.

      I think he deserved it, but it wasn't for lack of checking with us first.

      We provided him with some of his WMD technology and stocks. We gave intel for his WMD attacks on Iran and blocked any serious criticism of Iraq for it.

      How we can now trumpet how awful Saddam was, as though this was some new and shocking fact - well, it's a downright lie. We knew and we didn't care. We largely created the problems we have there.

      Perhaps with 30, 40, or 50 years of honest dealings the region will learn to trust us again, but I wouldn't before then if I were Iranian or Iraqi.

      Cheers,
      Greg

    232. Re:WMD detector by fshalor · · Score: 1

      2. Vapor ware addition: Secure Voting Machines...

      I'll ask though, was that popular or "electoral". And just to complete the shift off topic, is there any point in using the electoral system anymore.

      3. Vaporware addition: statistics analysis of policical poll data. (since there is no way in hell the poll was accurate in florida to within 500 votes. It just didn't make sence.)

      --
      -=fshalor ::this post not spellchecked. move along::
    233. Re:WMD detector by fshalor · · Score: 1

      So we're not going to use our nukes either?

      Time for a good Dr. Strangelove quote. I'm to fried to think of one though.

      Ah, "It is EssEntial!"

      --
      -=fshalor ::this post not spellchecked. move along::
    234. Re:WMD detector by ZWithaPGGB · · Score: 1

      Come on guys, why are we modding offtopic (NT) and Flamebait offtopic (WMD) as Funny or Insightful. /. SNR is approaching the 3dB rolloff these days. I'm going to have to start browsing @ 7, and modding funny -2.

    235. Re:WMD detector by drakaan · · Score: 1

      I think the implication was that either he didn't get a chance to give the order, or the troops didn't want to follow through...still don't see the "nothing to lose" argument as somthing that supports the original post. He had plenty to lose, though...primarily credibility and support.

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    236. Re:WMD detector by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      that is simply not true. Recently revealed documents show that US military advisers knew at the time that Hussein was using chemical weapons against Iranian humane wave attacks. That's it. No supply of weapons. No assistance with use.

      I don't agree with the US's tacit support for Hussein in the 80s. But suggestions the US supplied him with chemical weapons are at best an urban myth and at worst a lie. If anybody doubts this, they should post a link rather than just modding me to troll.

    237. Re:WMD detector by Archie+Steel · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but when he did use them (against the kurds), he was an american ally and remained so for another two years.

      Watch out for the propaganda machine.

      --

      Reminder: find a new sig
  2. (Insert DNF joke here) by Hentai · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or does anyone even still remember?

    --
    -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    1. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by pheared · · Score: 4, Funny

      They do, it's just not funny anymore. :-)

    2. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by Hentai · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not even in Spanish?

      (Mulching is a process of inbred fertilization which employs certain decomposed organic materials--including, but not limited to animal sediment to blanket an area in which vegetation is desired. The procedure enriches the soil for stimulated plant development while, at the same time, preventing erosion and decreasing the evaporation of moisture from the ground.)

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    3. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by bigjocker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Se llama Duke Nukem Forever porque se va a tardar toda una eternidad en salir al mercado.

      Nota: Forver significa 'por siempre' en ingles.

      --
      Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
    4. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1, Funny

      (Insert DNF joke here)

      Duke Nukem' (waiting) Forever

    5. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by Hentai · · Score: 1

      Joke inserted. You have 7 credit(s).

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    6. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by Keith+Russell · · Score: 3, Funny

      After this long, they should just give 3D Realms the Vladimir And Estragon Lifetime Achievement Award, and drop DNF from the ballot.

      --
      This sig intentionally left blank.
    7. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by frenetic3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      (Insert DNF joke here)

      Did Not Finish

      *sigh* and i've reached a new low...

      -fren

      --
      "Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
    8. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know when you are too late when the slashdot jokes about you being late have stopped being funny. I can, therefore, state that DNF is is truly dead.

    9. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by Hangtime · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ahhh yes, the ultimate in vapor/forever ware. I can remember being in a Quake 2 CTF match sometime in December 1998 and someone asking about DNF. At that time, I said "I think its supposed to be out in March 99. I was playing in Stronghold Opposition...damn I wish I had kept a screenshot of me writing that. Absolutely, hilarious. Whoever is bank rolling them needs to shut them down and scuttle the project. Could you given a ton of money, learned C++ and written a game given within five years by yourself? I know I could.

    10. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by artemis67 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's entirely possible that DNF does not even exist as a real project at 3D Realms anymore. Consider that the vaporware state of the game generates a tremendous amount of buzz for the DN brand and for the company. Consider also the grandious vision that is always laid out for the game.

      Now, why would 3D Realms go and kill all of this excitement and attention by trying to release a game that could never live up to the hype? It would be very anti-climactic and could even kill the franchise. They certainly don't want to release the next Daikatana.

      Also, investors generally don't have bottomless pockets filled with cash. How long can they pour money into a game development team before they start demanding results? Two years? Three years? Five years?

      In the meantime, 3D Realms has released a slew of other DN games, when they should have been working on DNF. Though it may have been a priority at one time, DNF is obviously not a priority right now. Or maybe what started out as DNF was cleverly reworked and released under another title, thinking that it wouldn't live up to the hype (DN: Manhattan Project? Max Payne?).

      Here's my prediction: 3D Realms will continue to be evasive on the subject, and will continue to release DN games... and when one comes along that they feel is worthy of the honor, they will rechristen it as Duke Nukem Forever. But only after they've almost completely exhausted the hype surrounding DNF.

    11. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      **(DN: Manhattan Project? Max Payne?)**

      certainly weren't started as dnf.. payne was started outside the company and manhattan project is just too different(and quickly done type of thing).

      however i do agree that 3drealms could just as well have sitted on their butts in the dnf project, as it's scrapped so many times and started again that there must be real motivational problems unless it's not either done at all or as a research platform for new stuff.

      there is no hype around dnf anymore, it's just a joke living a life of it's own already. nobody is really expecting it to come out anytime soon and nobody is taking seriously any current feature lists.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    12. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 1

      Last I heard it was based on the unreal engine, which means the game could feasibly be based on unreal tournament 2003/2004 technology by now. Since the unreal engine is a continuing product and not a stand-alone engine for each unreal game like the quake products, it's reasonable to assume DNF could come out even within a year and not be behind in any way...

      --
      GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
    13. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry to let facts get in the way of your conspiracy theories, but here goes... :)

      Also, investors generally don't have bottomless pockets filled with cash. How long can they pour money into a game development team before they start demanding results? Two years? Three years? Five years?
      Being an independent developer, 3DRealms can take as long as it wants. :D They have enough cash to go for another five years, easily, even without releasing DN spinoffs. They made $20 million alone, IIRC, licensing the Max Payne character recently... They actually advertise how they are allowed to take their pretty time in their Want Ads. Pretty nice perk if you ask me, considering how crazy most game development is with crunch periods!

      In the meantime, 3D Realms has released a slew of other DN games, when they should have been working on DNF.
      Since DN3D, 3DRealms hasn't worked on any non-DNF games other than in an advisory role, which hardly kills their ability to work on DNF. And the cash lets them keep taking their time.

      Here's my prediction: 3D Realms will continue to be evasive on the subject, and will continue to release DN games... and when one comes along that they feel is worthy of the honor, they will rechristen it as Duke Nukem Forever. But only after they've almost completely exhausted the hype surrounding DNF.
      Nah, DNF will be the first game 3DRealms actually develops and releases since Shadow Warrior. I expect we will see it in the next year (potentially using the Source engine, though it is a long shot). A media blackout isn't a bad thing, especially with all the fanboy ranting about 3DRealms 'wasting their time'. :D

      --
      There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
    14. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by Polyphemis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Finally, someone that has their facts straight and isn't talking out of their ass!

      Two minor corrections, the total amount earned from Max Payne was $40 million, but that was divided between 3DR and Remedy and I'm not sure which way it was split so you could well be right on 3DR's part. Also, I'm almost positive that Shadow Warrior was developed by an outside company and published under 3DR's name.

      To the parent's parent: Yes, 3DR still is working on DNF, my best friend works has worked there for two years and I got to see part of the game at one point. And yes, it is taking a damned long time, and it's really anybody's guess as to why it's taking such a long time. However, that's not a license to make shit up and claim to know something you don't because there's nothing in your post that even approaches fact.

      I realize my claim to have actually seen the game has no immediately verifiable basis here, so let's approach it from a different angle and look at the logic: Which of these two scenarios is more likely to exist: 1) A game company that employs 20+ people to sit around and play games all day for seven years, or 2) A company working on a game that's taking an absurd amount of time due to some manner of internal problems (be it high turnover, multiple engine switches, mismanagement, who can say*)?

      Sure, the former idea is juicy and amusing to think about and earn mod points from, but that kind of shit simply doesn't happen. How could anyone in their right mind believe something that childish? Remember, Half-Life 2 was complete vaporware until a few short months ago.

      * - I'd like to note that I'm not saying any of these necessarily exists (except the multiple engine switches which is publicly known), I'm just naming common problems game companies in general have.

    15. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by nbvb · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Wow, I really wish I had moderator points right now.

      +750, Fantastic Reference Nobody Else Gets

      This is the best Slashdot comment I've ever seen!

      Good show. :)

    16. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Certainly there are other Samuel Beckett fans on Slashdot. It's not like the entire crowd is made of 14 year old Linux crazed basement nerds.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    17. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by Zirnike · · Score: 2, Funny
      "It's not like the entire crowd is made of 14 year old Linux crazed basement nerds."

      Yeah, I'm 29.

      --
      I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
    18. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by starling · · Score: 1

      Remember, Half-Life 2 was complete vaporware until a few short months ago.

      Half-Life 2 is still complete vaporware.

    19. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by Noren · · Score: 1
      ("Mulching" es un proceso de ferilization que emplea ciertos materiales organicos en decomposicion-- incluyendo pero no linitando sedimentos de origen animal-- recubrir una area en la cual se desea vegatacionn. El proceso enriqueze la tierra estimulando el desarrollo vegetal minetras wue al mismo tiempo prevee la erosion y disminuye la evaporacion de humedad en el terreno)

      Nope, still not funny.

      More importantly, what's the name of the Sage's dog?

    20. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by brettper · · Score: 1

      Did Not Finish?

      What?

    21. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by Polyphemis · · Score: 1

      I guess I imagined the wealth of screenshots, gigabytes of ingame video and the leaked build then? Perhaps I also hallucinated the firsthand accounts of the people present at the initial public presentation of the engine's capabilities, or all computer gaming magazines' abundance of coverage late summer?

      The only way you could get further from vaporware than that is if you could already buy it in stores.

    22. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's entirely possible that DNF does not even exist as a real project at 3D Realms anymore.

      You have to be a poker player to understand why they're doing this.

    23. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by PEREGRI · · Score: 1

      That's not entirely correct... Forever significa "PARA siempre" :P

    24. Re:(Insert DNF joke here) by starling · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Until you can buy it, it's vapor. Wanna bet Half Life 2 gets one of the awards this year?

  3. Windows 95 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm still waiting for that bug-free OS we were promised years ago. Should be the vaporware king for years to come.

    1. Re:Windows 95 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Windows 95 is still the latest release from MS.

      I vote for desktop Linux that's usable for anyone normal. And I'm not just limiting it to Red Hat 6 or some arbitrarily ancient version like SOME PEOPLE.

    2. Re:Windows 95 by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1
      I vote for desktop Linux that's usable for anyone normal.


      What makes it usable for anyone "normal"? What is "normal"? Seriously, what the fuck do you want?

    3. Re:Windows 95 by genner · · Score: 1

      It's called linux you insensitive clod. It's been out for years.

    4. Re:Windows 95 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's talking about OS X.

      Linux really IS for programmers, which is bad (dependencies? compiling? I'm a user, Jim, not a computer geek!)

    5. Re:Windows 95 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      actually, it's called GNU :)

    6. Re:Windows 95 by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 0

      A desktop usable by normal people.

      I.e., one that installs and removes programs correctly, doesn't crash (GNOME's taskbar got stuck on me once, and I had to kill X), has non-conflicting interfaces, and generally has actual usability and feels like a smooth and integrated desktop.

      Of course, if you want that, just go to OS X, since you've got UNIX with a prized GUI right there already.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    7. Re:Windows 95 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm still waiting for that bug-free OS we were promised years ago.

      Did Microsoft promise to release a bug-free OS? Do you have a reference to that statement? Seems odd a company would promise a bug-free product. Plus, Windows 2000/XP might as well be "bug free" when compared to the whore that Windows 95 was.

    8. Re:Windows 95 by Lispy · · Score: 1

      You could have done the following:
      killall -HUP gnome-panel

      If it woulnd't have been for the panel you could have used a graphical taskmanager such as Gnomes System Manager zu restart the process. This was a bad example since it is a situation that is as hard or as easy to fix than with other OSes, ie Windows. Just because you don't know how to do it with linux doesn't necessary mean it's harder to handle. Linux takes a different apporach in many areas, just because it isn't (well, not only) copying Windows or OS X it still can be fairly easy to use.

      cu,
      Lispy

    9. Re:Windows 95 by kraksmoka · · Score: 1
      what about the winbloze bonghorn alpha? ? ? oh, its completely superior to today's mac os and better yet, it will be alpha testing for the next two years to prove it! suuuuuurrrreeeee......

      maybe they are trying to do an arthur clarke tribute on that one and release it/rename it WINBLOZE 2010

      --
      "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
    10. Re:Windows 95 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a joke, haha. laugh. like that crapmouth, gates and his monkeyboy ballmer are. jokes. as is ms and it's turdpile of "developers" with their puny miserable lives with no better things to do than wreck ours.

    11. Re:Windows 95 by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      The question was vaporware, not "You have been sniffing too many vapors" ware. Software will always have bugs because life does not play according to the rules the programmers want it to play by. Users will use the device outside of it's parameters, some punk will figure out a way to exploit the software for access, or a

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    12. Re:Windows 95 by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for that bug-free OS we were promised years ago

      Did I miss something or did Bill Gates promise Windows 95 to be bug free?

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    13. Re:Windows 95 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I predict that you, much like anything you post, are Overrated.

    14. Re:Windows 95 by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      So by the same arguments, Linux has already got a more useable desktop environment than Windows. Great! Next job?

  4. It's become cliche to submit Duke Nukem Forever by Quarters · · Score: 2, Funny

    But, someone will, just so it will be on there for five years in a row.

    1. Re:It's become cliche to submit Duke Nukem Forever by bugbread · · Score: 1

      It may be cliche, it may be unfunny, but goddamn it's accurate! I'm hardpressed to think of a better vaporware winner than DNF.

    2. Re:It's become cliche to submit Duke Nukem Forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's so cliche that they should probably rename the awards the "DNF awards" so that DNF doesn't take top spot yet again.

    3. Re:It's become cliche to submit Duke Nukem Forever by Echnin · · Score: 1

      4 years. It wasn't on the list in 1999... Of course, back then it wasn't even very late yet, so... Yeah. Might make no. 1 for the 3rd time this year.

      --
      Lalala
    4. Re:It's become cliche to submit Duke Nukem Forever by fuzzix · · Score: 0

      ZeoSync's compression of arbitrary bitstreams was a funny one. Everyone said it was nonsense, they insisted it wasn't.

      I can't even link to the nonsense blurb: http://zeosync.com/ - /. URL
      http://slashdot.org/science/02/01/08/137246.s html

  5. Well, being that it's 2003 by Raul654 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hal 9000 is already 2 years late. Damn Illinois people ;)

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Well, being that it's 2003 by lemody · · Score: 1

      yeah, I know the feeling. I waited for terminator-2 to visit in 1997 but nothing happened. now the next great event would be 2021, when cyberpunk (the roleplaying game) happens and we will have all these cool self-augmentations etc. :)

      --


      class he-man extends man!
    2. Re:Well, being that it's 2003 by NickFitz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Reply to the spam and you could have several inches of "self augmentation" right now!

      --
      Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
    3. Re:Well, being that it's 2003 by donbrock · · Score: 0

      And the flying cars are 3 years late.

    4. Re:Well, being that it's 2003 by princewally · · Score: 1

      I'm going to beat you to the augmentation. I'm gonna get it in 2020.

      Or, in the original version, 2010. That's only a little over 6 years away.

      --

      -
      "Vengeance is fine," sayeth the Lord.
    5. Re:Well, being that it's 2003 by jsebrech · · Score: 1

      One could argue that the cyc project has the capability to grow into HAL-like intelligence, and it's been in operation for years.

    6. Re:Well, being that it's 2003 by Ralphus+Maximus · · Score: 1

      Really? We just retired 2 HAL-9000s.

      Ok, they were HP-9000s but they acted the same. Had a mind of their own.

      Cheers,
      RM

      --
      Nobody's as dumb, as I appear to be
  6. Is that a joke? by eurleif · · Score: 4, Funny

    "And, of course, those that existed merely as a figment of someone's imagination."

    Is that a joke, or can they read minds now? I could come up 1000 things that I planned to create but didn't tell a soul about, could one of them win?

    1. Re:Is that a joke? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      I think more like in some marketroid's imagination. There have been plenty of things that were hyped to hell and back, although noone even started working on a prototype, nor even planned to.

      E.g., see the recent re-announcement of disposable cell phones.

      E.g., see SCO's IP stolen by Linux, to be released "real soon now". I think it's a very safe bet that they never even existed, except in the SCO management's imagination.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    2. Re:Is that a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they can read minds! Break out your tinfoil cap!

  7. Obviously! by djkitsch · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
  8. as far as games go.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fackin' Duke Nukem Revolutions or whatever it's called. And where's Prey?? Whatever, Doom3 will be ruling the gaming world soon enough. >:-)

  9. Vaporware winners from years past... by tcopeland · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...are listed here. Indrema, nice.

    1. Re:Vaporware winners from years past... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Informative

      10. Indrema: This company cast itself as a slayer of corporate behemoths -- Indrema said it would produce an open-source game console that could beat those from Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. But the available evidence suggests that, in the company's short life, all it managed to get out the door were a few sorry press releases.

      "If only they would have gotten off their sorry butts and built the stupid device instead of modeling 3-D mockups and obsessing over the developer's kit," said reader Tim Toner, who had great expectations for the system, "there would already be a fanatical grassroots developer network in place big enough to scare the big guys." Those big guys did well last year in the world of games, but Indrema died a quiet death last spring.


      Doesn't that sound a lot like the "Phantom Gaming Console"? Hmm...

    2. Re:Vaporware winners from years past... by Otter · · Score: 1

      Tim Toner, the anti-vapor critic, sounds at least as hallucinatory as anyone at Indrema.

    3. Re:Vaporware winners from years past... by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      Yeah - but nobody cares- the Phantom is just a Microsoft (Gold Premier Embedded Member) box. It has a .net based API.
      If you want it- you might as well buy a PC or an XBOX. You can guarantee that MS will be looking to broadband game delivery with the X-Box 2 anyway. Forget the phantom. It sucks.

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
  10. Atari 1450 XLD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm STILL waiting for one of these wonder computers Alan Alda told me about!

    1. Re:Atari 1450 XLD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, powered by the "too cheap to meter" electric power.

  11. Duke Nukem? by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

    Anything Amiga?

