The fact that you use the same language that is associated with the holocaust shows the irrationality of your side of the subject.
How does that make any sense at all? People who deny that the holocaust ever happened are plainly ignoring the facts. Much like people who are denying that global warming is happening, despite the fact that there is virtually unanimous scientific agreement that it is.
All of the things he mentions in his post have been discussed and debunked, and if he'd spent half the time researching his points that he spent writing that post, he'd know that these things have been addressed. He may take issue with how they were addressed, but he didn't even bother to do that.
I shall. Korea, mind you, was far bloodier and costlier (in today's dollars). And the South was a military dictatorship for many years before becoming the prosperous Democracy it is today...
Don't compare it to Korea. The administration certainly didn't. They said quick and cheap. Why don't you compare it to what they told us it would cost? Part of the problem with the current state of things is that people like you refuse to hold the administration accountable for gross incompetence in the planning of this war. If you don't make them accept responsibility, it sets a bad precedent for future administrations. I don't want them thinking they can get away with bullshitting us into starting a war. They ignored everyone who told them what was going to happen. They pushed forward with their rose-colored predictions of a quick victory and being greeted as liberators. They were told that we needed to send a lot more troops. They were told that law and order would break down and there would be destruction and looting. They were told that there would be an insurgency. They were told that disbanding the military was going to cause more problems than it solved. They basically got rid of anyone that disagreed with their hyper-optimistic plans. They screwed up on virtually all counts, and yet people still pretend that they know what they're doing. It's rather sickening.
What is the difficulty in understanding this. Doing one thing is not bad in itself, only when you do two things does it start to look bad.
Looking bad and being bad are two different things. I'm saying that that's not enough evidence and will result in a lot of bans of innocent users. They need a better way of doing it.
they very small compared to Korean or Vietnam war loses, which were fought against regular militaries.
Explain the difference between a regular military boosted by foreign fighters fighting a guerrilla war and an irregular force consisting of former members of the regular military boosted by foreign fighters fighting a guerrilla war. If anything, I'd guess that the latter would be a tougher opponent since they lack the sort of command structure that would allow us to cut off the head, as it were.
So defeating and disbanding Iraq's regular military was an important mission, its accomplishment worthy of congratulations.
I think that was the initial point. Defeating the Iraqi military is not exactly a big deal. We rolled right over them last time too. We have them massively outgunned in a stand-up fight. The problem is that Bush ignored all the people that told him it wasn't going to be so easy. While he was celebrating a "victory" the country was going to hell very quickly. Remember what Bush told us before the war? How it was going to be short and would cost only about $50-$60 billion? It's almost 4 years later and we've spent nearly $300 billion so far, with no end in sight. Let me know when they actually accomplish something over there.
Isn't that statement a bit short sighted? After all, if we left the region tomorrow, Iran would come down and take over Iraq's "much more effective" insurgency without blinking an eye. The difference is they wouldn't care about blowing up Shiite mosques or human rights.
I'm not talking about pulling out. I'm simply saying that Bush and company have royally screwed up this war and we're in a very bad situation right now. We can't seem to win, and if we leave, Iran takes over most likely, which is also bad for us. Having caused the situation, I don't think it's right for us to bail out now, but we're running out of options. General Petraeus seems to think he can do the job with the additional 22,000 troops, but I'd really love to hear what his wishlist would be in order to reach a much higher degree of confidence in bringing the situation under control. The administration seems to be trying to shift the blame as quickly as possible onto the Iraqi government, but that's just dumb. Of course the government is going to be ineffective. It's a brand new government. The country doesn't know anything about electing people, and most of the people who got elected don't know anything about running a government or a country. It's basically just a power grab, everyone trying to get their people represented. Then they just use their positions to keep fighting. We created this problem. We need to fix it.
The US military has every ability to crush the insurgency. They chose not to.
Yes, because we all know how well the old "destroy the village to save it" strategy is thought of around here. If that's going to be the strategy, then we just nuke the place and leave. I don't think you'll get much support for that from anyone with half a brain. It's not really an option, which is why we're in the situation we're currently in.
