UK police departments have been using 3D biometric facial recognition since the day they first opened their doors. All they're doing now is supplementing expensive trained officers with cheaper new tools.
Seriously, if you people are technophobes on this level, you should log off right now and sell your computer. You can probably use the money to buy enough wood to build a shack in the mountains somewhere.
Oh, wait, you'd never survive that way; you're probably a hoplophobe, too.
You're insistent that "the market" functions better than any prize system could. And yet the X-prize was offered, and suddenly research started moving forward. Why hadn't the market impelled people to work with that sort of single-mindedness before then?
Because of a short-sighted treaty that prevents commercial exploitation of space. The market was essentially eliminated from play.
If the US pulled out of that treaty, there'd be no need for the X-prize.
Well, Title IV was mostly written by John Kerry. Bob Graham wrote quite a bit of changes in titles II and III, with more than a little input from the rest of the Intelligence Committee, including John Edwards.
What was passed was not AAG Dinh's original draft, not by a long shot. Title IV didn't even exist in his draft, that's all John Kerry.
As for the other changes, go read the congressional record on this. Hell, the House and Senate passed different bills and had to reconcile them in committee. If what Dinh wrote was passed as-is, why was it different between the two?
to *drafting*, using USDOJ resources the USA-PATRIOT Act,
Oh please. If he wrote it, how come John Kerry spent years trying to get Title IV of it passed as various different bills? Was he a puppet of John Ashcroft the entire time?
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. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
So, as you've stated, if this was one of the reasons we went in, the President should have stated it at the time. He did. Therefore, by your logic, you must agree it was one of the reasons. Quod erat demonstratum.
All that is left to you is arguing it's not a sufficient reason. If human life means so little to you, by all means, keep marching further onto the wrong side of history.
It never ceases to crack me up when the same people who get all squirmy over Bush being a Christian (despite all of Kerry's speeches about how vital one's faith is to how one governs) will say "see? SEE? The Redskins! The Redskins!"
And so long as the sanctions remained he was not starting any such program.
The sanctions were killing 50,000 a year. The war has killed less than a third of that number. How much longer would you have wanted those sanctions to go on? Another half a million dead? A million? Two?
"In addition to preserved capabiilty, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted."
Yes, it's true every plant he built was multi-purpose. However, this is true of any chemical weapon production plant. Most chemical nerve agents are closely related to pesticides, and many of the pesticides Iraq was producing are in fact nerve agents, usually used in diluted form.
However, if you don't dilute them, they're just as effective as their better-known weaponized counterparts. Tabun, in particular, is very similar to Malathion, and they had massive overproduction capability for Malathion. If you think this stuff doesn't make an effective chemical weapon, tell that to the millions of Jews that Adolph Hitler killed with insecticides.
Saddam might even have dreamed of making a nuke some day, but he certainly had no actual and active nuke program.
Their first attempt to blow one up was in 1989. This is probably the only time in history that a country failed in its first attempt to blow up a nuclear weapon. Once sanctions were lifted, they'd have resumed that as well. Lest you forget, they were hiding uranium enrichment centrifuge equipment in the back yard of the man in charge of the program.
Also in the Duelfer report, on page 3:
"Uday - head of the Fedayeen Saddam - attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF, according to reporting, but ISG found no evidence that Iraq ever came into possession of any CW weapons."
If they were trying to buy them, do you honestly think it's reasonable to assume they'd have continued to fail? Do you honestly think it's reasonable to assume they'd have declined to use them, despite their long history of doing just that, as late as 1991?
As far as all this stuff being dual-use goes, is it your honest contention that Iraq was attempting to become the world's major supplier of pesticides, and that Saddams long history of declarations that having chemical weapons was necessary for him to maintain the strategic balance with his enemies was just a coincidence?
If you go around saying "I will drop hammers from freeway overpasses, killing the drivers of passing cars", and then you buy 10,000 hammers, it's reasonable to assume you have them in order to do harm, despite the fact that hammers are legal.
2. Outsourcing is more than balanced by insourcing, and it's the cost savings from outsourcing that are driving that. And before you spout something about the quality of the insourced jobs, they pay far more than the national average.
In short, in this as in so many other things, Kerry is just lying to try to fool stupid people into voting for him.
The IAEA verified the existence and location of the explosives in January 2003, not 18 months before the invasion.
Dead, flat WRONG.
They verified the presence of the seals they had placed on 3 tons (not 377 tons, or 380 tons, or 400 tons) of explosives in January. They also noted, according to ABC news, that it was possible to bypass the seals, and that therefore the 3 tons of stuff might not even have been there.