    1. Re:Duke Nukem? by bhima · · Score: 1
      Wait, there was some amiga hardware shown here in Graz and we're not even a big city in Europe...

      Missed it though, I don't pay enough attention to the news.

      But there was hardware there!

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    2. Re:Duke Nukem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen that hardware? It's five-year-old PowerPC G3 stuff and it doesn't even sound like it's in full production yet.

      Amiga OS 4.0 is classic vapor and will probably never ship.

      Amiga is truley the kings of old school vaporware.

    3. Re:Duke Nukem? by rebeka+thomas · · Score: 1

      I vote AmigaOS4

      Back in 1999, there were slides shown at shows through europe, showing the progress and plans for AmigaOS4.0. All going smoothly, they told us. And we waited, and waited, and a year later "On track and rockin'!". Yes, not long to go.

      Then we find out nobody started anything until 2002 anyway.

      Now it's coming up to 2004, and it's still only just out. It's hit beta though, and finally boots

      It's been hilarious visiting all the Amiga boards and hearing the faithful and supposed "developers" who're in on the know how tell me I'm wrong when I say it's all hype, smoke and mirrors, and it'll be out within a month... or two. I've been doing that 4 years now and still there's nothing to show for it.

      I'm sure it'll come eventually, but If anyone related to its marketing says when, do ignore them. They're full of shit.

      --
      RST
    4. Re:Duke Nukem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'll be nice to see you proven wrong in the end. I know more than one AmigaOS developer, and that's not what they've toldme. But january 2004 will be very exciting for amiga owners, believe me

    5. Re:Duke Nukem? by rebeka+thomas · · Score: 1

      It'll be nice to see you proven wrong in the end. I know more than one AmigaOS developer, and that's not what they've toldme.

      wtf? I just said they've had delay after delay and bullshit after bullshit for 4 years. Are you denying this? have you magically somehow got a developer friend who pulled a copy of AmigaOS4 out of his ass and gave it to you in these last few years? no you don't.

      And if you believe a developer that tells you anything different to the reality that AmigaOS4 is not out yet, like I've stated, then you're on drugs. Please share.

      But january 2004 will be very exciting for amiga owners, believe me

      Typical Amiga user vague fanatacism. Hinting at AmigaOS4 coming out, but saying it vaguely enough that you can later deny that's what you meant?

      Let me guess, your Amiga tshirts will finally arrive?

      bwahaha!. This is great cheap entertainment. so sue me.

      --
      RST
    6. Re:Duke Nukem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But january 2004 will be very exciting for amiga owners, believe me.

      Just as 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 were exciting years for Amiga owners.

      I finally gave up "believing" in 2000 when I sold my A4000/060 and bought a real machine. You should try it. Hey, you might even be able to use a web browser that can do CSS2 and Javascript properly!

    7. Re:Duke Nukem? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Have you seen that hardware? It's five-year-old PowerPC G3 stuff and it doesn't even sound like it's in full production yet.

      The "AmigaOne" hardware is out, and includes a G4 version. The problem is AmigaOS 4, which as you say seems like a perfect example of vapourware (it's been promised since summer 2000 IIRC).

      Amiga is truley the kings of old school vaporware.

      Amiga Inc the company, perhaps, but not the Amiga (ie, the computer) market. For example, if you want new machines, there's MorphOS and the Pegasos (Amiga compatible computers which are as close as say OS X is to MacOS; they just don't own the Amiga trademarks).

    8. Re:Duke Nukem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The website says the hardware has been available since Nov 2002, which is clearly a lie.

      Do you personally know anyone who has gotten a system from these guys? I kinda suspect it's only the inner circle, and the stuff is not really generally available yet.

    9. Re:Duke Nukem? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      The website says the hardware has been available since Nov 2002, which is clearly a lie.

      Why is this clearly a lie?

      Do you personally know anyone who has gotten a system from these guys? I kinda suspect it's only the inner circle, and the stuff is not really generally available yet.

      On what is this suspicion based? I don't know anyone with one personally, but have seen plenty of people saying they own one on Amiga forums (and no, they're not part of some "inner circle"). I don't know anyone with Mac OS X, but I don't go making assumptions that that isn't generally available.

  12. Windows Longhorn by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It couldn't be anything else really. Despite a demo by billg, the release date has slipped from 2004 to 2009!.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    1. Re:Windows Longhorn by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Doesn't this date push get MS into a lot of legal and PR hotwater? After all, one of the selling points of SA6 was that you could get upgrades every 2 years at a reduced price. If they push it back to 2006, they will dramatically miss their deadline according to the terms of the deal. I'm sure MS wrote enough escape clauses in the agreement to cover their butts so they won't have to fork over any money, but it won't make any of their customers happy. Some of them might start registering complaints to the FTC.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Windows Longhorn by mcSey921 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      2009 is listed as "an outside chance" from some Gartner analyst. 50% 2006, 40% 2007 and an outside chance of 08-09. Not to defend M$, but Gartner Group doesn't make their release schedule.

    3. Re:Windows Longhorn by ideonode · · Score: 1

      No, the official release date hasn't slipped to 2009. Gartner is reporting that there's an 'outside chance' that it could slip to then, but they're still of the belief that it's most likely to ship in 2006. Yes, a slippage, but you are pushing a worst-case scenario as the most probable.

    4. Re:Windows Longhorn by Adam9 · · Score: 1

      So, who hired Gartner this time to say that?

    5. Re:Windows Longhorn by stubear · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Reg, well Gartner really, is full of crap. Nowhere in the article or the Gartner report does it state which version of Longhorn they are referring to and it is highly unlikely that the desktop version of Longhorn will slip that far behind. I'm guessing they are referring to the Server version of Longhorn which is more likely because the Server versions have been slowly slipping behind the desktop releases. 2000 and 2003 Servers were all released after their desktop counterparts (2000 Professional and XP Professional respectively).

      Not only that but these dates keep creeping every time the story is retold. Gartner puts the release of Longhorn (likely the Server version) at mid-2008 at the latest and 2006 at the earliest however The Register states Gartner puts the date as late as 2009 but doesn't mention whether it's early or late 2009. I'd call that highly suspect. The 2009 date The Reg is reporting comes from the end of the article where Gartner suspects that if Longhorn ships in 2007 the EOL for 2000 will get bumped a year but in the event that Longhorn is released in 2008/9 they believe MS will force customers to upgrade to Windows 2003 Server first. Earlier reports about the shipping date of Longhorn had it slipping from late 2005 to early- to mid-2006 then suddenly to no earlier than 2007.

      In the meantime this fails to take into account a number of issues, not least of which is where is the desktop version in all of this? There are far too many if's and way too much on the line for MS to let Longhorn slip beyond 2007 at the latest and with the shape the OS was in during the PDC is it quite likely we will see Longhorn hit the shelves in 2006.

    6. Re:Windows Longhorn by leifm · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is no guarentee in there, you pay for SA, if an upgrade comes out during the term you get it, if not that's life. Sure people will get pissed off, but that would be their fault, for getting sucked into SA, not MS's.

      --

      "Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
    7. Re:Windows Longhorn by ath0mic · · Score: 2, Funny

      5 years; that's nothing. Duke Nukem Forever is approaching 8. That's older than some /. readers :)

    8. Re:Windows Longhorn by Polkyb · · Score: 0

      Windows Longhorn service pack one, however, is scheduled for release in Q4 2007.

      --
      I've never shoed a horse, but I once told a donkey to piss off!
    9. Re:Windows Longhorn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by 'some', you mean 'most'.

    10. Re:Windows Longhorn by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1


      If Microsoft's sales pitch for SA was to throw together some figures showing the cost of buying a new OS release every two years vs. buying into a service agreement and getting complimentary upgrades for the duration, I'd say the customers would have good reason to be pissed off -- the salesdroids gave them inaccurate data.

      Of course, just because Longhorn won't be released for several years doesn't preclude the possibility of a "Windows XP Second Edition"-type product to fill the gap.

    11. Re:Windows Longhorn by leifm · · Score: 1

      I don't know what the sales pitch was. Given that MS, as far as I know, won't relese figures on SA I'd say most people didn't buy into it.

      I think they may over-hype SP2, but I don't think there will be any second edition, that didn't work so well with 98 as I recall. And I think they probably learned their lesson with Me...

      --

      "Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
    12. Re:Windows Longhorn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah. Getting Microsoft news from The Register is like getting hip-hop reviews from the KKK Gazette.

    13. Re:Windows Longhorn by XO · · Score: 1

      You're not kidding about that, even if you think you are -- at the first International Slashdot Meetup Day, I met an 8 year old Slashdot reader!

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    14. Re:Windows Longhorn by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      I'm betting the Beta version of Longhorn will be sold as the next version of XP.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    15. Re:Windows Longhorn by iphayd · · Score: 1

      On the street in Vegas, the odds for 2010 aren't worth betting, however, betting on 2006 will get you $10000 on your one, if they make it.

      Disclaimer: IANAB, and these do not represent stats that you may use to bet on.

    16. Re:Windows Longhorn by kc0dxh · · Score: 1
      After all, one of the selling points of SA6 was that you could get upgrades every 2 years at a reduced price. If they push it back to 2006, they will dramatically miss their deadline according to the terms of the deal.


      Sure, but I don't think that's the goal. It's my belief that this gives users a real reason to upgrade to XP. I use and enjoy MS products, but I just don't see them going for the long investment. At least, that's not their track record.
      --

      --- "1.21 Jigawatts!" -Doc

    17. Re:Windows Longhorn by kubrick · · Score: 1

      If we're talking mental age, that's been apparent for a while. :)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  13. Re:And the winner is ... by frankthechicken · · Score: 5, Funny

    and spell checker on Slashdot

  14. The granddaddy of them all by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Redundant

    Until Duke Nukem Forever is released or officially canceled, they shouldn't waste their time with Vaporware awards. We know what's going to win.

    -B

    1. Re:The granddaddy of them all by Artifex · · Score: 1
      Until Duke Nukem Forever is released or officially canceled, they shouldn't waste their time with Vaporware awards. We know what's going to win.


      I hereby rename it Duke Nukem NEVER.

      --
      Get off my launchpad!
    2. Re:The granddaddy of them all by X_Bones · · Score: 1

      I like how your post got modded redundant when sixty of the same damn "Microsoft Security!!1!" and "SCO infringing code" posts are at +4 or higher. And this in the one thread where a DNF post is actually on-topic...

  15. GNU/HURD by iamdrscience · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Biggest piece of vaporware of all time. However, I'll still put some faith in it on the slim chance that it really has needed and benefitted from being in development for ~20 years. Seriously though, can you think of any other piece of software that's been in development that long and is still largely incomplete?

    1. Re:GNU/HURD by CRCulver · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, as a stable release, the Hurd is vapourware. However, one can install it and it does work for a number of uses. It fulfill the greatly-needed role of making the free-software-unfriendly Linux obsolete and ensuring that a kernel which fits GNU values becomes popular, but it is a great system to poke around with and see where *nix operating systems might move beyond POSIX.

    2. Re:GNU/HURD by purdue_thor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I second this one! This is a clip from the initial Linux announcement on Usenet by Linus Torvalds back in 1991:

      I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be
      out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows), and I've already got
      minix. This is a program for hackers by a hacker. I've enjouyed doing
      it, and somebody might enjoy looking at it and even modifying it for
      their own needs. It is still small enough to understand, use and
      modify, and I'm looking forward to any comments you might have.


      See what a visionary he was? He knew back in 1991 that GNU/HURD would be the greatest piece of vaporware.

    3. Re:GNU/HURD by pete-classic · · Score: 1, Informative

      But GNU exists, and is active use. HURD exists, but is, as you say, complete.

      You seem to mean HURD, not GNU/HURD. HURD is a kernel*, where GNU/HURD is a system, like GNU/Linux is a system . . same software, different kernel.

      You can go to http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/download.html and get HURD (such as it is). Hardly vapor.

      -Peter

      *Of course the HURD is really a micro-kernel and a bunch of daemons that do the work traditionally done by an OS kernel, but let's not get pedantic.

      -P

    4. Re:GNU/HURD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think HURD is not vaporware, is more like semi-abandonware. It is in a vegetative development state, some people is working on it, some people use it, but nobody seems really interested in making it work.

    5. Re:GNU/HURD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they use that goofball GNU coding style?? That could explain why no one wants to work on it.

    6. Re:GNU/HURD by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It fulfill the greatly-needed role of making the free-software-unfriendly Linux obsolete and ensuring that a kernel which fits GNU values becomes popular...

      In what way you consider Linux to be "free-software-unfriendly"?

      If I may quote the Free Software Foundation on the issue, "We use Linux-based GNU systems today for most of our work, and we hope you use them too." (source) And again, "if Linux were already available, and we were considering whether to start writing another kernel---we would not do it." (source)

      The latter link is their page explaining why they didn't drop the Hurd when Linux matured. The reason is that they thought Hurd could become better than Linux, not that they had philosophical issues with Linux.

      Sounds like the FSF thinks Linux fits GNU values. Why don't you?

    7. Re:GNU/HURD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the FSF thinks Linux fits GNU values. Why don't you?

      It would prevent him from trolling efficiently of course. ;-)

    8. Re:GNU/HURD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, you didn't have to be a visionary to see that one.

      HURD had already been around in some form or another for almost 10 years when that was posted. It clearly had no direction then; same as now.

    9. Re:GNU/HURD by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the FSF thinks Linux fits GNU values. Why don't you?



      Well, Linux is GPL so it works in the interim. However, Linus is not that dedicated to the principles that led Stallman to launch GNU. He's a man of pragmatism, not idealism and has said this himself time and time again. For people who believe strongly in the principles of GNU, it would nice to complete the Hurd so that we can use a system designed by people with whom we sympathise. I don't believe in GNU as simply computer software, I see it as a revolution designed to make the world a better place. Linus' doesn't care for that very much, so why use Linux after Hurd is done?

    10. Re:GNU/HURD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they do and yes you're right. Still, the answer is to write it in any style you want, then it through indent before you submit it to the GNU/Nazis for inclusion. Hell, GNU indent even has a single switch to set their own little world; indent -gnu!

    11. Re:GNU/HURD by starseeker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Seriously though, can you think of any other piece of software that's been in development that long and is still largely incomplete?"

      I don't think that's really a fair statement. If you are speaking of ACTIVE development, there has been very little for a long time. The pulse is there - some activity does exist - but not enough to tackle in any kind of reasonable time the production of something like Hurd. And Hurd does actually exist, by the way. You can run it. If you mean a stable, "world conqueroring" Hurd is vaporware, I'll agree with that.

      Gnu/HURD is not likely to ever be a major player for the simple reason it does not have critical mass. BSD and Linux have critical mass, and they are currently the only open source kernels that do. Many more exist, and of those the Hurd is perhaps the most prominent, but it simply doesn't have the mindshare.

      I'll tell you why Hurd is still a good thing though. Imagine this - the foobared US legal system makes free Linux impossible in the US. What then? Contribute to BSD, where SCO can grab all our hard work and turn it against us? Nope. GNU Hurd will rise in such a case. It is fundamentally a conceptual jump beyond Unix, and SCO cannot possibly establish any claim. If they monkey with it they will tangle directly with the FSF, and frankly that might be worth it just for the entertainment of seeing the FSF fully roused.

      If SCO wins, GNU Hurd will become the new center of GPL kernel development. The direction to head is quite clear - complete the port to L4, flesh it out, clean it up, and introduce the world to a real world OS that is a generation beyond Unix or Windows. The potential has always been there, but the difficulty of implimenting something fundamentally new was what allowed Linux into first place. With the proper incentive, like smacking SCO across the face, GNU Hurd development could take a quantum leap. That is why it is good to have around, even if it isn't doing anything important right now. It is a second string to our bow, and greased up and pulled taught it could shoot a mean arrow.

      --
      "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
    12. Re:GNU/HURD by reidbold · · Score: 1

      The more likely situation: SCO wins, offending code is removed from kernel, life goes on as normal.

      --
      -Reid
    13. Re:GNU/HURD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plan9 is a lot more interesting as a 'system'

    14. Re:GNU/HURD by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      so that we can use a system designed by people with whom we sympathise.

      So now the free software crowd wants to only use software written by people with the exact same views? That's got to be the most juvenile logic I've heard from the supposed "free software" advocates -- and that's saying something.

      Once again, I'm glad that I ally myself with the open source crowd rather than those free software nuts.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    15. Re:GNU/HURD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. But in a situation like this, it's good to have all your bases covered.

    16. Re:GNU/HURD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cantor: The good word from the Gospel according to Usenet...

      All: Praise to you, Lord Linus Torvalds.

    17. Re:GNU/HURD by skookum · · Score: 1

      As long as proprietary binary-only modules are supported by the kernel, it's not truly free. Or at least, that's one argument, not necessarily mine.

  16. a secure Microsoft product? by Numeric · · Score: 3, Funny

    Didnt Gates or Ballmer promise that?

    --
    -- ladies and gentlemen we are floating in space!
    1. Re:a secure Microsoft product? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but so has the OSS community about Linux...

    2. Re:a secure Microsoft product? by axehind · · Score: 1

      Secure against what? It's secure against any admin wanting to administer it already.

  17. Clue Ware by phrostie · · Score: 5, Funny

    i vote for infringing code by SCOG

  18. longhorn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    longhorn winfs and all that garbage...lets hype it now even though our best guess to its arrival is 2008! what a bunch of bs. now THAT is vapourware.

  19. The Phantom by wobedraggled · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nuff said...

    --
    Ubuntu- Linux for human beings.
    1. Re:The Phantom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No surprise if it's doomed with a pay-per-play model. They say it's "designed by gamers, for gamers", but I don't think your hard-core gamer is going to be too interested in a pay-per-play model.

  20. Fallout 3 by Ndiin · · Score: 1

    May it live in peace... NMA Fallout 3 info

    1. Re:Fallout 3 by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Far as I remember, Fallout 3 was never even officially announced.

      There were a few discussions on the Interplay boards along the lines of "we're sorta pondering making Fallout 3 in 3D" (back in '97) or "why does everyone go rabid about the idea of real-time combat in Fallout 3?" (in 2002) But the Interplay official stance always was along the lines of "nope, we're making no Fallout 3, and no Planescape Torment 2. A hack-n-slash like IWD has cost far less to make, and sold far more copies."

      Sure, some fans were jumping to proclaim that every new project at Interplay would secretely be Fallout 3. But Interplay always said "nope."

      So I'm not sure it even qualifies as vapourware at all. Compared to such shameless hype as the Bitboys or Indrema, or even to the endless interviews about DNF, Fallout 3 was basically not even promised in the first place.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    2. Re:Fallout 3 by acidrain69 · · Score: 1

      it's not vaporware if it gets shelved. Vaporware is implied by continuing promises of a release date that continually gets moved or missed.

      --
      -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
    3. Re:Fallout 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they'll really do Wasteland 2! (Said with a hopeful gleam in my eyes...)

      Yeah yeah, I know Fallout was probably the closet we're going to get to a sequel to Wasteland.

  21. Iraqi WMDs! by kautilya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We were promised "discovery" of those amazing Iraqi WMDs which can destroy west in matter of hours. Those will certainly qualify.