How about a team of pro bono attorneys who are willing to defend (fight?) cases like this in which a researcher simply wants to share his/her findings? Sort of like a non-profit organization.
Or better yet, a team of pro-bono attorney ninjas! That way if things don't go well in court, they can always just flip out and kill everyone!
but -- I repeat -- the original military mission of defeating the enemy's armed forces was accomplished...
That's just semantics. We rolled in and defeated their military in a matter of days. Except we actually didn't since a bunch of them ran off and became part of an insurgency that has hooked up with other like-minded folks and has been wreaking havoc for the last couple of years now, and which we are no closer to defeating now than we were then. Saying we defeated their military is absolutely meaningless when our people are getting blown up daily by guys with guns and bombs. So what if their formal military is gone, they have something much more effective now, obviously.
Ban an account which only bids on one persons goods. Pretty simple. Sure, you can't tell straight away, but after a weeks activities you can gather some useful statistics.
That wouldn't necessarily work either. For example, my wife found one seller on eBay that she buys clothes from. It's pretty much the only seller she buys from. Would she get banned? Especially after just a couple weeks of monitoring? The IP Address thing wouldn't work either. Too easy to get around that.
There are always a lot of complaints about the security of any Diebold voting machines. Then there's the constant complaint of a paper trail (my county now has paper-trail making diebold machines).
It's not just about having a paper trail. It's about how that trail is created, and whether the procedures are sufficient to make it effective. From what I've seen, the paper trails in many places are unreliable, and practically useless for getting an accurate recount and preventing vote tampering.
Around here, it is $25 to swap a tank a 5 gallon tank (20# tank, usual size for grill). Propane costs about $2.50 per gallon. In other words, you pay double to swap tanks, or half has much to refill (depending on your perspective).
Strange. It cost me about $25 to buy the first tank, already filled. Then about $16 to swap it out each time.
Well, maybe the right solution is the same as with horses: Just like one changed the horses at relais stations, maybe one would simply change batteries at the filling station. Then it wouldn't matter too much how long they need to get refilled, only how long they need to be exchanged.
Basically the same way people get propane around here. They buy a tank, and then keep swapping it out for a fresh one whenever it runs out.
You proved a point (stereotype) in my original post.
Windows users are stupid. Linux users are elitest assholes.
Not sure that I proved anything. I'm a Windows user. Just giving my opinion based on having worked with Linux users before, and being surrounded by other Windows users.
Frets on fire (Free PC version of GH2) It makes heavy use of OpenGL and gets 1 frame every 3 secs in vista but easily does 80fps on the same machine running XP.
Just one of many reasons I'm staying away from Vista. If I can't even play FoF, then Vista is certainly not an upgrade.
You will hear linux users shitting on windows MUCH more often than windows users shitting on linux.
Windows users are every bit as annoying as Linux users. They just bitch about different things. The only reason they don't shit on Linux more is that the vast majority of them have never touched Linux and have only the vaguest notions of what it is.
Don't be a software pirate, stay legal and properly licensed by using the various free open source GPL licensed programs instead that are also available in Windows versions.
The main thing that would help Linux at this point would be a FOSS implementation of DirectX 10. Since that won't happen, windows will be the primary platform for entertainment software, which FOSS either can't, or isn't inclined to compete with.
Bush choose not to waste tax payer money on a re-trial (Remember there was a recession during this time).
Recession has nothing to do with it. The fact that Microsoft started making serious political contributions probably had a lot more to do with it. The cost of another trial is insignificant compared to a thousand other ways the government wastes our money. Putting a stop to a major monopoly would probably save us a lot of money in the medium to long term, and would not only be a better investment, but it's simply the right thing to do when a company of that size is so flagrantly breaking the law. Yes, the judge screwed up. No, that shouldn't let Microsoft off the hook. We retry criminals all the time when a trial gets messed up. They don't usually just walk.
And please note, the Clinton DOJ settled first back in 1994.
Right, and the fact that they blew off that settlement is part of what got them in trouble again. Not to mention all the more reason the DOJ should have continued to pursue them and taken them down for good. They'd already shown that they couldn't be trusted to abide by a settlement.