Everything you're basing your statements on is proven bald-faced lies. I will pretend to wonder if this revelation is going to change your mind.
Factually FALSE. The the report concluded there were no existing programs of any signifigance. The most the administration was able to squeeze out of the report was an allegation that Saddam may have desired to develop such weapons after the sanctions eventually got lifted.
Congratulations. You've just parrotted news misrepresentations that are directly contrary to the contents of the report. Since the report is public record, there's no excuse for this except personal political bias.
Yes, but what you're leaving out of those reports is that they also said the stuff they found DIDN'T HAVE THE IAEA SEALS ON IT.
How'd those seals vanish in between the last time the IAEA saw and and when the soldiers saw some of it without seals? Perhaps people had taken some of it?
A guy at Netcraft who has no idea what happened speculated about a cause, and this is disturbing?
It's a lot more likely that this has something to do with the simultaneous attacks on both Bush's web site and the RNC's. Bush's site may simply have chosen to block foreign access until the security issues are resolved, since the majority of recent attacks are coming from Korea, Brazil, and Poland.
In fact, if one applies logic to recent statements:
Kerry says if he had been President, the 380 tons of munitions wouldn't have been taken. The 380 tons of munitions were last known to still be there 18 months before the invasion. Therefore, Kerry has stated that he would have invaded at least 18 months before Bush did.
So, I guess the major distinction is, Kerry wouldn't have waited as long as Bush to invade Iraq.
Slashdot Mirror
UK police departments have been using 3D biometric facial recognition since the day they first opened their doors. All they're doing now is supplementing expensive trained officers with cheaper new tools.
Seriously, if you people are technophobes on this level, you should log off right now and sell your computer. You can probably use the money to buy enough wood to build a shack in the mountains somewhere.
Oh, wait, you'd never survive that way; you're probably a hoplophobe, too.
Can't these people keep up with changing technology?
Ballistics, while scary, are not our biggest problem.
Neither are Oakland's schools. Hey, you were the one implying we should only fix the biggest problem.
Yeah, I figured that would be the answer I'd get.
You're insistent that "the market" functions better than any prize system could. And yet the X-prize was offered, and suddenly research started moving forward. Why hadn't the market impelled people to work with that sort of single-mindedness before then?
Because of a short-sighted treaty that prevents commercial exploitation of space. The market was essentially eliminated from play.
If the US pulled out of that treaty, there'd be no need for the X-prize.
If electronic voting can't work without problems, explain India.
http://graham.senate.gov/biography.html
Graham says he's the principle author of part of it. If he isn't, ask yourself why he's saying his is.
Oh, and I mis-spoke above; everywhere I said Title III, replace it with Title IV; everywhere I said Title IV, replace it with Title III.
Well, Title IV was mostly written by John Kerry. Bob Graham wrote quite a bit of changes in titles II and III, with more than a little input from the rest of the Intelligence Committee, including John Edwards.
What was passed was not AAG Dinh's original draft, not by a long shot. Title IV didn't even exist in his draft, that's all John Kerry.
As for the other changes, go read the congressional record on this. Hell, the House and Senate passed different bills and had to reconcile them in committee. If what Dinh wrote was passed as-is, why was it different between the two?
to *drafting*, using USDOJ resources the USA-PATRIOT Act,
Oh please. If he wrote it, how come John Kerry spent years trying to get Title IV of it passed as various different bills? Was he a puppet of John Ashcroft the entire time?
I don't know what Bush's motivation was for wanting to invade Iraq,
I've boiled your argument down to its crux. This should save you lots of typing in the future.
You're welcome.
From the January, 2003 State of the Union address:
So, as you've stated, if this was one of the reasons we went in, the President should have stated it at the time. He did. Therefore, by your logic, you must agree it was one of the reasons. Quod erat demonstratum.
All that is left to you is arguing it's not a sufficient reason. If human life means so little to you, by all means, keep marching further onto the wrong side of history.
It never ceases to crack me up when the same people who get all squirmy over Bush being a Christian (despite all of Kerry's speeches about how vital one's faith is to how one governs) will say "see? SEE? The Redskins! The Redskins!"
Yeah, and he also said that he actually rooted FOR the Red Sox, before he rooted against them.
And so long as the sanctions remained he was not starting any such program.
The sanctions were killing 50,000 a year. The war has killed less than a third of that number. How much longer would you have wanted those sanctions to go on? Another half a million dead? A million? Two?
Oh, I should add this now:
Iraqi rebels claim to have chemical weapons.
Wonder where they got those? Hmm, says here, from the Iraqi chemical weapons experts that have joined them.