    1. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by LeoDV · · Score: 1
      RTFA, buddy :
      " As in years before, technology companies promised to ship products in 2003 that simply didn't materialize -- just like Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
      ^ The first paragraph of the article. And this got to 5, Insightful?
    2. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by praksys · · Score: 1
      We were promised "discovery" of those amazing Iraqi WMDs...

      ...this bit is right...

      ...which can destroy west in matter of hours...

      ...but why add this BS? You are making a good point less credible.

    3. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by b-baggins · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Man, it is going to be SOOOO much fun watching you guys when we begin to uncover cache after cache after cache.

      I wonder how many ways you'll be able to say: Yeah, but America still sucks and I hate George Bush.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    4. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by kautilya · · Score: 1

      Tony Blair went on record saying that Saddam can fire WMDs in "xy" hour notice (I can't remember if xy=72 or 48).

    5. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but why add this BS? You are making a good point less credible.

      That's exactly his point - one of the reasons the British Government are so unpopular domestically regarding the war was due to them feeding the public the line that WMDs could be ready to launch against UK interests in 45 minutes.

      They implied that "UK interests" meant mainland UK, but when pressed expanded it to include a single British military base on Cyprus (little island in the Med, the closest thing they have to Iraq). During the recent Hutton inquiry it then came out that they actually meant artillery shells with mustard gas - not quite the nuclear-tipped ICBMs they'd been conjuring up before...

    6. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by kautilya · · Score: 1

      Thanks for pointing out. I usually jump to middle of the article :)

    7. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by praksys · · Score: 1

      He said they had chemical weapons that could be launched with 45 minutes notice (which has since been confirmed by the Iraqi Airforce officer who was the original source). He never suggested that these weapons could "destroy the west".

    8. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Tony Blair went on record saying that Saddam can fire WMDs in "xy" hour notice (I can't remember if xy=72 or 48). Actually xy=45 minutes !!

    9. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...cache after cache after cache" ...hmm. they've already looked in all the spots they were 100 percent sure about and nothing is there!

      where they at, hotshot?

      Saddam was B L U F F I N G ! That's what dictators do.

    10. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and the Bush administration's case for war on Iraq as a whole. Vaporware foreign policy. And a domestic policy that isn't much better.

    11. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by retards · · Score: 2

      Yup, and if you don't uncover cache after cache after cache you can still bash the rest of the world for being too weak/leftist/communist/soft-on-terror/stuck-up/wha tever.

      However, until the day you uncover them (or lose interrest in looking): HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Everybody told you so. ... not that any of all this shit is really funny, but it's still your shit, so start smelling it.

    12. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by mcc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Man, it is going to be SOOOO much fun watching you guys when we begin to uncover cache after cache after cache.

      The "there are no WMDs" line is not the message.

      The message is, secondarily, "Saddam was not a real or credible threat to the U.S. or its interests". Primarily, the message is this: "Regardless of the 'just'ness of this war, George Bush acted wrongly in initiating it. He acted wrongly in rejecting the real, basic, and relatively quick diplomatic solutions to the problem he claimed to be going to war to solve. He acted wrongly in not only going against the will of, but actively flipping off the United Nations, finally and unquestionably destroying the convention that we have tried to hold since the end of WW2 that countries don't just go invading other countries just because they feel like it, even if those other countries are "bad". And he acted wrongly in brazenly, openly lying to the people of the United States and the entire world about his reasons for going to war."

      The "there are no WMDs" line is just icing. It's a "isn't this pathetic, not ONLY was Saddam not a real or credible threat to the U.S. back before the war when we THOUGHT he had WMDs, he didn't even HAVE WMDs". If you want to claim Saddam having WMDs would be automatic proof he was a threat, let me put it to you this way: I know where to find the WMDs. No, really, I do. I know where they are. I'll tell you: They're in North Korea.

      I wonder how many ways you'll be able to say: Yeah, but America still sucks and I hate George Bush.

      Probably the same way that Bush supporters manage to find so many ways (when it's the better part of a year now and there's still no credible reason why the U.S. went to Iraq except to be the world's unilateral playground monitor) to say: Bush didn't lie to us.

      Besides, there are so many excellent reasons to hate George Bush, and only a portion of them have anything to do with Iraq.

    13. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that will be really funny. But it will probably be mostly ignored due to all those pigs flying out of my butt.

      I think I'll say it this way:
      America is wonderful, despite being temporarily saddled by with a president who isn't very good at lying despite vast and continual practice.

    14. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by JeebusJones · · Score: 1

      Actually xy = .75 hour

    15. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that day comes, what we'll say is: yes, we turned out to be wrong, he did have WMDs. But you told us they were ready for use. You rushed us into a war because, you claimed, they presented an imminent threat. These WMDs were buried in the desert. They were not ready to be deployed. You rushed us into a war on false grounds, and we still think you were wrong to do so, even though you found the WMDs in the end.

      You'll still carry on lying to us and about us, because that's in your nature; I doubt you noticed the bit in the above paragraph where it says "we turned out to be wrong", because you'll be too busy foaming at the mouth over the rest of the facts there. Either that, or you'll pick out that one sentence and claim we're admitting we're wrong like you knew all along, and completely ignore the fact that you don't actually come out of it any better for that.

      For the record, America doesn't suck and I don't hate George Bush. But America's "war on terror" sucks, and George Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. Again, you probably don't see any difference between those two points of view, but I assure you there is one. It's the ability to see that difference which leads me to consider the left more mature than the right.

    16. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1
      when we begin to uncover


      Yes, I am sure you are posting this from the banks of the Tigris. Hoo-aah!

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    17. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by black88 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Though I do not hate America, my birthplace, and home, I do very much despise the president. I hate George W Bush. Why is it that we always get into this partisan bullshit? Ever listen to right-wing radio these days? Bunch of fake conservative neo zionist busy bodies screaming about why they hate liberals. Of course many liberals are no better in terms of rhetoric. So piss off if you can't at least tolerate the opinions of others, no one said we all have to agree.

    18. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by g0hare · · Score: 1

      Love America. Hate George Bush.

      --
      Vote Quimby!
    19. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by rjung2k · · Score: 2

      I hate George W. Bush precisely because I love America.

    20. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by Jerf · · Score: 1

      He acted wrongly in not only going against the will of, but actively flipping off the United Nations,

      I find it ironic that "actively flipping off the United Nations" consisted of "actually enforcing United Nation resolutions". God damn that unilateralist bastard, didn't he realize those were just for show?

      With so many accusations like that transparently false, is it any wonder that you find your viewpoints marginalized?

      (I suppose your "quick diplomatic solution" largely consists of Yet Another UN Resolution? Yes, those worked well...)

    21. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by Fred+IV · · Score: 1

      Hate to say it, but I expect them to be "found" too...a few weeks before the next election. I'm expecting to see OBL in shackles around the same time.

      Never do today what can be put off until tomorrow, especially when another 4 years are at stake.

      FIV
    22. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "actually enforcing United Nation resolutions"

      Remind me, which resolution was it that said the US could invade Iraq "just because". The whole
      point of the UN is to prevent countries from
      unilaterally invading another country. If you
      want to live in a world where you can just stampede over another country, just say so...
      Oh, I suppose you already do. You're a Republican
      right?

      "quick diplomatic solution" largely consists of Yet Another UN Resolution? Yes, those worked well...)"

      Yes they did. They managed to disarm Saddam Hussein of WMDs. I can't for the life of me imagine what you think the resolutions were supposed to do.

    23. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by stimpleton · · Score: 1

      "I know where to find the WMDs. No, really, I do. I know where they are. I'll tell you: They're in North Korea."

      They're also in the USA: Nuclear bombs, Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, Cluster Bombs, Land Mines, Chemical Weapons. Submarines with nuclear warheads in the Antarctic sea.

      --

      In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    24. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by superyooser · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Other vaporware related to Iraq (courtesy of the Left Wing):
      • Coalition forces attacked with Saddam's WMD (well of course, there weren't WMD, right?)
      • thousands of U.S. troops killed
      • refugee crisis
      • ecological disaster
      • seizure of Iraqi oil
      • destruction of Islamic "holy" sites by Americans
      • destruction of historical artifacts by Americans
      • terrorist attacks in America after invasion
      Here is the non-vaporware in Iraq.
    25. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I suppose your "quick diplomatic solution" largely consists of Yet Another UN Resolution? Yes, those worked well...)

      The idea would be to hold weapons inspections, and if those failed, give Bush the green light. At such a point France and Germany would find themselves with no option but to stand down, and Bush could have gone ahead with his war.

      But that was never an option. Bush made it clear from the very beginning he was going to invade no matter what the rest of the world did. Allowing the inspections to run their actual, full course would have resulted in Saddam, who in essence was a weasel who cared about nothing except in the end retaining his power, allowing the inspections to complete, thus meaning Iraq would lose its sanctions and Bush would have no reason to invade. Which just wouldn't work, would it?

    26. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by Jerf · · Score: 1

      What crack are you smoking? The weapons inspections did fail, M(r/s). AC! The "inspections" were supposed to be validations that the weapons we all knew existed were destroyed with full Iraqi cooperation, something that only existed in leftie delusions. I guess we were just supposed to pretend that continuous stonewalling qualifies as full cooperation?

      The continuous re-writing of history is just infuriating. The "left" is far, far more guilty of that then any of their "opponents". And again, this is why you find your opinions marginalized. You have to make up history to support your views.

      Like I said, how dare he enforce the actual words of the resolution? (Why don't you go read them?)

    27. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Man, it is going to be SOOOO much fun watching you guys when we begin to uncover cache after cache after cache.

      About a month before the next Presidential election? You mean it will take them that long to smuggle the evidence in?

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    28. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The inspections failed under Clinton. But Bush's strong stance forced Hussein into a position where he would have been forced to-- and was, in fact, in the *process of* when Bush announced inspections were ending and he was invading-- complying with the inspections. Had this been in fact taking a strong stance and not just been unbridled desire for war, this would have been a very good thing.

      The inspections would have not needed to take long, so long as stonewalling was not occuring. The stonewalling, not the difficulty of the inspections, was what made the inspections take years under Clinton. The stonewalling occured under Clinton because Clinton did not understand Hussein was of the sort who would not do anything unless he was absolutely forced to. Bush didn't understand that either, but he did manage to demonstrate exactly how to force Hussein to do things.

      Had Bush let the inspections occur, within a relatively (compared to the 10+ years of the sanctions) brief amount of time, either the inspections would have been completed and the lifted, or the inspectors would have come back and said "yup, Saddam's stonewalling again" and Bush would have kicked Saddam out. However, instead what we got was that the inspections began and were working, and Bush saw that this was not directly leading to the war he wanted, so he declared that the inspections had failed and began the war anyway.

      Enforcing a specific and somewhat manipulative interpretation of the words' literal interpretaton that does not honor their intent when almost every single other member nation of the UN is saying "this is wrong" is not enforcing a resolution.

    29. Re:Iraqi WMDs! by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      poster wrote:
      Submarines with nuclear warheads in the Antarctic sea.
      I think you mean the arctic sea. Antartica is a land mass, and pretty far from the action (the world's flash points) - or is Bill Gates funding an attack on the penguins again?.
  22. No Shadowbane this year. by darkmayo · · Score: 1

    They actually released it.. unforunately it was stored incorrectly... and instead of aging into a fine wine, all we got was a bottle of vinegar.

    --
    "I am a kernel in the linux army"
  23. Re:well, we took care of saddam over the weekend.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    dont forget SCO's Linux/UNIX infringement evidence.

  24. Doom 3? by anethema · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How far back has the release date for doom 3 slipped? "When its done" seems to have become "When you're all too old to care". I really hope this doesnt become another DNF.

    --


    It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    1. Re:Doom 3? by sheetsda · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The rumor (well, I don't know if its rumor, I fairly sure John Carmack himself said it) is that Microsoft offered id a truckload of money to sit on Doom3 until an XBox port was done.

    2. Re:Doom 3? by *weasel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      one might wonder if id's unspoken business plan is to let Carmack create the greatest engine possible, and then just polish the art until consumers have rigs fast enough to run it.

      I remember quake 3 going through a similar statis period of about a year between playable and release. and quake3 didn't even have a 'single player game experience'.

      but if doom3 had already been released, all you'd hear is moaning about how high the system requirements are. what good would it do them to burn out their product inertia because no-one can play it?

      i'd also guess carmack's time is much more profitably spent adding flexibility to the new engine to increase its appeal to licensees; and supporting the q3 engine licensees, than trying to optimize doom3 until they do release.

      There is simply a wall at which the game won't run well enough on enough machines to warrant a release. And it's right next to the wall at which the time spent optimizing the engine results in less performance gain than the upgrade rate of the gaming market.

      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
    3. Re:Doom 3? by BigDumbAnimal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A release date that has never been announced cannot (by definition) slip.

      The only dates that have slipped have been speculative dates made by publishers, game sites, and fans.

    4. Re:Doom 3? by leifm · · Score: 1

      I know nothing about graphics API stuff, but would moving a game written towards OpenGL take a while to port to DirectX? Does the XBOX use DirectX?

      I'm not so pumped about Doom3. My prediction is as always id pushes technology but the gameplay is basically the same as the first Doom.

      --

      "Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
    5. Re:Doom 3? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 2, Informative

      Realisiticly speaking, there has only been 1 date ever mentioned: 2003 - it was on banners advertising Doom 3 at E3 2002. It has been in development for a while, but id has never said anything besides 2003(and no one has resonably expected it before that), so it has only slipped 1 time.

    6. Re:Doom 3? by dzym · · Score: 1

      There was never a "hard and fast" release date SET for Doom 3, so I don't have a problem with waiting for it, unless it doesn't actually come out next year in which case I'm going to be slightly pissed.

      Half-Life 2 on the other hand ... is another story.

    7. Re:Doom 3? by selderrr · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's one big difference between Quake3 and Doom3 : competition.

      Back in the Q3 days, there was only 1major competitor to ID, which was Epic's unreal engine. Other games were based on the Q2 engine, or had another customer base (TombRaider fon instance was rarely compared to ID games)
      Today, things are very different with Unreal2 engine, HalfLife2, Blizzard having a serous engine, ...

      I don't thing they can pull our Doom3 string as long they did with Q3

    8. Re:Doom 3? by segmond · · Score: 1

      I am sorry, but this is so lame. We are now writing games for the future not for the present systems? Plz, that is what made ID great, they could get better performance out of the present systems than their peers could. There are still fine games being made for the present systems by other peeps, graphics is not everything, game play is too!

      --
      ------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
    9. Re:Doom 3? by Krapangor · · Score: 1

      Quantum computing will be ready for the desktop in 2050, so you'll have to wait a little for Doom 3.

      --
      Owner of a Mensa membership card.
    10. Re:Doom 3? by swb · · Score: 1

      It's kind of lame, but it's not that bad. If you want to reach the next level of game engine performance from the user's perspective, you have to be able to do things that can't be done very well on today's best hardware, and also assume that a new game engine will take a lot of time to write, meaning that your next generation hardware demands will largely be met by the time it hits the street.

      In the case of Doom3, perhaps they went too far in new game engine capabilities and desktop CPU just hasn't caught up yet to what's considered acceptable for engine performance. But it's not like this was totally unprecedented. When Quake came out, it was all but unplayable on my P166 system except at the lowest resolutions. It took a voodoo card to make it even playable.

      Is there a quantum leap in performance like the Voodoo cards in the next six months?

    11. Re:Doom 3? by Dr.+Photo · · Score: 1

      id's (and pretty much all commercial PC game developers' since) method has always been to buy the very best systems you can find today, at the start of development, then by the time the game is ready for release, those same system specs describe a new "entry-level" system.

    12. Re:Doom 3? by fredrikj · · Score: 1

      The only release date we've heard from id Software themselves is "when it's done". The "Coming 2003" poster at E3 2002 was Activision's artifice.

    13. Re:Doom 3? by IncohereD · · Score: 1

      We are now writing games for the future not for the present systems? Plz, that is what made ID great, they could get better performance out of the present systems than their peers could.

      Which company have you been watching? Were you able to run Quake/Q2/Q3 at full details/resolution when they came out? Hell no! Why do you think Quake3 was used as a benchmark for so long? Only about a year ago did the framerates start getting meaninglessly high on the high-end rigs with full details.

      The whole point of id has been to make engines that last long enough to get the next one out, so they can continue to resell it to make money in the interim. Look what Counterstrike did with Half-Life did with the Quake engine, it's still going strong, and I'm STILL seeing posts complaining of slowdowns in certain areas.

      Quake ran like ass compared to Duke3D when they both originally came out (remember all the flame wars?), but it's clear which one was built to last. id knows what they're doing. And yes, they also get better peformance at the same hardware level, they just have much higher standards of performance.

    14. Re:Doom 3? by *weasel · · Score: 1


      the difference i was trying to point out is that lately, it seems as if developers have to -wait- for 'entry level' systems to become pervasive enough to find a profitable market.

      maybe feature creep due to hardware advances pushes up the minimum requirements. maybe the upgrade cycle slowed down as game development cycles grew, and hardware advances stayed at the same rate.

      whatever it is, it definitely looks as if the games that are sold heavily on their graphics are staying in 'when its done' mode so long that you can't help but wonder why they -still- require such powerful machines to run acceptably when they release. if they were just working on gameplay and bugs, it's unlikely to push up system specs.

      I mean, how could they be 'delayed' for 6-12 months and yet the minimum requirements still carry sticker-shock for all but the most hardcore gamers?

      doom3 was -announced- in 2001. being gracious enough to consider that their 'start' date, and looking at anandtech's high end system guide for 2001, the best gaming rig you could buy then was an amd 1.3ghz and a geforce3.

      i think the minimum requirements will still be a bit higher than that when it releases.

      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
    15. Re:Doom 3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'd also guess carmack's time is much more profitably spent adding flexibility to the new engine to increase its appeal to licensees; and supporting the q3 engine licensees, than trying to optimize doom3 until they do release.

      Uh.. modding the game engine? Doubtful. He's building rockets and sending them into orbit.

    16. Re:Doom 3? by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      Quake ran like ass compared to Duke3D when they both originally came out (remember all the flame wars?), but it's clear which one was built to last.

      Duke 3D of course.

      Laser tripbombs. Best. Deathmatch. Weapon. Ever.

      --saint

    17. Re:Doom 3? by WasterDave · · Score: 1

      They definately offered. The rumor is that the offer was accepted.

      Wouldn't surprise me at all - and I would be very surprised if the number in question was less than $100M.

      Dave

      --
      I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
    18. Re:Doom 3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how are duke's laser tripbombs better than half-life's?

      hell in halflife one could put several bombs on differing height levels to complicate jump avoidance, or halfway down a vertical shaft so people falling or riding elevators get blown to bits too.

      more degrees of freedom == more fun.

    19. Re:Doom 3? by reidbold · · Score: 1

      You mean we can't even look up or down? Who's going to buy that?

      --
      -Reid
    20. Re:Doom 3? by jandrese · · Score: 1
      In the case of Doom3, perhaps they went too far in new game engine capabilities and desktop CPU just hasn't caught up yet to what's considered acceptable for engine performance. But it's not like this was totally unprecedented. When Quake came out, it was all but unplayable on my P166 system except at the lowest resolutions. It took a voodoo card to make it even playable.
      What? Maybe you're thinking of Quake2. Quake was playable on my P-90 with S3 Trio64 (no 3D acceleration) graphics card. Quake2 is what really upped the ante in the minimum hardware department. I remember even after I upgraded to the PII-400 with Matrox Mystique G200, Quake2 was still a bit of a dog. Granted, the GL support on the G series chips was complete crap in those days (they used some bogus GL to Direct3D translation layer in the drivers). OTOH, Quake3 was surprisingly playable on the G200 under FreeBSD, so who knows.