Good thing I am not a judge, and must not decide what punishment is fit for what crime.
You do see where I'm going with this though, right? We already have plenty of precedent for throwing the book at repeat offenders. Why should companies like Microsoft get a pass when they repeatedly break the law? Slaps on the wrist obviously aren't going to have any effect on a multi-billion dollar company. It only makes sense to make the punishment severe enough to act as a strong deterrent.
So one major OS is better. But Microsoft sucks, so which one.
You're misunderstanding the reason that MS is considered evil. As much as people may dislike their OS and software, their business tactics are the real problem. The DOJ had them dead to rights during the last trial. MS execs had been caught lying on multiple occasions. They had destroyed evidence. Their expert witnesses often ended up looking like fools. Everything was going great for the DOJ. Then Bush got elected and the DOJ folded and settled with MS. So Microsoft basically got away with years of illegal tactics and abuse. That's why we should come down hard on them anytime they step out of line. Maybe in another year or so we'll have a government willing to do that.
No, they're not concerned at all. They are not human beings running a software business in a very hostile environment (geeks/early adopters/ hate them, antitrust lawsuits flying from everywhere, huge burden of backwards compatibility to a decade of poorly conceived obsolete software, competition implementing features you can't, since you're not "trusted",.. and so on and so on).
Oh yes, poor Microsoft. They've only pummeled OEMs, competing software vendors, and consumers into submission with their illegal, anti-competitive tactics for the last couple of decades. Surely we should feel terrible about their self-made problems. I think we should all chip in and buy Bill a cookie basket.
While the punishment applied by US Justice system might seem unfit for the wrongs of Microsoft before the verdict, revocation of patents is a totally unfit punishment for not publishing an API.
How would it be any more harsh than a 3-strikes law? Microsoft has a lot more strikes than that, shouldn't the punishment be more severe?
I'd like to see a Guitar Hero for the PC (I dont play console games) and with the ability to put in your own tracks.
Already exists. It's called Frets On Fire. Tons of songs available if you look around a bit, and you can even use a Playstation guitar controller if you get a Playstation-to-USB adapter.
GPL supporters are big on copyright, since copyright is the only thing that gives them any leverage to ask a business to align with them politically in order to use the software they indulge themselves in the illusion of offering "freely". If not for copyright, such "freely" given software would be possible to use freely.
In some senses, GPL'd software is free. You don't pay for it, and you can use it pretty much any way you want. You can even modify the source if you like, or give copies to other people. These things aren't generally allowed for typical proprietary copyrighted software. The GPL uses copyright to allow you to have more rights to use the software, provided you agree to the conditions it specifies. This is a huge improvement over commercial software, but not as open as some other licenses, such as the BSD license. So I think your comment is overly harsh, in that the software is free in many ways that most software isn't. It just isn't absolutely free in every sense of the word. Picking on it for that seems rather petty, especially since GPL supporters know quite well that the license isn't as free as some others, and don't try to pretend that it is. It's somewhat less free by design.
It's not a one-sided system. If the defense attorney wasn't utterly incompetent, the defendant wouldn't have lost the case.
I look at defense attorneys much like public school teachers. Some are good, many are not. The best tend to go to a private institution where they get paid better and don't have to put up with nearly as much crap. So, those that are left are underpaid and overworked, and often not the best and brightest to begin with. Ambitious people with political aspirations tend to go the prosecutorial way, so we end up with much better public prosecutors than public defenders.
Slashdot Mirror
All of the things he mentions in his post have been discussed and debunked, and if he'd spent half the time researching his points that he spent writing that post, he'd know that these things have been addressed. He may take issue with how they were addressed, but he didn't even bother to do that.
Yes, because we all know how well the old "destroy the village to save it" strategy is thought of around here. If that's going to be the strategy, then we just nuke the place and leave. I don't think you'll get much support for that from anyone with half a brain. It's not really an option, which is why we're in the situation we're currently in.
It's not just about having a paper trail. It's about how that trail is created, and whether the procedures are sufficient to make it effective. From what I've seen, the paper trails in many places are unreliable, and practically useless for getting an accurate recount and preventing vote tampering.