"In addition to preserved capabiilty, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted."
Yes, it's true every plant he built was multi-purpose. However, this is true of any chemical weapon production plant. Most chemical nerve agents are closely related to pesticides, and many of the pesticides Iraq was producing are in fact nerve agents, usually used in diluted form.
However, if you don't dilute them, they're just as effective as their better-known weaponized counterparts. Tabun, in particular, is very similar to Malathion, and they had massive overproduction capability for Malathion. If you think this stuff doesn't make an effective chemical weapon, tell that to the millions of Jews that Adolph Hitler killed with insecticides.
Saddam might even have dreamed of making a nuke some day, but he certainly had no actual and active nuke program.
Their first attempt to blow one up was in 1989. This is probably the only time in history that a country failed in its first attempt to blow up a nuclear weapon. Once sanctions were lifted, they'd have resumed that as well. Lest you forget, they were hiding uranium enrichment centrifuge equipment in the back yard of the man in charge of the program.
Also in the Duelfer report, on page 3:
"Uday - head of the Fedayeen Saddam - attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF, according to reporting, but ISG found no evidence that Iraq ever came into possession of any CW weapons."
If they were trying to buy them, do you honestly think it's reasonable to assume they'd have continued to fail? Do you honestly think it's reasonable to assume they'd have declined to use them, despite their long history of doing just that, as late as 1991?
As far as all this stuff being dual-use goes, is it your honest contention that Iraq was attempting to become the world's major supplier of pesticides, and that Saddams long history of declarations that having chemical weapons was necessary for him to maintain the strategic balance with his enemies was just a coincidence?
If you go around saying "I will drop hammers from freeway overpasses, killing the drivers of passing cars", and then you buy 10,000 hammers, it's reasonable to assume you have them in order to do harm, despite the fact that hammers are legal.
It's Bush's fault. If he'd signed Kyoto, we wouldn't have dumped all that polystyrene into the solar system.
Candidate John Kerry has said he will close the tax loophole that makes it advantageous to outsource call centers.
There are two problems with Senator Kerry's promise:
1. The tax loophole he wants to close doesn't exist.
2. Outsourcing is more than balanced by insourcing, and it's the cost savings from outsourcing that are driving that. And before you spout something about the quality of the insourced jobs, they pay far more than the national average.
In short, in this as in so many other things, Kerry is just lying to try to fool stupid people into voting for him.
Clinton didn't spend 200 billion dollars occupying a country.
Bush hasn't spent anywhere near that much.
Kerry is smarter then my dog.
But, according to military records, not smarter than Bush.
The IAEA verified the existence and location of the explosives in January 2003, not 18 months before the invasion.
Dead, flat WRONG.
They verified the presence of the seals they had placed on 3 tons (not 377 tons, or 380 tons, or 400 tons) of explosives in January. They also noted, according to ABC news, that it was possible to bypass the seals, and that therefore the 3 tons of stuff might not even have been there.
Everything you're basing your statements on is proven bald-faced lies. I will pretend to wonder if this revelation is going to change your mind.
Factually FALSE. The the report concluded there were no existing programs of any signifigance. The most the administration was able to squeeze out of the report was an allegation that Saddam may have desired to develop such weapons after the sanctions eventually got lifted.
Congratulations. You've just parrotted news misrepresentations that are directly contrary to the contents of the report. Since the report is public record, there's no excuse for this except personal political bias.
See pages 12 and 13.
Yes, but what you're leaving out of those reports is that they also said the stuff they found DIDN'T HAVE THE IAEA SEALS ON IT.
How'd those seals vanish in between the last time the IAEA saw and and when the soldiers saw some of it without seals? Perhaps people had taken some of it?
A super majority believe there were WMD in Iraq or programs to produce them;
Perhaps that's due to the findings of the Iraq survey group that there were programs to produce them.
A guy at Netcraft who has no idea what happened speculated about a cause, and this is disturbing?
It's a lot more likely that this has something to do with the simultaneous attacks on both Bush's web site and the RNC's. Bush's site may simply have chosen to block foreign access until the security issues are resolved, since the majority of recent attacks are coming from Korea, Brazil, and Poland.
(Don't forget Poland!)
In fact, if one applies logic to recent statements:
Kerry says if he had been President, the 380 tons of munitions wouldn't have been taken. The 380 tons of munitions were last known to still be there 18 months before the invasion. Therefore, Kerry has stated that he would have invaded at least 18 months before Bush did.
So, I guess the major distinction is, Kerry wouldn't have waited as long as Bush to invade Iraq.