      I figure that Doom3 will require a Geforce 4 (probably even the 4mx guys will get terrible performance) or equivalent to play at any decent resolution. Most likely there will be plenty of knobs you can tweak to get a fast (if crappy looking) game out of more modest hardware.

      I wonder if Doom3 is going to be full of 100 meter tall 2 cm thick walls that you have to walk across like Doom2?
      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    21. Re:Doom 3? by leifm · · Score: 1

      Ok, my bad, Quake then.

      --

      "Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
    22. Re:Doom 3? by jandrese · · Score: 1
      I'm not so pumped about Doom3. My prediction is as always id pushes technology but the gameplay is basically the same as the first Doom.
      You mean it's going to be a very nice looking first person shooter?

      IMHO, the FPS field is a little stale right now. There are basically only two notable twists to the field, and both of them are pretty evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The first is the increase in "stealth" games where you don't shoot everything in sight, but rather try to avoid fighting sometimes. This has been done pretty much to death already. The other type is highly coordinated team action games, where the online component requires a team of 4 or more players on each side to even hope to accomplish anything, but even this is pretty much just an evolution of the team deathmatch concept. Maybe I'm just jaded.
      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    23. Re:Doom 3? by danila · · Score: 1

      Doom can run on every machine that can run Max Payne 2. Half-Life 2 can run on every machine that can run Splinter Cell. From the customer setups standpoint, they can both be released now.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    24. Re:Doom 3? by bogie · · Score: 1

      "Back in the Q3 days, there was only 1major competitor to ID,"

      I see zero difference today. The only real competition is still a version of the Unreal engine.Half-Life2 engine? That's not even close to being out yet. Blizzard? What popular FPS games use that?

      The competition you speak of either isn't out yet or doesn't play in the same ballpark as the Doom3 engine. Like the Q3 engine the Doom3 engine will be around only competing with the Unreal engine for a long long time. Heck fine by me if they stick with the Q3 engine for a while longer. It still looks great and you can play any game made with it on middle of the road hardware. Contrast that to the Eye candy Unreal engine which in exchange for slightly better graphics absolutely requires top-end hardware. The only other one that I can think that is a viable option is the Lithtech engine. And most developers don't want to use that because its STILL ubber buggy, especially with regards to its POS sound implementation.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    25. Re:Doom 3? by slycer · · Score: 1

      I really really miss laser tripbombs.. there was nothing quite like using the jetpack & setting up 50 tripbombs through the only spot on a map that you could get through with a jetpack.

      Forget twitch reflexes.. this was decidely a point where you did *not* want to twitch.

    26. Re:Doom 3? by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      how are duke's laser tripbombs better than half-life's?

      From your description, they're not. But I've never played Half Life, so I can't really compare them, personally.

      (I switched to Macs right around the time HL came out. So I never had a computer that could run it.)

      --saint

    27. Re:Doom 3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that the minimum requirements always have been a GeForce3 card. That was enormous sticker shock years ago when the GeForce3 was top-of-the-line, but now that's a beyond lowend card.

      Expect Doom3 to be playable on just about all "gamer hardware" that's currently on the market.

    28. Re:Doom 3? by Dr.+Photo · · Score: 1

      maybe feature creep due to hardware advances pushes up the minimum requirements. maybe the upgrade cycle slowed down as game development cycles grew, and hardware advances stayed at the same rate.

      Maybe you're right. ;-)

    29. Re:Doom 3? by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      In fact, all FPS games have stopped progressing gameplay wise since Quake. Other than changes in gameplay theme, it has been the same since Quake.

      That is, if you don't consider hybrid games such as "Deus Ex", which is a RPG, action-adventure, FPS - all in one.

      Or Savage, which is a RTS and FPS rolled into one. Note Savage runs natively on both windows and Linux. Why aren't you playing it yet? You can even buy it online directly from the developer. SUPPORT LINUX GAME DEVELOPERS!

    30. Re:Doom 3? by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      How about FPS + RTS? It lets you have huge team games, but still have organization within teams because a commander governs each team from a RTS point of view. Savage for Windows and Linux does just this. It is a great game, and I highly recommend you check it out.

    31. Re:Doom 3? by anethema · · Score: 1

      ...probably even the 4mx guys will get terrible performance...

      Yeah, the 4MX series are just souped up geforce 2's. Any new fancy shmancy game wont work well on them.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    32. Re:Doom 3? by leifm · · Score: 1

      They have basically stayed the same, but not completely. Halo has the sheild deal that changes the way you play to some degree, SOF had the first sound meter I think, stuff like that. id never seems to add small elements like that, they just put out a kick ass engine that powers all the top tier FPS stuff for the next 2-3 years. Not that I don't like id, I think the GPLing of code after commercial viability is over is cool, and their games are usually fun, they just aren't innovative as far as gameplay at all.

      --

      "Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
    33. Re:Doom 3? by swb · · Score: 1

      What? Maybe you're thinking of Quake2. Quake was playable on my P-90 with S3 Trio64 (no 3D acceleration) graphics card. Quake2 is what really upped the ante in the minimum hardware department. I remember even after I upgraded to the PII-400 with Matrox Mystique G200, Quake2 was still a bit of a dog. Granted, the GL support on the G series chips was complete crap in those days (they used some bogus GL to Direct3D translation layer in the drivers). OTOH, Quake3 was surprisingly playable on the G200 under FreeBSD, so who knows.

      The only decent frame rates I could get out of Quake were at low resolutions. Maybe it was just the bad VESA support in my Diamond card, who knows. However, Q2 ran fine with my Voodoo card on my K6 233. Never ran Q3.

    34. Re:Doom 3? by *weasel · · Score: 1

      if i can play doom3 on my PC with my 1ghz and geforce3, i'll eat crow. but i ain't holdin my breath.

      more likely, by the time it's released, when the minimum reqs are '2 ghz', it'll simply be less of a sticker shock. which was rather my point.

      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
  25. 404 Code not found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The SCO infringing code!

  26. Linux on the desktop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Every year we are told it will happen, but it still has not. I'm talking about a desktop for mom and pop, neither KDE or Gnome are anywhere near yet.

    1. Re:Linux on the desktop. by neferusobek · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's here; it's called Lindows!

    2. Re:Linux on the desktop. by The_K4 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thanks to MS that's now "The OS formerly Known as Lindows!" :)

    3. Re:Linux on the desktop. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Gee, I'm a pop of two, and I'm using Gnome and GIMP to edit family photos.

    4. Re:Linux on the desktop. by JoeBaldwin · · Score: 1

      Hmm, funny, cos in a day I can set up a Debian box with KDE 3.1.4 and let my family loose on it. They love it-it's fast, it's stable, it's pretty and it's EASY. Beat that.

    5. Re:Linux on the desktop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Insightful? KDE and Gnome are both as usable or more usable than WinXP, which is adequate for most. The reason people don't migrate en masse is application support. No amount of improving KDE and Gnome is going to make "Greeting Card Maker 2003 for Windows" work on Linux. The thing holding Linux back from the desktop isn't the desktop environment. It's lack of ISV support. Wine is just a band-aid for this problem, but at least it addresses the issue. Improvements to KDE and Gnome just take them from "better than Windows" to "lots better than Windows" without fixing the ISV problem.

      Then again, OSS may solve this problem by putting reluctant ISVs out of business. Years ago, someone selling a commercial word processor for Linux had a chance. But since the major players have either held back (Microsoft, IBM) or done a bad job (Corel), there's no way you can sell a word processor on Linux because the free ones are too good. I fear for Adobe, Quark, and Macromedia who seem to be falling into the same trap--delaying until the market is already dominated by a zero-cost competitor.

  27. my submission: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a usable FreeNet client (for all platforms, yes, even Windows) so that I may P2P without the RIAA breathing down my neck. (Java may be a good direction in that effort to get cross-platform quickly -- I recommend IBM's JDK, not Sun's)

    1. Re:my submission: by canadianjoe · · Score: 1

      Bah. For all your cross-platform p2p needs: limewire and bittorrent. LimeWire: Windows (English Only) Mac OSX Mac Classic Linux* Solaris Bittorrent: Windows Mac OS X Linux

  28. Of course some we wished remained vaporware... by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Like MOO3 which I believe a few of the 2002 Vaporware lists. Quicksilver and Atari managed to mangle a very well know TBS name. They even managed to forget to support it, having disappeared after mid-July.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Of course some we wished remained vaporware... by Xentax · · Score: 1

      Tell me about it :(

      Not only was it mismanaged into a disaster, Atari decided to pull the plug instead of trying to salvage the game (and the fanbase along with it).

      It's sad to see a brand die off when it could have been saved.

      Xentax

      --
      You shouldn't verb words.
    2. Re:Of course some we wished remained vaporware... by paganizer · · Score: 1

      That still pisses me off.
      I've got the CD's setting in my "active" rack by my screen; not so I can get to them easy, but to remind me constantly how people will rip you off every chance they get.
      I just hope someday I'll be able to stomach playing MOO2 again; for now, I just keep flashing back to the last attempt to enjoy MOO3.
      Microprose would have NEVER screwed up like that, as evidenced by XCOM & XCOM II; when you have something near-perfect, don't mess with it.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
  29. Should win hands down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That tornado in a can thingy. Could anything else be more vaporware than a tornado?

  30. Windows Security by smartin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nuff said.

    --
    The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
  31. Phantom Game console? by theLastPossibleName · · Score: 1
  32. Nanotechnology by kautilya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Refer to a random nanotechnology source. Pick a random word with nano (as in nanobot, nanomotor, nanogear etc) as its prefix. It will certainly qualify.

    1. Re:Nanotechnology by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      except nanothreads which are being sold in levi's jeans!

    2. Re:Nanotechnology by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      It's too bad, really, but not surprising. Remember how cool "cyber-" sounded the first time you heard it?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    3. Re:Nanotechnology by nanodik · · Score: 1

      I disagree. And now they have a patch especially for those suffering from "nanoism" - I get about 20 emails a day about it!

    4. Re:Nanotechnology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      humm....trying...to...remember:
      "Leroy187: Hey, wanna cyber?"
      Nope, wasn't cool at all.

    5. Re:Nanotechnology by Rxke · · Score: 1

      There are working nanomotors and nanogear, so i don't see where this fits the " gizmos that were put off, put away or quietly put down" label. As for 'bots, they're still working on it, so again, not appliccable...

    6. Re:Nanotechnology by kautilya · · Score: 1

      oh..you belong to Eric Drexler clan? :)

    7. Re:Nanotechnology by Rxke · · Score: 1

      Sure do... 'n before you ask, yeah, I love to dream! :)

    8. Re:Nanotechnology by kautilya · · Score: 1

      I would love to dream too..but that I think would be a reality one day. I don't think Eric Drexler talks any sense. We might not agree on this. It is okay..:) good luck with your dreams!

    9. Re:Nanotechnology by retinaburn · · Score: 1

      nanodick ? ;)

    10. Re:Nanotechnology by Rxke · · Score: 1

      What??? No screaming and shouting match? No gratuitiously throwing insults and endless citations? But.. but we're on /. ! What happened with tradition? ;)

  33. Windows NT the winner in 1991? by chrysrobyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does anybody else remember the day when NT stood for "Not There" instead of "New Technology?

    1. Re:Windows NT the winner in 1991? by metalmario · · Score: 0

      I thought it meant Neanderthal Technology.

    2. Re:Windows NT the winner in 1991? by enkafan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually:
      Finally, it was time to start writing some code. "We checked the first code pieces in around mid-December 1988," Lucovsky said, "and had a very basic system kind of booting on a simulator of the Intel i860 (which was codenamed "N-Ten") by January." In fact, this is where NT actually got its name, Lucovsky revealed, adding that the "new technology" moniker was added after the fact in a rare spurt of product marketing by the original NT team members. "Originally, we were targeting NT to the Intel i860, a RISC processor that was horribly behind schedule. Because we didn't have any i860 machines in-house to test on, we used an i860 simulator. That's why we called it NT, because it worked on the 'N-Ten.'"
      From http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winserver2k3_g old1.asp

    3. Re:Windows NT the winner in 1991? by jiggel · · Score: 1

      Does anybody else remember the day when NT stood for Northern Telecom? :-)

    4. Re:Windows NT the winner in 1991? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      NT stands for 'Nested Threads'

      It's a register introduced on the 386 and predates Windows NT.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    5. Re:Windows NT the winner in 1991? by garvon · · Score: 1

      I always thought it stood for "Nice Try"

    6. Re:Windows NT the winner in 1991? by edbarrett · · Score: 1
      NT 4.0 Service Pack 7

      Yes, I read the link. Duh. I just like how SP7 is on a page labelled "List of Available Windows NT 4.0 Service Packs"

    7. Re:Windows NT the winner in 1991? by DrWhizBang · · Score: 1

      I've always referred to it as "Nice Try"

      --
      Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
    8. Re:Windows NT the winner in 1991? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot one... No Thanks

    9. Re:Windows NT the winner in 1991? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it stands for "No Thanks."

    10. Re:Windows NT the winner in 1991? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, this asks for some comments...

      > the Intel i860, a RISC processor that was horribly
      > behind schedule. Because we didn't have any i860
      > machines in-house to test on, we used an i860
      > simulator.

      That is interesting. First of all, the i860 is as much of a risc processor as the PPC.. Both are superscalar cpus which use a substantial subset of the ideas behind RISC, but by their instruction sets, they are definitely not RISC, actually, in how they function, they look a lot more like the vector based cray machines then like a risc cpu.

      Then, on december 1989 I was running an i860 based machine. It was a very rare machine, but this was not experimental, and was commercially available. I really cannot believe that MS did not get access to them at the time.

      Oh, and the machien I was running by the end of 1989 was privately owned.. it had been used by IBM for the 2 years before that, and had been delivered as a prototype cpu originally.

      For that matter, the i860 is a way cool cpu... if you have software to run on it (or at least a decent compiler to buld software for it). I still have an i860 based machine (actually, a 4cpu transputer with 16mb of 8ns static ram ;) and still use it at times.

  34. 6 years late - almost 7 by dpille · · Score: 4, Informative

    HAL became operational in 1997:

    I became operational at the HAL plant in Urbana, Illinois, on January 12, 1997

    1. Re:6 years late - almost 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am Hal 9000, posting from Urbana I have detected that my name has appeared on slashdot.

      In addition to the problems I caused two years ago, I also DOSed SCO and I am responsible for hiding the WMD in Iraq.

      Fear me.

    2. Re:6 years late - almost 7 by paganizer · · Score: 1

      It was YOU who DOSed SCO?
      Dude! you the... er... DOSmeister?
      But bragging about hiding something that never existed is sort of lame.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    3. Re:6 years late - almost 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, given IBM->HAL by -1 each letter win the name,
      in order to balance the math, you need to add one to each digit in the date. So expect AI on Febuary 3, 2008.

  35. SHOULDN'T VAPORWARE BE ILLEGAL...? by Big+Troller · · Score: 0, Interesting

    If a company uses vaporware with the intent to hurt another companies sales of a software product or any other product. In my oppion that should be illegal.. A company shouln't be allowed to say they product unless that have something... Isn't that false advertising in a way....? Just seems like a big loop hole that should fixed to prevent companies from stifling their competition

  36. perpetual pre-release -ware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from the article: As in previous years, software in a never-ending, pre-release, beta-testing stage is considered vaporware, even if it's widely available

    Isn't that WindowsXP? [/troll]

  37. Duke Nukem Forever Development by HaloZero · · Score: 3, Funny

    You guys just wait. You rag on DNF for five years straight, while 3D Realms is probably kicking asses left and right in the dev for it. They'll bust out in 2008 with a game that brings the house down, and all of you will be just blown away.

    Of course, then we have to live through the ...fallout... of 'After vaporware, Duke Nukems you!'

    --
    Informatus Technologicus
    1. Re:Duke Nukem Forever Development by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Yeah but each year it's behind they'll have to change the engine because IT is becoming obsolete.

    2. Re:Duke Nukem Forever Development by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sorry, by 2008, we'll be too busy with our flying cars to pay any attention to DNF!

      --
      I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
    3. Re:Duke Nukem Forever Development by TheDredd · · Score: 1

      , and all of you will be just blown away

      I heard it will be so realistic you actually have to dodge the bullets that come flying out of your screen, at least if you don't want to end up dead...

    4. Re:Duke Nukem Forever Development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, then we have to live through the ...fallout... of 'After vaporware, Duke Nukems you!'

      Was that an "in Soviet Russia" joke

    5. Re:Duke Nukem Forever Development by XO · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, Nukems Duke You!!!!!!

      Sorry.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  38. Latex3 by poszi · · Score: 4, Interesting
    IIRC this project started 10 years ago project page> .

    Maybe the reason it has not materialized yet is that Latex2e works just fine.

    --

    Save the bandwidth. Don't use sigs!

    1. Re:Latex3 by jschrod · · Score: 1
      IMO, vaporware means "promised at a date, but not delivered". We never promised you a date, and we deliver -- perhaps not in a form that you like... If you call LaTeX3 "always in gamma or beta", you might be right; but vaporware is too harsh, IMNSHO.

      Concerning code: look at CTAN, in macros/latex/exptl/, and at http://www.latex-project.org/code/experimental/.

      Of course, I'm biased, as you'll know when you lookup the "project page"'s owner.

      --

      Joachim

      People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]

  39. Stars! Supernova Genesis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    At this point it's less vaporware and more religion, since it is largely sustained by faith.

    1. Re:Stars! Supernova Genesis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it would have been an great cutting edge game 2 years ago, now its an ok game, in another couple of years its going to look a bit dated, but still have a high re-playability factor, just like Stars! 2 did. (but stars!2 looked old from the start.)

    2. Re:Stars! Supernova Genesis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duke Nukem Forever. On a new Amiga.

      Someone who believes that could take down the Vatican.

    3. Re:Stars! Supernova Genesis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, have you seen Master of Orion 3? Stars! 2 solved some of those problems better a decade earlier. And honsetly, the combat in MoO3 strongly resembled that of Stars! 2, but instread of a replay feature they added an illusion of interactivity.

      In a lot of ways it was the answer to the question, "What if we took Stars! functional interface, gave it a spiffy theme and reduced its functionality, then took the AI from MoO The Original, gave it a lobotomy, and threw in the crappiest 3d engine we could find?"

      My answer should have been, "No." But appearently I 1) buy on brand, and 2) am an idiot.

  40. Easy by upside · · Score: 1

    Team Fortress II

    Well, Valve almost made up for it with the sudden revelation of the upcoming HalfLife 2. But they blew that, too.

    What about Doom III?

    --
    I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
    1. Re:Easy by bugbread · · Score: 4, Funny

      DoomIII is working on it. Somehow, though, I just can't shake the feeling that DoomIII is trying to fill DNF's shoes. It's like a kid who wants to be like his big brother. But one day, one day...BOOM!! Puberty hits, and DoomIII is the new king of vaporware!