Strange. It cost me about $25 to buy the first tank, already filled. Then about $16 to swap it out each time.
Basically the same way people get propane around here. They buy a tank, and then keep swapping it out for a fresh one whenever it runs out.
Not sure that I proved anything. I'm a Windows user. Just giving my opinion based on having worked with Linux users before, and being surrounded by other Windows users.
Just one of many reasons I'm staying away from Vista. If I can't even play FoF, then Vista is certainly not an upgrade.
Windows users are every bit as annoying as Linux users. They just bitch about different things. The only reason they don't shit on Linux more is that the vast majority of them have never touched Linux and have only the vaguest notions of what it is.
The main thing that would help Linux at this point would be a FOSS implementation of DirectX 10. Since that won't happen, windows will be the primary platform for entertainment software, which FOSS either can't, or isn't inclined to compete with.
Already have mods for this. FranOOOMMM makes Oblivion about 10 times more enjoyable. I feel sorry for XBox players... naah.. not really...
Recession has nothing to do with it. The fact that Microsoft started making serious political contributions probably had a lot more to do with it. The cost of another trial is insignificant compared to a thousand other ways the government wastes our money. Putting a stop to a major monopoly would probably save us a lot of money in the medium to long term, and would not only be a better investment, but it's simply the right thing to do when a company of that size is so flagrantly breaking the law. Yes, the judge screwed up. No, that shouldn't let Microsoft off the hook. We retry criminals all the time when a trial gets messed up. They don't usually just walk.
Right, and the fact that they blew off that settlement is part of what got them in trouble again. Not to mention all the more reason the DOJ should have continued to pursue them and taken them down for good. They'd already shown that they couldn't be trusted to abide by a settlement.
You do see where I'm going with this though, right? We already have plenty of precedent for throwing the book at repeat offenders. Why should companies like Microsoft get a pass when they repeatedly break the law? Slaps on the wrist obviously aren't going to have any effect on a multi-billion dollar company. It only makes sense to make the punishment severe enough to act as a strong deterrent.
You're misunderstanding the reason that MS is considered evil. As much as people may dislike their OS and software, their business tactics are the real problem. The DOJ had them dead to rights during the last trial. MS execs had been caught lying on multiple occasions. They had destroyed evidence. Their expert witnesses often ended up looking like fools. Everything was going great for the DOJ. Then Bush got elected and the DOJ folded and settled with MS. So Microsoft basically got away with years of illegal tactics and abuse. That's why we should come down hard on them anytime they step out of line. Maybe in another year or so we'll have a government willing to do that.
Oh yes, poor Microsoft. They've only pummeled OEMs, competing software vendors, and consumers into submission with their illegal, anti-competitive tactics for the last couple of decades. Surely we should feel terrible about their self-made problems. I think we should all chip in and buy Bill a cookie basket.
How would it be any more harsh than a 3-strikes law? Microsoft has a lot more strikes than that, shouldn't the punishment be more severe?
Already exists. It's called Frets On Fire. Tons of songs available if you look around a bit, and you can even use a Playstation guitar controller if you get a Playstation-to-USB adapter.
In some senses, GPL'd software is free. You don't pay for it, and you can use it pretty much any way you want. You can even modify the source if you like, or give copies to other people. These things aren't generally allowed for typical proprietary copyrighted software. The GPL uses copyright to allow you to have more rights to use the software, provided you agree to the conditions it specifies. This is a huge improvement over commercial software, but not as open as some other licenses, such as the BSD license. So I think your comment is overly harsh, in that the software is free in many ways that most software isn't. It just isn't absolutely free in every sense of the word. Picking on it for that seems rather petty, especially since GPL supporters know quite well that the license isn't as free as some others, and don't try to pretend that it is. It's somewhat less free by design.
I look at defense attorneys much like public school teachers. Some are good, many are not. The best tend to go to a private institution where they get paid better and don't have to put up with nearly as much crap. So, those that are left are underpaid and overworked, and often not the best and brightest to begin with. Ambitious people with political aspirations tend to go the prosecutorial way, so we end up with much better public prosecutors than public defenders.