      Or not. I couldn't really venture to guess. I'd put good money on DNF never coming out, though.

  41. it's 'a spellchecker' (N/T) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This information is just to fool the filter.
    It has no meaning, and no information whatsoever.
    If you get information out of this message anyway, you should email me the details ASAP.

    1. Re:it's 'a spellchecker' (N/T) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would assume that both would be acceptable. You would never see "producechecker" to describe the grocery worker, whereas "produce checker" (or even "produce-checker") would be appropriate.

      I know, you were trying *so* hard to find something about which to nit-pick. Why not focus on this grammatically-challenged gem instead:

      "...*and* spell checker on Slashdot."

    2. Re:it's 'a spellchecker' (N/T) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, does it check your spells? ITYM "spelling checker".

  42. Enlightenment DR 17 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It gets my vote as the one that never was

  43. I object! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    KDE is pretty enough!

    We're you talking about usability?

    Sorry, my bad.

  44. Re:Just for the record by furry_marmot · · Score: 1

    Maybe originally (I don't actually know), but they sold it as "New Technology."

  45. Pull Head Out of Ass by Clippy · · Score: 0

    Vapor != fog

    --


    My Karma is bad. May I take you out for a drink? It's on me...
    1. Re:Pull Head Out of Ass by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      Pedantry != funny

  46. SEGWAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    enough said.

    1. Re:SEGWAY by Asmandeus · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more along the lines of Killer Segway Robots funded by the military.


      - A S M -

    2. Re:SEGWAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i am standing beside myself

  47. Preemptive Post by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Capturing Saddam does shit little for finding WMDs now does it? If they couldn't get it out of the guy who was responsible for them ("Chemical Ali") then what good does ole Saddam do for them? Bump in the polls and flag waving.

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  48. Itanium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $1 billion development money and still not on the retail shelf. HP has so little faith that they have a 64 bit cpu being developed concurrently.

    1. Re:Itanium by HP-UX'er · · Score: 1

      HP has 'em on the shelf ...

  49. SCO by Serious+Simon · · Score: 0, Redundant

    They sure have been producing a lot of it, and quite successfully so far...

  50. Star Control 4 by Apreche · · Score: 1

    Or Starcon, or whatever you want to call it. How long will we wait?

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    1. Re:Star Control 4 by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 1

      Whoa, I hadn't even heard of a SC4 under development? Who says they are developing this?

      --
      Forget the whales - save the babies.
  51. Wired list from 2000 by image · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Out of curiosity I reviewed Wired's list from 2000 to see what came of the products that were mere vapor three years ago.
    • Tribes 2 -- released, and rather successful, a good game overall
    • Wireless Web Pads -- tablet PC's are now commerically available
    • Bluetooth -- now shipping in just about everything from cell phones to headsets to laptops
    • Silicon Film's Electronic Film System -- not sure about this particular case, but there are digital film backs available for 35mm cameras, I believe
    • Warcraft III -- released and went on to become a hugely popular game on Blizzards battle.net, has an expansion or two as well
    • Intel's Itanium chips -- shipping and people are deploying them in real-world, large-scale installations
    • A New Linux kernel -- they were talking about 2.4, and 2.6 is now just around the corner
    • Black and White -- shipped. and while a bit overrated, a decent game
    • Duke Nukem Forever -- ha.
    • Mac OS X -- now at version 10.3.1, it is perhaps the best desktop operating system ever built

    So, after three years, only one of the top 10 vaporware products from 2000 failed to materialize. In fact, most of them went on to become successes as well.

    1. Re:Wired list from 2000 by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

      Warcraft 3 did indeed ship: but note that it made not one but two lists (check out 2001's).

      Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we're still waiting to see if Team Fortress 2 will ever see the light of day.

    2. Re:Wired list from 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Silicon Film's Electronic Film System is still vapourware. Leica is working on a interchangeable film/digital back though. I believe it will be out before Silicon Film's.

    3. Re:Wired list from 2000 by pixelgeek · · Score: 1

      So are we all just critically impatient or is the tech/gaming industry driven far too much by marketing hype?

      Maybe if there were fewer PR people we wouldn't have this issue at all?

    4. Re:Wired list from 2000 by bbh · · Score: 1

      >>Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we're still waiting to see if Team Fortress 2 will ever see the light of day.

      Well, Half-Life 2 sorta made the light of day, just not the part of it that Valve had hoped... :P

      bbh

    5. Re:Wired list from 2000 by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1


      Interesting list.

      I really don't give a sh!t what Wired says. I really don't distinctly remember any other specific problems, but they were the ones that had an editorial that suggested that we should be willing to give up the right to have a DVD-ROM drive so that Lucas would release his Star Wars Trilogy on DVD.

    6. Re:Wired list from 2000 by Zebbers · · Score: 1

      of course shit will eventually be released
      its vaporware for being hyped for so long and so hard and not being out NOW

      you know-show me the money

    7. Re:Wired list from 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leica who? I work for a firm that was bought out by a company named Leica, and I'd love to know if this is something that some other part of the new behemoth is working on.

  52. A U.S. President that isn't a genocidal moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, looks like we're set for 4 more years of Texan stupidity... ...unless all you Americans wake up and ask yourself whether these hundreds of US young men (and thousands of Iraqi civilians) killed in the name of non-existent WMDs were worth it to get Dubya re-elected.

    1. Re:A U.S. President that isn't a genocidal moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we could have 4 more years of him OR Saddam still in power killing far more of the Iraqi civilians than the war killed and providing training grounds for all sorts of terrorist organizations (yes, including Al-Qaeda) to build up their scummy groups....If you don't think those training grounds were there, speak to some U.S. military personnel that helped bust them up like I have....

      Speaking of genocidal, what do you think Saddam was doing with his own people? Lavishing all the stolen wealth on them? HA! Get a fucking clue, dumbass.

      So, who do you think is better to have in power - George W. whose actions to liberate a country have caused some unfortunate deaths or Saddam whose actions have cause hundreds of thousands (if not over a million) deaths just because he didn't like them?

      Oh, and what about the wonderful way his 2 sons treated people, especially females? Would you like your mother treated that way? (Assuming of course you were born and not hatched) But then again, I guess we could have elected someone like Howard Dean who would have left him in power and we could have continued to tell him "you better stop it and straighten up or else" like the gutless Clinton did...

      Send me your postal address so I can send you a quarter...you need it to buy a clue since you obviously have none...

    2. Re:A U.S. President that isn't a genocidal moron by chef_raekwon · · Score: 1

      Saddam still in power killing far more of the Iraqi civilians than the war killed and providing training grounds for all sorts of terrorist organizations (yes, including Al-Qaeda) to build up their scummy groups....If you don't think those training grounds were there, speak to some U.S. military personnel that helped bust them up like I have... you think Saddam was doing with his own people? Lavishing all the stolen wealth on them? HA! Get a fucking clue, dumbass.

      comments from an American. It really is unfortunate that you regard the media so highly--you are now part of the collective--you've been told what you want to hear.

      *sigh* Ignorance is Bliss.

      --
      We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
  53. Mass graves! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, you must mean all those graves they had to dig so bury the people we killed through sanctions and wars 1 & 2?

    I see now.

    What was it again? Something like a half-million dead from the sanctions (mostly little kids... I bet that makes you hard) and at least a hundred thou from bombs alone.

    Brave American.

    1. Re:Mass graves! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's a pile of BS. Next thing you know, you're going to tell us Saddam Hussein wore red underwear.

      We starved those people, not him. He's a madman, remember? We knew he was a madman, remember?

      And we also knew the sanctions wouldn't impact him in the least bit.

    2. Re:Mass graves! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We starved those people, not him.

      No, He starved them. His decision.

      And we also knew the sanctions wouldn't impact him in the least bit.

      Of course, the logical conclusion of this statement is that the only way to deal with Saddam was to take him out. Thanks for the support!

    3. Re:Mass graves! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Oh, I see.
      So because we knew he was a madman, it's our fault.

      Ya, that makes a LOT of sense there buddy.

      1) Saddam uses our aid only for himself.
      2) We cut off aid to prevent that.
      3) He lets millions starve to build pallaces.
      4) We invade and kick him out.

      Sounds like a logical series of events to me...

    4. Re:Mass graves! by nullard · · Score: 1

      Don't blame us for their leaders inability to show compassion for his people

      Yeah! We should blame the people who put Sadam in power! Oh, wait. That's us again.

      --


      t'nera semordnilap
    5. Re:Mass graves! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you must mean all those graves they had to dig so bury the people we killed through sanctions and wars 1 & 2?

      No the ones that were ouside the prisons for the people that were shocked and burned and shot and hung untill they were dead.

      "Brave American."
      Cheese eating surrender monkey

  54. Binary drivers, Linux vs. Hurd by dido · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ironically, the GNU/HURD may well be more friendly to proprietary software and drivers than Linux ever will be! Being a microkernel OS, drivers would have a far cleaner separation from the GPLed HURD kernel than the current loadable module system in Linux does. Though I wouldn't bet on it, we may actually get a stable, usable Hurd kernel before Linux fixes the binary modules issue that was the topic of a recent story. At least the Hurd team IS moving towards making a stable release, but it does not seem to be a high priority at the moment in Linux dev to make even something like the Windows DDK for kernel modules.

    --
    Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    1. Re:Binary drivers, Linux vs. Hurd by DrXym · · Score: 3, Interesting
      If all things were equal then perhaps. But Hurd has been bogged down in politics, lack of direction, lack of support, lack of volunteers, instability intransigence, purity over pragmatism etc. for the last decade.


      Hence the reason that it is all but forgotten while Linux is busy taking over the world. Considering that Hurd was started before Linux, this is a pretty sad indictment.

  55. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  56. Hope is alive by LeoDV · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you look at the Vaporware Awards of 2001, the #2 item on the list is Warcraft III, which did indeed make it to the shelves, to critical acclaim and record sales... Could 2003's vaporware be 2004's hit product? Let's hope so.

    Unless we're talking about the infringing SCO code. ;)

  57. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MOD corebreech -5 12-year-old-kid!

  58. Chandler by 0tim0 · · Score: 1
    Remember, the "Outlook Killer" a new kind of email client/PIM/etc. We had a story on /. over a year ago.

    Well, a year and a couple million invested and all they have is a 'repository' and a (real ugly) 'gui framework'.

    Check it out.

    --t

  59. No, he didn't use them. Not even on the Kurds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New York Times Op-Ed, January 31, 2003, Friday

    A War Crime Or an Act of War?

    By Stephen C. Pelletiere ( Op-Ed ) 1128 words

    MECHANICSBURG, Pa. -- It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: ''The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.''

    The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's ''gassing its own people,'' specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

    But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

    I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

    This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

    And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

    The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

    These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

    I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

    In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

    We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But

  60. Half Life 2 by Manic+Miner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Half Life 2 is the new DNF..

    Lots of demos's but no shipped product, and a ship date that keeps getting pushed back.. sure everyone loves valve so this will be an un-popular point, but it's begining to look like vaporware...

    --
    If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let'em go, because, man, they're gone.
    1. Re:Half Life 2 by furasato · · Score: 1

      Remember a racing sim project called WSC, now known as a project called Racing Legends from the West Brothers? This has followed the same course as DNF, with nearly the same time frames as well. http://www.racing-legends.com/news.htm for info on this "never to be finished despite promises even now" sim.

  61. SCO Linux by Treacle+Treatment · · Score: 5, Funny


    I nominate SCO Linux binary-only lisenced code. The only product supposedly on the market that no one has bought, no one knows what's in it, or why they should even purchase it.

    --
    TT
    1. Re:SCO Linux by imjustabigcat · · Score: 1

      What about the millions of lines of infringing code we were supposed to see? And no, pointing to AIX, Dynix, Linux and Irix and saying "it's in there somewhere, but we don't know where" doesn't count.

    2. Re:SCO Linux by MuParadigm · · Score: 1


      And the only product that its vendor has threatened to sue people for not buying, even thought the product isn't available yet.

  62. Half-Life 2 by cpopin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The delay of the highly anticipated Half-Life 2 due to a code-leak. Anyone have a release date?

    --
    -=- Many seek good nights and lose good days.
  63. WMD = this by MoFoQ · · Score: 2, Funny

    WMD = Whiff of Massive Dog-doodoo.

    Well...there's the usual, DNF, HL2, Doom3 (though we've been "teased" with the alpha), and there's everyone's "favorite" SCO....though their vaporware ....well...it's the vapors from a pile of steaming....u know....

    For Xmas, we should get SCO a bigger shovel...'cuz every time they talk, they have to shovel some "landmines"

  64. GWB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about Bush Jr.'s plans to get Bin-Ladin.

    1. Re:GWB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah.. and we can also add:

      no child being left behind.. vapor!

      jobs.. vapor!

      safer country.. vapor!

      clean environment.. vapor!

      fair elections.. vapor!

      free press.. vapor!

      money for cops and firemen after 9/11.. vapor!

      all we've gotten from this administration:

      tax cuts for the rich

      net 2.5 million job loss

      pay cuts for many already-impoverished workers

      overtime gone

      "new segregation" in the form of vouchers

      100 billion at least already spent for war to find non-existent wmds.

      elderly ripped off by medicare bill

      I can go on forever here. Bush and his rich oil cronies have to go!

  65. Neonode by dRn-1 · · Score: 1

    The Neonode N1 with it's associated M$oft OS is certainly feeling like vapourware. Another annoucement deems it unlikely to arrive by christmas either!... contrary to previous announcements.

  66. Does this count? by Craig3010 · · Score: 0

    Brittney Spears' Oscar

  67. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  68. HL2 NOT vaporware by LDoggg_ · · Score: 2, Funny

    You're confusing vaporware with open source :)

    The source to half life 2 was leaked remeber?

    --

    "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
  69. Where is the DNA Evidence of Saddam: +1, Patriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The alleged "Saddam" is reputedly in an undisclosed, secure location. Isn't it ironic he now shares the same location as
    President-Vice Cheney?

    Very patriotically yours,
    Kilgore Trout

  70. Funny by Hal+The+Computer · · Score: 1

    What foolish comment were you making?

    --

    int main(void){int x=01232;while(malloc(x));return x;}
  71. Bitboys by ScottCanto · · Score: 1

    Remember a couple of years ago when Bitboys released information about their new Glaze3D graphics processor? I guess a newcomer has a hard time starting up against nVidia and, in those days, 3Dfx.

    1. Re:Bitboys by Simon+Lyngshede · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They actually have started selling Glaze3D, although I think they call it Axe or something. It is powerful enough to go into mobilephone :-)

  72. Re:And the winner is ... by BenV666 · · Score: 1

    how about a grammair checker along with that? :)

  73. Once again, at the top of the Vaporware list: by Torqued · · Score: 1

    World Peace!

  74. never were WMD's in Iraq - BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Ask the Kurds. Ask the Iranian troops who fought against Iraq. Saddam certainly did have WMD.

    And he certainly seems to have not had them last April or May.

    The questions really are:

    When did Saddam get rid of them?

    What happened to them?

  75. Reduced price? by tomzyk · · Score: 1
    one of the selling points of SA6 was that you could get upgrades every 2 years at a reduced price
    Not to bash M$ or anything, but aren't the Service Packs and Patches and HotFixes etc... that come out quarterly/monthly/weekly basically FREE upgrades? Why pay for upgrades at even a disconted rate? Or am I missing something here?

    Why would you want to upgrade your OS every 2 years when fixing OS flaws/security-issues and updating the software should keep you fairly up-to-date? (granted, noone _should_ still be using Win95 or 98 anymore... but that was 5 or more years ago.)
    --
    Karma: NaN
    1. Re:Reduced price? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      No, I said upgrades not updates meaning every two years you would get a new version. Of course, most companies do not want to upgrade every 2 years as this is costly but the hook for MS was that if they did not take SA6, when they did upgrade the prices would skyrocket. Their estimates were somewhere between 2x and 3x.

      For example, if they had Win2K and they did not want to go to XP Pro, they could wait for Longhorn but they would pay 2-3 x more than someone who went ahead with upgrading to XP Pro. So in essence, it would not save them any more money to wait. If they upgraded, they got a newer OS and saved money.

      Now whether there is any real advantage to upgrading instead of updating is determined on an individual basis. Some users may benefit; some may not.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  76. Re:Atari 1450 XLD - YEAH! Mod up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh man I wish I had a mod point for ya! OMFG, I almost forgot about this one. For me, this was THE ONE! Built-in speech, 300 baud modem, advanced 5.25 drive... Everything you could want in an 8-bit! Wowsers...

    Damn you Tramiel...

  77. Do books count too? by JoeD · · Score: 1

    The Art of Computer Programming, Volumes 4 - 7.

  78. Did Not Finish? by Czernobog · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or. Dude. Nearly Finished.

    Most likely Dude. Never. Forget it....

    --
    /. Where the truth
  79. Ask the Kurds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kurds were probably attacked by Iran. See:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89335&cid=77 25 090

    And the kind of chemical warheads used against Iran in the war (that we helped them make) are hardly what you would call WMD's.

    And in any case, it was war, and we are hardly in the position to be scolding other nations for using WMD's in war.

    Certainly he got rid of the WMD's by the time the sanctions went into place. We have no information otherwise.

    Bush lied. And thousands upon thousands of innocent people died as a result.

    1. Re:Ask the Kurds? by Faluzeer · · Score: 1

      Hmmm

      Iraq used both chemical and biological weapons against the Kurdish people during the Anfal Pogroms (mostly) between 1987 and 1989. It is a well documented fact about the Iraqi Anfal Pogrom, it had no relation to activities in the Iran / Iraq war.

    2. Re:Ask the Kurds? by corebreech · · Score: 1

      Apparently people who were in a position to know disagree with you.

      And given all the times Washington has lied to us about Iraq in the past (e.g., Kuwaiti babies being ripped from incubators by Iraqis, Iraqi troops amassing on Saudi Arabia border) and in the present (yellow cake from Niger, Saddam link to 9/11), I am more inclined to believe those who say that the Kurds were in fact gassed by the Iranians.

      Did you read the article linked to by parent? Is there any specific allegation within you are able to refute?

    3. Re:Ask the Kurds? by Faluzeer · · Score: 1

      Hmmm

      Yes I have now read the article, it does contain information that I have not previously seen, I did some researh into the Anfal Pogrom quite some time ago and the information I was able to find was quite different from that in the article.

      Obviously a CIA analyst has access to far better information than I have (or at least should have), it has been quite some time since I last did the search so it will take some time to dig up anything to refute it (if it is indeed possible to do so).

      Moving On :

      Yes I am fully aware of the lies that have been told down the years, (btw, I thought the Kuwaiti babies story was actually produced and presented by the Kuwaiti Royal Family not the US Government?), I am also aware of the other incidents you mentioned, for the record, I was not a supporter of the war against Iraq, I believed and still believed that it was illegal under the UN Charter, I believe that the WMD's and links to terrorism were convenient excuses to use to forward US political policies.

      That being said, I am more than happy that Saddam has been caught, I hope that he will be brought to justice in front of an independent and Internationally Recognised Court of Law for the Crimes that he did commit during his years in power.

  80. we killed through sanctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    we killed through sanctions

    Oh yeah, those couldn't have been Saddam's fault, now could they.

    Is there anything you wouldn't condone as long as it had an anti-American bent? Probably not, since you're condoning Saddam.

    And I just love how mainstream internet sites are starting to quote extreme leftist sites - nothing like daylight to send the "Bush is Hitler" cockroaches scattering.

    I'm going to laugh my ass off when Dean goes down in flames in November of 2004 and takes the credibility of the Democratic Party down with him for a whole generation!

    BWAAA HAAA!

  81. The high-tech industry economic recovery ... by Pathetic+Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    that has been "six months away" for the last three years.

    1. Re:The high-tech industry economic recovery ... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      For real. When I was laid off in 2001 I was given the cervices of a career counselor. Every time I spoke to him ( which was like every 4 weeks or so) he'd say "the job market will be coming around in 6 months." The last I talked to him was about 5 months ago and the second phrase out of his mouth was that same proclamation.

    2. Re:The high-tech industry economic recovery ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > cervices

      Did you get your name and number right on your resume?

    3. Re:The high-tech industry economic recovery ... by BluedemonX · · Score: 1

      The job market in IT is booming. What are you talking about?

      Oh, in America. I see. Well the job markets in China and India are up 30-35%. If you can write code and work for less money than a first world grocery bagger, the world is your oyster.

      --

      --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
    4. Re:The high-tech industry economic recovery ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many cervices did he have? What did you do with them when they were given to you? That's fucked up, man.

  82. 1450XLD Not TOTALLY vapor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sort of existed. One anyway.

  83. DNF has gone beyond vapor ware to... by MongooseCN · · Score: 1

    ...interstellar medium ware.

  84. The Phantom Game Console! by JWG · · Score: 1

    Let's not forget Penny-Arcade's favourite piece of vapourware!

  85. Don't forget Valve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Valve Software. The kings of vaporware.

    Anyone remember TF2 (it won game of the year in 1999), HL2 (due to ship last september, now postponed to who knows when), and Counter-Strike:CZ (it somehow got lost on the way to the publisher after it went gold 2 months ago).

    This is no way to run a railroad, Gabe.

    1. Re:Don't forget Valve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is to make love to you, Tycho

    2. Re:Don't forget Valve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for Half Life II, you have to admit, it's not THEIR fault the game got delayed. Partial source code got leaked, so they're changing it so it can't be exploited out-of-the-box.

      Granted, considering the circumstances that the source code got leaked (last I heard it was officially called an inside job), it's their own fault for not keeping tabs on what employees are doing with sensitive data, but it's not like the game was GOING to be this late before that happened.

      DNF, on the other hand, has been in the wings for, what, five, six years now? No release in sight, and the only signs being pretty screenshots in magazines back in 1999 and more screenies at E3 in 2001.

      The thing that makes me saddest about DNF is that, if it ever comes out, I'll go crawling back on my knees and pay whatever the hell 3DRealms asks for a game that's more delayed than Daikatana.

  86. Most. Expensive. Cache. Miss. Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    We really need to talk to Saddam about his caching algorithm.

  87. Re:Where is the DNA Evidence of Saddam: +1, Patrio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should be president of the united states of america!

  88. Do you even know what sanctions are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wasn't merely our cutting off aid. It was our compelling (bribing, really) the U.N. to make it so that nobody else could render aid either.

    There was a period of time during which even items like basic foods and medicines were prohibited.

    Go learn a little bit about the world before you come here posing as somebody who knows what he's talking about.

    1. Re:Do you even know what sanctions are? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      So, if you are correct, the rest of the world didn't give the poor starving people food because we told them not to? They are just as guilty as us then.

      I don't believe this. Do you work for the CIA? Do you have the papers in front of you that say what Saddam was doing with the food we were giving him?

      I've learned a lot over the years, and the main thing I get pissed about is when people assume there was a reaction (not giving aid) for no good action. If we cut off food, there was a reason. We didn't just think it was a good idea one day when we got out of bed.

  89. No, it stands for... well, can you guess? *NT* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn that lameness filter, spoiling my joke. Please pretend this text isn't here.

  90. My nomination by jamonterrell · · Score: 2, Funny

    Didn't SCO promise to provide some proof that linux contains copyrighted Unix Code? I've not seen it anywhere, and I don't predict we'll be seeing it anytime soon. Does this classify as vaporware?

    --
    I can count to 1023 on my hands. Ask me about #132.
  91. Sadam and Al-Quaeda... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sadam hated Bin Laden. Sadam ran a secular state that persecuted religious extremists and it is nonsense to pretend that he ran training camps for Al Qaida.

    Besides, if he was a bastard, he was our bastard. The US funded him, supplied his army, encouraged him to go to war with Iran, encouraged him to imprison and shoot the clergy... Sadam is just Noriega with oil.

    The whole "Sadam is a friend of terrorists" bullshit is a lie designed to amuse and confuse a simple-minded domestic audience who can't tell the difference between Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. Heck, a turban is a turban, no?

    1. Re:Sadam and Al-Quaeda... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Besides, if he was a bastard, he was our bastard. The US funded him, supplied his army, encouraged him to go to war with Iran, encouraged him to imprison and shoot the clergy...

      Yeah, but since we supported him at one point in the past, doesn't that mean we should take responsibility and fix our mistake?

    2. Re:Sadam and Al-Quaeda... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...that persecuted religious extremists...
      Well, he persecuted anyone who didn't pledge allegiance to him, regardless of religious belief

      and it is nonsense to pretend that he ran training camps for Al Qaida
      Well, you can believe what you want. However, I have talked to some of the people that were over there. They tell a different story than you. He ran terrorist traing camps and Al-Qaeda members attended them.

      Besides, if he was a bastard, he was our bastard. The US funded him, supplied his army, encouraged him to go to war with Iran, encouraged him to imprison and shoot the clergy... Sadam is just Noriega with oil.
      That gives us the right to clean up the situation.

      The whole "Sadam is a friend of terrorists" bullshit is a lie designed to amuse and confuse a simple-minded domestic audience who can't tell the difference between Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan.
      Perhaps you're simple minded and that's the reason you believe what you do. However, I'm not simple minded, have first-hand accounts of what was/is going on over there, and can tell the difference between the various countries.

      Heck, a turban is a turban, no?
      No. But probably for your simple mind.

      You better start screaming for someone with a shovel to start digging around the place where your neck enters the ground.

  92. PC console systems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recall that there are two diffrent PC based console systems that were mentioned this year. I don't recall each of their names, I think the hoax one was called Phantom, but I can't remember the other one.

  93. Nanopenis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This disproves your argument.

    1. Re:Nanopenis by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well, I guess your nanopenis would qualify as vaporware. Only I don't think discussing its vaports would be appropriate.

  94. My movie by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm still waiting for History of the World: Part II. See! Hitler on Ice! Jews in Space!

    Now I'm just beginning to think they're never going to release that one. Stupid media censorship.

    --
    I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
    1. Re:My movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell does this get modded troll? Do the moderators NOT know who Mel Brooks is? If they don't know what this post is about, maybe they shouldn't be moderating any post containing a pop culture reference.

      duh.

    2. Re:My movie by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thanks! I was just going to not care that some idiot mod thought this was a troll, but it's nice to see some support, albeit anonymous.

      Mods, the post was a reference to History of the World, Part I, where the end of the movie is a promo for the sequel, which never came out. Hence, it's vaporware.

      --
      I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
    3. Re:My movie by Tazzy531 · · Score: 1

      FYI mods: the previous is not troll..

      There really was a movie History of the World: Part I The joke at the end of the movie was a "preview" for the sequel...which after 22 years, still hasn't been made...

      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
    4. Re:My movie by tassii · · Score: 1

      Jews in Space

      That was "Spaceballs". Remember the "Druish Princess", "The Schwartz"?

      So I guess this one doesn't count.

      --
      "I drank what?" - Socrates
    5. Re:My movie by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 1
      That was "Spaceballs". Remember the "Druish Princess", "The Schwartz"?

      So I guess this one doesn't count.
      Ahh, yes. She didn't look Druish to me!

      Still, they didn't sing the song, and the spaceship wasn't a Star of David, so I'm not going to give them credit for Jews In Space yet.
      --
      I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
  95. You forgot some... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Wars on:

    - poverty
    - drugs
    - terror

    Whenever a president declares war on a noun, you know he is full of shit. "Heck, I know terror when I see it!"

  96. Consumer electronics by swb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know if anyone actually promised these but:

    OLED TVs
    HD Tivo
    Widespread HD adoption

    The latter is *almost* here, in that I can get Discovery, a couple of the locals, HBO and Showtime in HD on my local cable system, but I wouldn't call a whopping 6-7 channels and a manditory paid installation a symptom of "widespread adoption".

    1. Re:Consumer electronics by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Widespread HD adoption

      Do what I did. Get an EDTV television, capable of doing 480/720p vertical resolution. Many cable channels can already decode at this resolution (which is double the usual TV vertical resolution of somewhere between 240 and 260 lines). All DVDs can decode at this resolution.

      No, it isn't 1080i, but you can tell the difference, and the EDTV televisions are much more affordable than their HDTV counterparts. I bought an EDTV plasma panel for about $3000 less than the nearest HDTV-capable model. Guess what? It looks AWESOME. The salesman at the store kept trying to convince me to pay $6000 for a similarly sized HDTV set. Right. Do I look stupid?

      It's too bad that people are so hung up on HDTV. Either they stick with crappy CRT televisions, telling themselves "When the price comes down, I'll buy one," or they go out and spend THOUSANDS of dollars in order to receive what... 5 channels, max?

      You're missing out on EDTV, which is cheaper, and it's available RIGHT NOW. And although yes, the resolution is less than HDTV, it still looks far better than standard television. By the time HDTV is finally standardized, your EDTV plasma display will be starting to burn out its natural lifetime, and it'll be time to upgrade to HDTV.

      Why not give yourself good picture quality NOW instead of inflicting this crazy HDTV on yourself?

    2. Re:Consumer electronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Many cable channels can already decode at this
      > resolution (which is double the usual TV
      > vertical resolution of somewhere between 240 and
      > 260 lines). All DVDs can decode at this
      > resolution.

      NTSC television uses 480i normally. There is no resolution difference between 480i and 480p, what you claim, that normal television only has 240-260 scanlines is simply wrong.

      The difference between 480i and 480p is that 480i is interlaced, while 480p is not.

      What you seem to be thinking about here is VHS video, that indeed allows for 240-260 scanlines/frame for ntsc video. (1/2 D SIF format)

      To do the math:

      In 480i, 1 frame consists of 2 fields, each giving 240 scanlines.

      Those fields do not overlap, rather, they fit together and merge into a total of 2x 240 = 480 scanlines.

      In 480p, a frame consists of a single field with 480 scanlines, resulting in again 480 scanlines.

      The visual quality of 480p is usually better, this has a lot to do with stability of the picture, and nothing whatsoever with resolution.

      Also, it is not true that most DVDs will decode as 480p, it is however possible to show them in 480p when using a de-interlacer, or even a line doubler, however, in either case, you actually lose resolution.

      To actually have a DVD play in 480p natively, the DVD must either be mastered as progressive video (30fps progressive) or must be 24fps with a telecine flag in the mpeg header, and be played on a player that can undo telecine, and on a tv that can do 72hz refresh. (3x 24, a movie is normally 24fps, undoing the telecine will ensure you get progressive mode, but you really want to tripple the refreshrate to eliminate the 'flashing' of the screen)

      Having said this, your advice to buy a TV capable of doing 480p is a good one, but simply because a 1080i TV is still too expensive for what you get, and a 480p model will get you the same functionality for this moment for almost all situations.

    3. Re:Consumer electronics by swb · · Score: 1

      EDTV is just 480p and some will decode 720p and 1080i, but downrez them to 480p. And 480p is just a slightly better way of displaying vanilla NTSC, which is 480i.

      I almost bought a 480p plasma, but the technology's lifespan scares me a little, and it was actually cheaper to get a true HDTV capable TV for less money. The jury's out, however, on whether I should have just bought a 32" glass tube and spent the rest of the money on something else.

  97. My favorite perennials by rjamestaylor · · Score: 2, Funny
    Got .NET?

    GNU Hurd, anyone?

    Slashdot editing and spellchecking?
    [RT: If your UID is > 100k you should click the link]

    And the biggest Vaporware of 2003 (drum roll, please):

    • SCOSource and its proof of mountains of copied code in Linux!

    Me? I'm still waiting for the LinuxOne IPO.

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  98. Microsoft Innovation by AlienRelics · · Score: 5, Funny

    Said to be coming for decades, haven't seen it yet.

    1. Re:Microsoft Innovation by Webmoth · · Score: 1

      DHCP
      Bob

      What else?

      --
      Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
    2. Re:Microsoft Innovation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's waiting for linux innovation, then it's going to be waiting a LONG time. A clone of a clone, badly ripping off the best of everything else. Welcome to linux.

  99. Half Life 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ready for a September release my eyes!

  100. I disagree with the first one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tribes 2, was released as a buggy piece of crap. The AI was a joke, bots couldn't drive vehicles, UE errors galor, absurd system requirments, a stupid patch system, etc.

  101. New Amiga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New Amiga. Set top box? Windows killer? Still waiting. I haven't thrown out my 3000 since 1994 waiting for the next gen.

  102. The perennial nominee by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    Trustworthy Computing!

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  103. RealPC by chmilar · · Score: 2, Informative

    It looks like FWB's RealPC is a strong candidate. The management struggle accompanying the exposure of RealPC vaporous nature is also entertaining.

    --
    Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
  104. Top Nominee is.... by tassii · · Score: 1

    Microsoft's Longhorn!

    --
    "I drank what?" - Socrates
  105. I'm Still Waiting... by Flwyd · · Score: 1

    To bet on terrorism futures.

    And nobody seems to be answering my TIPS calls, either.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  106. Not just aid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We couldn't do business with Iraq, either. Sanctions = no trade. No jobs to speak of in Iraq, no opportunity for anything to get better.
    And yes, before the sanctions (and now, after the sanctions) you could do business with Iraqis directly. They were/are a capitalist nation.

  107. Re:I HOPE THE BLOODSHED CONTINUES IN IRAQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lucky for me I'm not American so watching Americans die on CNN and Aljazera is merely enteraining. Keep 'em coming it's been great TV so far.

  108. Preinstalled Linux on Store Shelves by burdicda · · Score: 1

    Oh Yeah
    Sears
    WalMart
    Target
    Best Buy
    CompuUSA

    All point of sale running Linux live
    for sale installed and running...

  109. Half-Life 2 by SSonnentag · · Score: 1

    I waited impatiently a couple of months for September 30th to arrive only to be told that I had to wait at least another 6 months! Boooooo! My half-life is going to up up before Half-Life 2 is released. :)

  110. WindSave's Plug 'n' Save System by Willard+B.+Trophy · · Score: 1
    WindSave's Plug 'n' Save System is supposed to be a roof-mounted wind-turbine that plugs into your domestic power circuit and "gives back" some power. It also phones home every night, acting (if the consumer uptake's big enough) as a distributed wind farm.

    Only problem is, in the specs that used to be on the website, they exceeded the Betz Limit, the theoretical limit of wind turbine efficiency. There's no way they could reach the figures claimed.

    It's interesting to note that they've taken the claims off their website over the weekend.

  111. Windows NT claim in 1992 by saha · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Windows NT "With its Posix standard compliance, Gates claims NT will be as compatible with the leading versions of Unix as they are with each other.....He also said that Microsoft may offer limited voice-recognition for Windows this year". Byte: Nanobytes column March 1992 page 26.

    In the meantime Gartner: Longhorn Delays Will Affect WindowsThe IT advisory firm expects the operating system to be released between late 2006 and mid-2008, but that the release could be delayed even more.

    My suggestion. Get OSX Panther today and stop dreaming about tomorrow.

    1. Re:Windows NT claim in 1992 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out Microsoft SFU/Interix. UNIX on NT.

      The voice recognition stuff currently ships with MS Office.

  112. What about Chinese Democracy? by miracle69 · · Score: 1

    GNR certainly wins the album vaporware award.

    --
    Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
  113. I was going to say the OQO by howlatthemoon · · Score: 3, Funny

    But the last change I can find on their web site http://www.oqo.com was a link to the 2002 vaporware awards. You know it's bad when a company cites a vaporware articles about their product as product press. Maybe it is time to shut the web site down, huh?

  114. Real Vaporware by thales · · Score: 1

    The Champ Vaporware is the stuff that predates personal computers. Things like Flying Cars, Commerical Space Travel, Personal Robots, and Fusion Reactors have been been talked about for decades not just a few years.

    --
    Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
  115. Nokia N-cage by scavenger87 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It has three games and was initially sold for 300 euros. Do you know anybody who has purchased this product? I don't.

  116. Bitboys (interview link) by radoni · · Score: 1

    googled up and found this (supposedly recent) interview with a former employee: http://www.firingsquad.com/print_article.asp?curre nt_section=Hardware&fs_article_id=1128

    --
    SIGERR: laziness exceeds quota
  117. Amigas by questamor · · Score: 1

    > I finally gave up "believing" in 2000 when I sold my
    > A4000/060 and bought a real machine.

    I did the same in 2000. The world had just moved too far ahead, and despite having a fast PPC Amiga (well, relatively fast, compared to other Amigas!), I was working with machines that SO killed it in real speed, and realised how much time I spent serving the Amiga OS, instead of having it work for me. I'm still not at the bleeding edge, but a 1.2GHz computer with a modern OS I don't have to continually play with to keep working is heaven. I might wait for a new AmigaOS if I thought it'd be something special, but its presentation at recent roadshows haven't impressed me.

  118. Barbie Linux, Fact or Fiction? by mykepredko · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. Re:Barbie Linux, Fact or Fiction? by DanThe1Man · · Score: 1

      This would really make my early struggles with linux look bad.

  119. Ah, but will they allow it? by duck_prime · · Score: 1
    Ironically, the GNU/HURD may well be more friendly to proprietary software and drivers than Linux ever will be! Being a microkernel OS, drivers would have a far cleaner separation from the GPLed HURD kernel
    That's a good point, but I do wonder if the GNU/HURD people will explicitly put the kibosh on the idea out of principle. Remember, the hard-core GNU guys are pretty inflexible about non-GPL software.
    1. Re:Ah, but will they allow it? by dido · · Score: 1

      That might be true, but I don't see how they can legally do it. The GPL will allow the creation of such proprietary drivers, as from the point of view of a microkernel OS drivers are for all intents and purposes no different from any other application running on the system. As such, they merely USE the kernel, and are not creating a derived work from it, as might be argued is the case with Linux binary modules. If they came up with GPLv3 that provided a legal leg for this, they would at the same time hurt the cause of Free Software by forcing all applications running on the Hurd to be GPL. Richard Stallman is actually a pragmatist who is not above making compromises that benefit the cause of Free Software, contrary to the impression he seems to have for most people on /., and I seriously doubt that he would do something so patently foolish.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
  120. GEGL based GIMP by kyknos.org · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wait and wait and wait :o(((

    --

    SHE does throw dice.
  121. I know!!! by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

    Windows Lowerhorn

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  122. Re: Counter-strike Condition Zero (cs:czero) by cryptor3 · · Score: 1

    CSCZero. Yeah, another sierra hit that's super late.

  123. Re: Counter-strike Condition Zero (cs:czero) by cryptor3 · · Score: 1
    CSCZero. Yeah, another sierra hit that's super late.

    *hit = hype. Sorry.

  124. Technically not vaporware, but... by drix · · Score: 2, Funny

    When was the last time you saw a Segway zooming around town? (If ever.) I seem to remember Jeff Bezos or someone saying it would "change the way cities are built." Funny, as luck you have it I happen to be in a city right as I'm typing this, and that whole "roads" things looks pretty much the same as it has since the Romans. In fact the only time I've ever seen a Segway was some Fed zooming around on one at the airport, which offers insight into how Kamen et al. plan to ulimately make money off this turkey: sell it to the only buyer in the world with enough money and enough stupidity to be willing.

    --

    I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    1. Re:Technically not vaporware, but... by zzyzx · · Score: 1

      I see one every now and then in Seattle and the 'burbs

  125. Big-time vaporware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Lying thief John Cooney is vaporware.

  126. Debian Sarge by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

    Debian sarge, wich was supposed to be released this month...

  127. Harpoon 4 & Steel Panthers Moderna by paganizer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ubisoft (don't copy your game CD's! No Backups!) has been working on Harpoon4 since I believe '99; Don't really care since I discovered Harpoon2 plays great on VirtualPC.
    Matrix Games Steel Panthers:Moderna was supposed to be SP:WAW updated for the modern age; considering that it was to be free, like SP:WAW, I can't complain a whole lot.

    --
    Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    1. Re:Harpoon 4 & Steel Panthers Moderna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Harp4 isn't vaporware anymore, its morgueware. Ubisoft officially cancelled it last week. Try the NWS/NWP Add-ons for Jane's Fleet Command. They rock!

  128. Let the record speak for itself... by precogpunk · · Score: 5, Informative

    We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
    - Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

    Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
    - Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

    Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
    - George W. Bush September 12, 2002

    If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
    - Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

    We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
    - Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

    Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
    - George W. Bush January 28, 2003

    We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
    - Colin Powell February 5, 2003

    We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
    - George Bush February 8, 2003

    Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
    - George Bush March 18, 2003

    We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.
    - Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

    One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
    - Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

    Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.
    - Tony Blair 28 April, 2003

    We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
    - George Bush May 3, 2003

    I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.
    - Colin Powell May 4, 2003

    I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
    - Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

    I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
    - George W. Bush May 6, 2003

    U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
    - Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

    They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
    - Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

    Link to source

    1. Re:Let the record speak for itself... by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      Wow! those are some choice quotes! They kind of make the administrations look stupid.

      But I'm not convinced this makes them liars. Dupes or Fools perhaps, but not liars. For them to be liars, they would have had to willfully and knowingly misrepresented the truth.

    2. Re:Let the record speak for itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Here are the quotes with links to the speaches that put them into context.

    3. Re:Let the record speak for itself... by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      They are liars, your naivete notwithstanding.

    4. Re:Let the record speak for itself... by caldodge · · Score: 1

      Here are some more liars:

      "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
      President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

      "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
      Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

      "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
      Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

      "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
      Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

      "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
      Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

      "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destrution and palaces for his cronies."
      Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

      "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
      Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

      "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
      Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

      "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
      Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

      More available at http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

      Yes, Snopes says "some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them", but the context is typically "well, yes, Saddam has those weapons, but that's no reason to attack".

    5. Re:Let the record speak for itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that the parent is already modded at 5 and this post still stuck at 1 proves that liberals are delusional and must hide the truth at all costs, less their bubble burst.

    6. Re:Let the record speak for itself... by arty3 · · Score: 1

      Not really. All it proves is that if you want to make a point, always use bold font.

    7. Re:Let the record speak for itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis
      to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that,
      what other option is there but to force them to do so?"
      -- Tom Daschle, Feb. 11, 1998

      "If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or
      we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet
      more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of
      mass destruction and continue to press for the release of
      sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he
      will conclude that the international community's lost its
      will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing
      more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we
      fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow
      in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes
      could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll
      use the arsenal."
      -President Bill Clinton in 1998

    8. Re:Let the record speak for itself... by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1
      I know that you are just reporting your impressions rather than asserting an "argument"/spin on the matter and then filling in the blanks after the fact with tidbits, but... you need to wake up.

      If you could put yourself into the body of a 5 year old and say, "Unca Wumsfeld, did you and pwesident Bush wie about IwAq?" uncle Rumsfeld would gently chuckle, pat you on the head, and then walk away. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell. and Chalabi all know what the truth is and all of them have lied straight into the camera. Actually, let me amend that. The example of Rumsfeld I have in mind is really more of him just being a dick rather than him lying. My assertions about the rest of them stand. I would like to point out an irony about Powell though: My impression is that he was the most dovish member of the administration in regards to Iraq. The irony is that he is the only one who's actually served in uniform, the only one who would have avoided a war with Iraq, and is the best liar out of all of them. He truly is gifted and it's a pity we're wasting him on menial tasks like telling the UN how many tons of bad-guy-shit were itching Krazy Saddam's trigger finger.

      You're either really naive or clinging to something to avoid facing the truth. "The rest of the world" never made assertions claiming that Iraq was a hotbed of doomsday devices. In fact, most of the world bitterly opposed our war in Iraq. Our closest ally might even trade in it's PM just because they're so divided about acting on "facts" that no one really believes. They aren't "fools" or "dupes" at all. The pre-war speech Bush made citing evidence of a nuclear arms program was a bald faced lie that hinged on "evidence" thoroughly discredited as a two bit hoax a year beforehand. Everyone knew this when he said it.

      I think you're just naive, but remember it takes two to lie. One person to tell the lie, and another to believe it.

    9. Re:Let the record speak for itself... by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1
      "well, yes, Saddam has those weapons, but that's no reason to attack".

      Hey, that's not a bad point.

    10. Re:Let the record speak for itself... by lobsterGun · · Score: 1

      I'm not a doctor, but I thing you've got yourself a serious case of Monday Morning Quarterback. You are giving the American administration FAR more credit than they are due.

      Let me clear up what I meant when I said that 'the rest of the world'. I should have said 'the governemts of the rest of the world'.

      In the debate before the UN, the argument agains force wasn't that the inspectors needed more time to prove that Iraq has disarmed, it was that the inspectors needed more time to disarm Iraq. The implicit assumption was that Iraq had not disarmed .

    11. Re:Let the record speak for itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that said was that Hussein was a threat. He was! But we never had reason to attack or invade his country. Iraq was never a direct threat. Who's making all the money off the war? Liberals or ... ... the Houston company -- once headed by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney -- has won $1.7 billion in Iraq-related contracts. Source

  129. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  130. Aid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF are you talking about aid?

    The sanctions were about cutting off TRade.

    You know, like telling a person he isn't allowed to work at any jobs or buy anything from stores.

    You have to drop an awful lot of bombs to equal the impoverishment and general suffering caused by a year of trade sanctions. Even if you allow trade in essential goods like food and medicine, blocking off other trade makes a country too poor to buy what they would have otherwise.

  131. No list would be complete without ... by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Informative

    Teamfortress 2

    First hint was as an expansion for HL.
    Then as a standalone.
    Then an expansion for HL/CS
    Then a standalone.
    I believe the latest incarnation is as a standalone, running the HL2 engine.

    It's been so long, I don't even REMEMBER if I pre-ordered it via Amazon.com - but that was when it was a $30 expansion. Do they still have my ticket? Did I pay? I truly don't remember.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:No list would be complete without ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If my memory serves correctly it was to be a Quake 2 mod originally, then HL mod, then standalone and now the leaked HL2 sources had a lot of TF2 stuff in them, so that's where I'd put my bets now.

  132. Vapor... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    SCO's case against IBM?

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  133. Nominate Half LIfe 2 by bani · · Score: 1

    Valve definitely deserves to win.

    September 30 came and went. Then it got pushed back to November. Then the release date got pushed back another 6 months due to "1337 h4x0rz".

    Yeah, right.

    I suspect it wasnt anywhere near ready for release on September 30 or November, regardless of their excuses.

  134. Re:WMD detector , o yeah !! by Sacamela_Un_Tercio · · Score: 1

    and then, the world will live in peace. Too bad he was not caught in Christmas, so we could all join coke-style singing

  135. A few vials? by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Right, except we accused him of having thousands of liters of various biological agents. And they can't be stored in just any old conditions if they are to retain their punch, which means they should, in the quantities they were accused of possessing (I mean, before GWB changed his accusation from "possessing weapons of mass destruction" to "having WMD programs"), have been rather easy to find. If he had really only had a few vials... well, that wouldn't have been sufficient cause to invade, now would it?

    Sean

  136. The US gave them the WMD by Offwhite98 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US gave them the technology for missiles and the germ and gas WMD decades ago. The proof as I have heard some joke, the US simply kept the reciepts. The US has benefitted from providing weapons for wars in Iraq and Afganistan. The US provided weapons to Afganistan to fight the Soviets and to Iraq to fight Iran. That is a lot of blood on our hands as Americans and I wish people were not so shortsighted about it. I hear my friends say these terrorists simply hate us because the US is a successful world power, but they miss the point that these people have suffered greatly because of US policy to do whatever necessary to protect our monetary interests. The US will have to learn the peace should be the top US interest.

    --
    Brennan Stehling - http://brennan.offwhite.net/blog/
    1. Re:The US gave them the WMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do you get all your knowledge from the punchlines to jokes?

    2. Re:The US gave them the WMD by Maudib · · Score: 1

      Last I checked we supplied weapons to the Taliban (for free) during the 80's because they were fighting a resistance against the soviet union. Large markets, cheap labour and raw materials have often been pursued through such means by the U.S. in the past, but last I checked Afghanistan had none of that to.

      We certainly rue the decision to support the Taliban today, but at the time it was a smart way to sap the strength or our mortal enemy.

    3. Re:The US gave them the WMD by Atryn · · Score: 1

      The question is always whether the government you are selling to today will be the government you wish you hadn't sold to tommorrow... We are still selling TONS of arms around the world. Look at Taiwan, for instance... Today they look pretty nice, but who knows what may happen there in the next 50 years?

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    4. Re:The US gave them the WMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We supplied weapons to pretty much anyone fighting the Soviets in Afghan in the 80's, granted, but "the Taliban" (the student) didn't exist at the time, just a who's-who of who didn't get killed during the Soviet occupation.

      Granted the ski resorts, Afghan IT workers and rare minerals haven't materialized yet, but one can still hope..

      As for the Taliban, they were allegedly a "student revolution from the South" that emerged in the 90's, tho the "South" turned out to be madrassa's in southern Pakti, close enough though, and while you could tangentially blame US funding of Pakistan/Saudi in theory, I'd speculate that the only US backing of the Taliban was limited to relatively benign economic aid and the like. Philosophically, some people undoubtedly rooted them on initially, when they appeared on the scene and swept right up through Afghanistan, conquering or converting the clusterfuck of Afghan "sovereignty" that emerged in the wake of the Soviet exit, but they pretty quickly established an inevitably brutal regime that even your more fascist neocon's found distasteful, blowing up ancient statues, public executions and whatnot. Anyway, US role in Afghanistan during the 90's-00's Taliban Reign was mostly MIA, aside from the role of leftover weaponry and some UN drugwar rhetoric, and Afghan political science is such a finely nuanced field that I couldn't let "80s=Taliban" slide without comment.

      Back to the Topic: How 'bout The Iraqi Info Minister? He should get an honorary vaporware "Producer of the Year" award

    5. Re:The US gave them the WMD by danheskett · · Score: 1

      That is actually, false.

      We did *not* support (we = the US) the Taliban. We supported the mujamehedin. These people were fighting against the Russians *invasion* of thier country with the intent of gaining strategic advantage.

      What we did do was train uneducated non-military regulars (aka, today's terrorists or insurgents) in non-conventional warfare (aka, terrorism).

      The Thing of It is that we were completly justified. The afgan's were being repressed terribly. The US was unable to intervene directly because of world politicans and nuclear complications.

      What happened after the CIA left Afganistan is that a fundamentalist extremely brutal system of clerical control assumed power in the vacuum left by the USSR. Since the Soviets tried to supress all religion in the Afganistan the people and rulers basically turned as far opposite of that as possible.

      "The Taliban" was essentially, as we know it, a milita or clan of armed men bribed by clerics to support their rule.

      There is a lot of bad information floating around about how we supported the Taliban etc etc. In Mike Moore's movie and speeches he has repeated it, telling people the US support the Taliban with cash contributions for stopping heroin production. In fact, the US didnt even recognize the Tabliban as a legit government. Any foreign aide to Afganistan was distributed by NGOs like the UN and Red Crescent.

      Anyways

  137. Tomb Raider: Angel Of Darkness by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1

    They promised a good video game. What they delivered was a some sort of psychological test designed to induce rage and annoyance in vast quantities.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  138. Troll time by sideswipe76 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Vaporware of the year... The 2.6 kernel. All the talk was that it was going to come out this year; and that was as far back as march of LAST year. I definately understand pushing it off -- alot is riding on it (or will). Then again, maybe longhorn has it beat

  139. Team Fortress 2 by AchmedHabib · · Score: 1

    Screw that, I am waiting for Team Fortress 2.

  140. nukecd by cyrax777 · · Score: 1

    My friends rpg project that now else else but them know about.

  141. Indroma by arock99 · · Score: 0

    Or was that last year? The linux based Gaming OS... not that there isnt one if you count the xbox :) Wasnt there something called Phantom too?

  142. New Amiga by FattMattP · · Score: 1

    I'm still waiting on that new super Amiga that all the Amiga faithful tell me is right around the corner. They claim it will revolutionize the computing industry. [rolls eyes]

    --
    Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
  143. It's called a "bluff"... by anactofgod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a very simple explanation of why Saddam Hussein would have played the games he did with the UN weapon's inspectors and allowed the world to continue to think that he had developed WMD, when in fact he may have had none in any militarily significant quantities.

    Any poker player could recognize the situation he was in. Saddam played what he thought was a very strong hand 12 years previously, anted up in a big way, and was called by US-led coalition forces. Now, he's stuck in the same game, with a much weaker hand, facing a very strong one, and he can't just fold. What would a poker player do? Bluff, of course!

    The most reasonable explanation I have been able to develop was that Saddam was trying to bluff his way out of a untenable situation. He cared not one whit about "bloodying America's nose", or being "seen as a martyr". He only cared about surviving an invasion by the US and maintaining his hold on power, in that order. The best way to survive an invasion is to prevent it from occurring in the first place.

    If I were Saddam in 2001, I too would have postured that I had WMD, and the wherewithal to use them (established many years previously when he gassed his own population and the Iranians), in the hopes that that would change the equation for the US strategic planners. (For recent evidence of the effectiveness of this strategy, I give you North Korea.)

    The facts that
    (1) the Bush administration put our troops on the ground and went ahead with it's plans for invasion and
    (2) Saddam did *not* use WMD in a last ditch defense even when he showed no restraint in the past

    indicates to me that the simplest and most likely explanation is that not only did Iraq NOT have WMD in any militarily significant quantities, but our government knew that to be true, even when they were positing the opposite.

    I have heard every whacked out theory on Saddam and the WMD, and some well thought out, but very convoluted ones, but surprisingly, never ONCE have I heard this very simple bluffing explanation put forth in the media. How can it be that no official "analyst" has thought of it?

    ---anactofgod---

    --

    ---anactofgod---

    "Equal opportunity swindling - *that* is the true test of a sustainable democracy."
    1. Re:It's called a "bluff"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The analysts have used that explanation. Blix himself even came up with the "Beware of Dog" analogy, which was talked about a lot in the press a few months ago.

      The problem with this idea is that one of Bush's main justifications for the war (and the only part the U.N. was interested in) was Saddam's WMD program and cache. Insisting you have WMD as a way to ward off the WMD inspectors is pretty stupid. Like putting a "Beware of dog" sign up to keep out the animal control officer after you have admitted to having a rabid dog.

    2. Re:It's called a "bluff"... by ManoMarks · · Score: 1

      Ah, but the original arguments as to why the U.S. should invade didn't meantioned the WMD. Theyw ere all about connections to terrorism. Therefore, by posturing that he had WMD, Saddam may have hoped to delay or prevent an invasion. It's an interesting theory, though not one I necessarily believe is true. If it is true, I believe that the Bush administration, or at least part of it, knew that it was a bluff. Once it became clear that the bluff was being used as a JUSTIFICATION for the invasion, Saddam then said he didn't have them and tried cooperating with the inspectors. Despite U.S. propaganda, he did actually seem to be cooperating. Bush almost immediately started saying that the inspectors were ineffective because they hadn't found the weapons yet, which possibly they knew he didn't have in any quantity. It's ironic that after all this time, way more time and with WAY more resources than the inspectors had, no hard evidence has turned up and Saddam, now in captivity, claims that he didn't have it. Possibly the Bush administration has realized that any attempt to smuggle in WMD and plant them would be caught out too quickly.

      --

      That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere

    3. Re:It's called a "bluff"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have heard every whacked out theory on Saddam and the WMD, and some well thought out, but very convoluted ones, but surprisingly, never ONCE have I heard this very simple bluffing explanation put forth in the media. How can it be that no official "analyst" has thought of it?

      I'm sure people have thought it all the time, but the general american populace doesn't want to know that they were tricked by their own government!

    4. Re:It's called a "bluff"... by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1
      Well point #2 seems obvious enough to me. Remember when Tommy Franks was asked why Saddam didn't strike American forces with WMDs once the invasion was underway? "I think we knocked out his capability."

      Wow! Our kung-fu is sooo bad-ass that we can know he had WMDs without being able to prove it to anyone and have such a military grip on their use that not one soldier ended up actually needing a gas mask even though we haven't been able to find anything on the ground.

      As far as the bluffing thing goes, there may be some truth in there somewhere, but I think pride may have a lot more to do with the way events played out before the invasion began. I don't recall Saddam ever claiming that he did have WMDs. The most damning thing we can say is that there was only so much he would take to establish credibility -- and that threshold wasn't low enough to nullify the spin of American hawks. As he's said of the inspectors now that he's in custody, he didn't want them in the Presidential Palaces. That may sound strange to us considering that war was on the line, but keep in mind that this guy was a brutal dictator in a country that had already been defeated by Americans and that Iraq is in a part of the world that the West has been screwing with since World War One. If letting Arabs inspect the Lincon Bedroom, the Oval Office, and the White House would prevent another 9/11 would GW give the OK? If he did would he get re-elected? I wouldn't want that happening even though I'm going to vote against him. In fact, I wouldn't want that happening even though I'd consider it a trifle compared to the lives saved.

  144. Bitboys Oy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When DNF is finally released, you'll be required to run it on a video card from these guys.

  145. RTCW Enemy Territory Single player campaign by grolschie · · Score: 1

    If you gonna mention Half-life 2, you might as well remember the single player version of "Enemy Territory" that had the plug pulled on it. I am glad they gave us the free multiplayer version, but the single-player campaign would've been awesome!

  146. "Trusted" Computing? by stefan999 · · Score: 1

    I hope this will remain vaporware at least as long as GNU/Hurd ;-) Stefan

  147. An Interesting Study in Vaporware by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    ...could be had by examining the pages for a year's worth of Wired, and at the end of the year, trying to find those things in a store. Wired has made a bad habit of advertising vaporware for companies that want to test the market and see how many inquiries they get. Of course, Wired never comes out and tells you such-and-such isn't really being made and sold. They write them all up as if they exist. You'd think that'd be strange behavior for a magazine that carries an annual vaporware contest, but hey, it's Wired. They only have to be cool, not sensical.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  148. Half-Life 2 by boy_afraid · · Score: 1

    Well, it's not thier fault, but it is vaporware for 2003. We'll probably have to wait until Q1 or the latest Q2 for it to come out.

  149. DNF nomination script by hurtstotouchfire · · Score: 1
    From Wired - Vaporware 2002: Tech up in Smoke?

    Dennis Murphy wrote, "Once again, Duke Nukem Forever is the definitive vaporware. Hell, even Warcraft III made it out this year. You know, I think I'm going to set up a script to submit Duke Nukem Forever every year."

    It is time, my brothers. Has anyone written a script?

  150. I hope they do better than 2002 by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    7 out of 10 so-called 2002 vaporware award winner materialized and were quite successful. For example one near and dear to many of us, the Linux NeverWinterNights client was voted vaporware in 2002, as was ShadowBane.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  151. Voice Recognition Software by jonniesmokes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't tell you how many times I've called a company and they direct me to a lame ass digital receptionist.

    Voice recognition was supposed to be the next big thing, but it doesn't work.

  152. Serious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the difference between weapons of mass destruction and mass weapons of destruction?

    1. Re:Serious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Specifically in the case of Iraq? The differnce is that Iraq signed the Gulf War ceasefire saying they would destroy thier WMD and prove to the U.N. that they had done so.

  153. Star Wars defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    If it wasn't for the seemingly unlimited billions (but not actually unlimited billions -- we gotta pay the deficit back, remember?) we keep throwing at it, this pork-barrel program would have been deep-sixed after the first feasability studies. Fifteen years is a lot of vapor.

  154. Justification? Politics, not legalities by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 1

    Arch hawk Richard Perle has admitted that the invasion was illegal under international law.

    Perle : "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

    And on this (and this alone!) I agree with him - the invasion was illegal. The question is whether it was the right thing to do, and it is still far from clear what the answer to that question is.

    --
    My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
  155. The Evil Bit by Arleo · · Score: 1

    So many opportunities, so promising, where are the applications?

  156. Re:Justification? Politics, not legalities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "International law" conflicts with the Constitution of the United States. If you put "international law" ahead of Constitutional Law, you are either un-American or commiting treason.

  157. Re:Justification? Politics, not legalities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, regardless of whether what you say is true or not I have no problem with being "un-american" because, duh, I'm not a US citizen. Interesting argument you make, though I've never heard any of the hawks use this as a justification.

  158. Oops - my mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, I just realised I misunderstood your comment. You weren't accusing me of being un-american or committing treason, you were accusing Richard Perle. Sorry about the confusion.

    1. Re:Oops - my mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You understood me correctly the first time. "Un-American" means someone who isn't an American - no "duh" needed.

    2. Re:Oops - my mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I think you misunderstood my second response. Is Perle un-american or treasonous?

    3. Re:Oops - my mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said it was illegal according to international law. Since "international law" doesn't apply to soviegn states like the U.S., he was neither unamerican or treasonous.

    4. Re:Oops - my mistake by GSloop · · Score: 1

      Oh, so international law doesn't apply to Iran and North Korea either?

      So, go ahead Iran, and North Korea - make as many Nukes as you want and share with who you will?

      Sheesh.

      We live with the rest of the world. We'd better get used to finding multi-lateral ways to agree on things. We may be the bully currently, but that won't continue forever. When it ends and we've spent years and years doing only what's right for us, and ignoring the rest of the world, there's going to be a line around the block to stick the knife in.

      We *need* the rest of the world.

      Treason: A betrayal of trust or confidence.

      That trust is to the people of the Republic. Our Rebublic. And doing what's best for the world will in the end be what is best for the US. Short-sighted and dishonest brokering will eventually be not in the interest of the republic - and in the end will be the treasonous behavior.

      Cheers,
      Greg

  159. I see you and I raise you... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    A /. poster who read TFA.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  160. Best Vaporware Ever by bobdotorg · · Score: 1

    Microsoft DOJ Consent Decree Compliance 1.0

    Microsoft DOJ Consent Decree Compliance 2.0

    The best part is that MS was able to sell people the 2.0 version after many years of the version 1.0 vapor.

    So how many people will pre-order MS DOJ Consent Decree XP?

    --
    __ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
  161. 10 inches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the buzz and ads keep promising, but no one delivers.

  162. what about buckaroo banzai? by ubugly2 · · Score: 1

    i'm still waiting for buckaroo against the world crime league....

  163. liberal satan ass cream by rabs · · Score: 1


    I was gonng say that using quotes wouldn't give you a single hit. But give it a little while and guess what?

    Great.

    rabs

  164. Well, that's simple by owlstead · · Score: 1

    I nominate every single product on previous years list, unless it has been removed from upcoming product list or has actually been released.

    No new product can overcome an old vaporware product, unless you add a marketinghype factor.

  165. SCO License for IP in Linux by MuParadigm · · Score: 3, Funny


    While I agree with many that Duke Nuke'em Forever, and Doom III, must be on the list of this year's Best Vaporware, and disagree the Longhorn should be on it since Longhorn wasn't promised for this year, the absolute number 1 piece of vaporware for the must be:

    SCO License for IP in Linux

    I mean, come on. SCO hasn't only promised repeatedly that it would be *required* for businesses running Linux, but they've threatened to *sue* any Linux using business that didn't buy one.

    Not only has the license not materialized, they're *still* threatening to sue someone who doesn't buy it within 90 days. Yep, you read that right, they're threatening to sue someone who hasn't bought a license that they don't sell. Oh, they won't say who it will be yet either. Vaporsuit, vaporinfringement, vaporinfringer, vaporlicense: VAPORWARE!

    The absolute King of Vapor for the year 2003. No contest.

  166. never leave the house again by zwanglos · · Score: 2, Funny

    I once read about a full sensor suit attached to a very life-like virtual reality simulator. The point of the machine - an incredibly realistic simulation of sex, with anyone you want. I cannot even comprehend how much money this device would make - given the consensus in this discussion, I believe this device has the potential to completely shut down the world economy. No matter how morally righteous you believe yourself to be, would you really ever leave your house again?

  167. Team Fortress 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on guys, TF2 got 4th place last year! It's right up there with DNF.

    Now I'm just waiting for Valve to announce another developer for Counterstrike: Condition Zero. It's already had Rogue, Gearbox, Ritual, and now Turtle Rock Studios. Maybe they'll let Splashdamage have a crack at it next.

  168. The difference by mcc · · Score: 1

    No one is excited about the Phantom.

  169. How much hell will I catch ... by zangdesign · · Score: 1

    If I nominate about half of the projects on Sourceforge?

    --
    To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
  170. Re:And the winner is ... by Dukael_Mikakis · · Score: 0

    Hey, did that "Gigli" movie ever come out? I'd say that would definitely win.

  171. O FREAKING T by Misanthropic_one · · Score: 1


    Congratulations.
    You managed to drag a whole threat OT and we all get to read each others "I am smarter than you because I am making judgements 'of facts' based on what other people have said (media, etc.)."
    1) It is all Off TOPIC
    2) BOTH sides are so full of crap and repeating "facts" they don't know.
    </RANT>

  172. Can-Spam by agebringswisdom · · Score: 1

    If ever there was a candidate among the products of the US Congress, it would have to be the Can-Spam legislation. Even the name is suggestive - they want make it so that corporations and traditional marketing organizations "can spam". If ever there was a product that will produce nothing to relieve email users, this is it.

  173. BoF2 spoiler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trout is a demon

  174. Medical Breakthroughs by Timbotronic · · Score: 1
    There was an interesting story in The Age that followed up on stories of "breakthroughs" in cancer treatment.

    How many times do you hear of a "medical breakthrough" that requires more research but will lead to treatments in, perhaps, 10 years. That 10 year figure gets trotted out a lot.

    --

    One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there

  175. It's about radical Islam, and nothing else. by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
    hear my friends say these terrorists simply hate us because the US is a successful world power, but they miss the point that these people have suffered greatly because of US policy to do whatever necessary to protect our monetary interests.

    The terrorists hate us because Westerners refuse to acknowledge that Mohammed is the Prophet of God, and that the Koran is His word. That's the simple facts, and everything else flows from that. Sorry that it's not a complicated explanation, and sorry that it doesn't make it convenient to blame the Fortune 500 or the Pentagon.

    --
    All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    1. Re:It's about radical Islam, and nothing else. by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      If it really were as simple as you claim Islamic terrorism directed at the West would have been a problem long before 1971 or so. I don't think the Koran has gone through any revisions recently.

  176. GNUMed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Been waiting on this one forever. Judging by the progress report it's still a fair way off.

  177. HELLO! by Kelz · · Score: 1

    Does anyone even bother to read the articles anymore or do they just hit reply and copy/paste the Iraq/US/France shit that they post every day. Comeon peeps grow up a little.

    Anyway, to the subject, whatever happened to Duke Nukem Forever? The original release date was 1999!

  178. So fools are acceptable? by Goonie · · Score: 1
    So we're left with two options - one, the US government is led by people who lied to get a war that nobody else wanted, or two, they were "dupes and fools" who read the intelligence completely wrong to run an unnecessary and hugely costly war.

    Either way, if it were my country I'd be doing my best to ensure such people were removed from office at the earliest opportunity.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  179. trollin' about Apple's prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "My suggestion. Get OSX Panther today and stop dreaming about tomorrow."

    Got $4 grand to buy me a new computer?

    Yeah, neither do I...

  180. Islamic terrorism is nothing new. by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
    If it really were as simple as you claim Islamic terrorism directed at the West would have been a problem long before 1971 or so.

    *Getting* from the Muslim world to the West was no trivial - or inexpensive - matter before 1971 (an age of expensive air travel - and before that, none at all). So was maintaining communications amongst cells of saboteurs and murderers. And the the vast monetary resources which increased oil prices provided to the Wahabis after 1971 are one of the reasons why Islamic terrorism is feasible at all - plastic explosive ain't cheap.

    Islamic religious warfare against Western powers certainly existed before the 1970s. The Nazis tried with some success to stir up jihad against the British in Iraq during the Second World War. The Mahdi waged religious war against the Gordon and Kitchener in Africa a few decades before that, and the Sepoy Mutiny was earlier in the same century.

    Before the nineteenth century, there were actual non-Turkish Muslim powers. The Barbary states kidnapped and enslaved thousands of Christians as galley slaves, and waged piracy on Western shipping. You could call that "terrorism" as well; it was certainly religiously motivated.

    --
    All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
    1. Re:Islamic terrorism is nothing new. by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1
      *Getting* from the Muslim world to the West was no trivial - or inexpensive - matter before 1971 (an age of expensive air travel - and before that, none at all). So was maintaining communications amongst cells of saboteurs and murderers. And the the vast monetary resources which increased oil prices provided to the Wahabis after 1971 are one of the reasons why Islamic terrorism is feasible at all - plastic explosive ain't cheap.

      A lack of modern technology did nothing to stop European Crusaders from bitch-slapping the Muslim world back when travelling meant riding a horse, organising meant yelling across a field, and plastic expolosives were torches soaked in animal fat.

      Your historical examples are erudite and worthy of repect, but I can't help pointing out that excepting enslavement and piracy, these are examples of rebellion against colonial powers. You're only arguing that the Muslim world is more apt to organize insurgency around Allah than around a secular leader. As far as slavery and piracy goes, I've got to wonder who the worst offenders were at that time.

      If you want to claim that there is something a touch rotten about Islam compared to Judaism and Christianity then frankly I'd agree with you. That doesn't mean I think the Muslim world is actually hell bent for leather on eliminating Infidels on principal and that we've only noticed it just now. The "Clash of Civilizations" is something we could choose to sidestep. Whether we have or not comes down to $$$.

    2. Re:Islamic terrorism is nothing new. by ArsSineArtificio · · Score: 1
      A lack of modern technology did nothing to stop European Crusaders from bitch-slapping the Muslim world back when travelling meant riding a horse, organising meant yelling across a field, and plastic expolosives were torches soaked in animal fat.

      It is silly to characterize the Crusades as the same type of military action as terrorism. The Crusades were large-scale, long-distance invasions attempting to recapture territory which was lost to what we might term a hostile power. These efforts were so massive that they could happen only once in a generation, and so difficult to organize that they were nearly all dismal failures (which is why it is ridiculous to describe the Crusaders as having "bitch-slapped" Saladin or the Turks). Terrorism does not attempt to capture and hold territory - it attempts to frighten and kill civilian populations by single actions.

      Your historical examples are erudite and worthy of repect, but I can't help pointing out that excepting enslavement and piracy, these are examples of rebellion against colonial powers. You're only arguing that the Muslim world is more apt to organize insurgency around Allah than around a secular leader.

      These actions were initially insurgencies against colonial powers, because that's who was nearest. Modern Islamic terrorism has been successfully "exported" by failed Muslim nation-states, however, to reduce internal tensions. This "escape-valve" was only possible because of the radical nature of Muslim society, however; a parallel is that Great Britain could reduce internal tensions through dispatching colonists, but that was very much less an option for, say, Imperial China.

      As far as slavery and piracy goes, I've got to wonder who the worst offenders were at that time.

      There is little need to wonder. Western powers such as the United States and the United Kingdom were putting an end to the oceanic slave trade at essentially the same time that they were at war with the piratical Barbary states. The Muslim-dominated African slave trade continues to this day, especially in the Sudan; this is well-documented and several charities exist which are attempting to fight it.

      f you want to claim that there is something a touch rotten about Islam compared to Judaism and Christianity then frankly I'd agree with you. That doesn't mean I think the Muslim world is actually hell bent for leather on eliminating Infidels on principal and that we've only noticed it just now.

      You seem unfamiliar with what the Koran actually demands. Wahabist Islam (the hard-core sect which drives Al-Qaeda, which dominates Saudi Arabia, and from which the Taliban sprung) requires that Islam must be the sole religion of the world. Christians and Jews are permitted to exist, but only in a state of "dhimmitude", whereby they are tolerated subjects who must subject themselves to the Muslim authorities. In the last days, the Jews are to be exterminated anyway. All persons must live according to the dictates of sharia law, which demands the head-to-toe veiling of women, the instant slaying of homosexuals, that you kill your daughter for damaging your family honor if she is raped, etc. Our ideas of religious tolerance - that everyone should simply be free to follow their own religion - are perceived in this tradition as incomprehensible, or merely fear of Islam.

      Nor are the Wahabis merely crazed or incoherent. I've read a number of their tracts and pamphlets in translation, which argue in quite reasoned detail why the Western idea of freedom of speech is an abomination in the sight of God, why it cannot be permitted for territory to ever leave the control of Islam (as soon as Israel is gone, Spain and the Balkans are next), and why the United States must be destroyed first.

      To say that we "only just noticed" that radical Islam is trying to destroy the West is disingenous. It's only very, very recently that radical Islam has pulled itself up from being the poo

      --
      All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
  181. How to lose control of a message board in one step by judicar · · Score: 0

    Step 1. Moderate 50 completely offtopic posts as "Informative".

  182. WARNING: SELF-RIGHTEOUS FOREIGN ASS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad I can't buy this guy a one way ticket to Saddam's Iraq. Or, because I know he can't resist, a ticket to the Soviet Union that aided Iran and forced us into funding Saddam back then. How about Hitler's Europe.

    Probably wants to bid on the American funded projects in Iraq too. Fucking ingrate.

    1. Re:WARNING: SELF-RIGHTEOUS FOREIGN ASS by chef_raekwon · · Score: 1

      and forced us into funding Saddam

      the devil made US[A] do it.

      your government has that pole shoved so far up your arse that you think it normal to have gay tendencies.

      --
      We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
  183. Iran? Not bloody likely! by danro · · Score: 1

    He did the same thing with his airforce in Gulf 1. Except he made the idiotic choice of sending the plans to Iran. They still have them I think.

    Thats crazy! What makes you believe that?
    Are you aware that the iranians absolutely hate Saddam, he started a incredibly bloody (~1M dead) war of aggression against Iran, and you'll be hard pressed to find an iranian who hasn't lost some family member to that war...

    Iran ever helping Saddam after that is as likely as the US helping out Osama Bin Laden (post 9/11-01 that is).

    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    1. Re:Iran? Not bloody likely! by Maudib · · Score: 1

      I did say that it was an idiotic choice. Iran never gave the planes back. I realize its a bit late for this, but here is a link as a quick reference.

  184. Bullshit by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1
    Discounting the fact that Iraq has been under intense scrutiny for over a decade I've got to wonder why we should think it more likely that we could rely on Iraqi informants to finger Hussein sooner that they would point out a cache of missiles. I don't mean to jump on your back since you've left the existence of WMDs open. I only want to point out that if we could find one human that scared the shit out of 25,000,000 people we should be able to find at least one of many inanimate objects. If WMDs were there they had to be known about by a wider circle of people than those who knew Hussein personally or else they would be useless.

    Take the most obscure scenario possible: You're an Iraqi assigned to man an "illegal" SCUD armed with weaponized Anthrax. Your army has been defeated and you're out of a job. If you were willing to cooperate with the victors but afraid to do so what would be easier; confessing knowledge of some now-useless machine that many others know about, or ratting out the deposed dictator who might come back to kill your familly. Of course, that presumes you're privy to knowing where the renagade dictator is, but that's my point. There have got to be many more people who know where these mystery weapons were compared to those who knew Hussein's whereabouts after the fall of Baghdad, and it's got to be easier for those people to speak out over an oil drum than for a familly member to rat out a sentient, murderous moving target.

  185. Next What? by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

    Next dork that would ask you to explain Iraqi WMDs? We're not talking about the Flat Earth Society. We're talking about something that has claimed 400 American lives, 2000+ GI limbs, and a shitload of $$$ at a time when the economy has been shedding jobs like mad. If you want to be that flip you could at least take the time to explain how and why a power loving war monger like Hussein would auto-disarm because he's about to be overthrown.

  186. More non-vaporware by AtheismIsGood · · Score: 1
  187. a New Amiga is right before me! by vortexau · · Score: 1

    This POST originates from a AmigaOneXE-G4!

    The only trouble is that its running Debian GNU/Linux, while I await AmigaOS4.

    Alpha demos of the OS have been shown in various countries around the world. . . recently in Bath, UK.
    .

    --
    (David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
  188. Cost/Benefit Analysis by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

    To add a bit to your point I'd like to note that just because Hussein was a murderous dick-head it doesn't mean he was incapable of pragmatism. I don't think he would have abandoned WMDs if they were easy for him to have fabricated, but given his military limitations, I think his post Gulf War modus operandi was to simply rule Iraq with an iron hand. He had already waged one ultimately fruitless war against Iran and had been roundly defeated when he made a stab at the sea in Kuwait. His post 9/11 reaction was consistent with someone who enjoyed "schadenfreude" from the sidelines -- just like his $25K bonuses to Palestinian suicide dorks -- because he knew he just didn't have a chance duking it out with the big boys. In short, however much he might have liked to be the Arabic Stalin, he just couldn't play it out beyond his own borders and he knew it. We could have let this guy rot on the throne. He's in his mid-60's. 20 years max and he would have been gone. That's at least how long it will take for the American-Iraq war to be absorbed into world history anyway.