It did not claim, as your summary implies heavily, that the funding was earmarked for the 9/11 attacks, but just for Al-Queda's operations in general (which is still a problem, granted, but you are being deliberately deceptive with that summarization.)
The court found that Iraq was liable to VICTIMS OF THE 9/11 ATTACKS, to the tune of $104 million dollars.
The distinction you are attempting to make doesn't exist as a matter of law in this case, and is a pathetic attempt to cling to the liberal mantra that there was no Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection. The fact is that there has been found to be one by a US federal court, and upheld by the circuit appeals court. No amount of sophistry is going to make this go away.
Having a population of people better educated in science is just as important, and Bush is not going to make that happen.
Continuing the failed policies of forty years of liberal control of the education system certainly isn't going to do it.
The ideas of licensing and patenting and copyrighting were all originally conceived as a communal, societal gift to innovators; an acknowledgement that you can't own an idea but "we'll let you make some money off it anyways."
I would expect that period of money-making would be longer than a couple of years.
Information wants to be free.
Perhaps, but technical writers want to be $43,314 a year.
In this case, bribing criminals to hand-over their own is a classic but short-term solution.
The reason it's a classic is, it's very effective, and continues to be so.
No, you cannot use this tactic against criminal gangs. $5m is not a lot when compared to the value of a large botnet.
This assumes that every person with knowledge of who runs a botnet has both full control of that net, and the ability to see that full value from it, for less effort than it takes to turn somebody in.
In reality, there are always people with sufficient knowledge to put the big fish in jail, and who either don't have sufficient access to make use of the scheme (whether it be a botnet or any other organized criminal activity) to get the same value from it, or cannot do so without significant effort.
If the potential informant can get $5 million worth of value out of the botnet only by fighting other people for control of it, then laziness may set in. Even if all you're offering is $2.5 million, it may be worth it to him.
Generally, people who are willing to work hard for their gains don't become criminals. There are of course exceptions, but they tend to be insane.
What I believe did Os/2 in (aside from IBM's hamfisted marketing department)--and this is the same scenario--is that if it runs Windows apps too there is no incentive to develope native apps, 'cuz developing Windows apps means developing for Linux (then Os/2) and Windows at the same time with no added overhead to the development cycle, save for perhaps bug testing.
Explain, then, why running DOS apps didn't doom Windows.
Everybody is bitching that the FBI didn't investigate why people wanted to know about crop dusters and 727s, but god forbid they DO investigate something odd.
It's an investigation. They showed up and asked him a couple of questions. Ooooh, what fascists. Next thing you know, they'll be doing something REALLY outrageous, like asking him THREE questions.
What's more, is that one episode was penned by another author you may have heard of in which he mingled concepts of his own distinct mythology with that of trek-lore....and which is generally regarded by fans of both series as a horrible idea.
Once. Once you spam, you lose it by degrees -- each complaint takes a chunk out of your bond -- and then you have to pay it again. This makes it more than a little expensive to use for spam.
Actually, in my calculations that show it's economically worthwhile for some spammers, I was using the assumption that you lose the entire $20,000 if you spam once.
If you lose only a part of it, it's economical for just about any spammer.
In fact, if you were to lose 25% of your bond every time, it'd be worthwhile for some pretty low-margin stuff. If you make three bucks off of.0001% of the recipients, it'd be worth it.
Well, by "high response rate" I mean "order of magnitude higher than the.0001% presumptive default I see in articles", and by "high-margin" I mean "significantly higher than the $11 or so it would cost per response if they only got.0001% and paid $20,000 for it".
So, within those definitions, I think yes, there probably are some.
Did those same creation scientists bother to mention the list of animals that did contain all the DNA needed to produce the offspring we have now? Please explain to me how only a pair of dogs is able to father the complete dog genus as we know it now, and make sure you take into account the age of the Noah story being ~6000 years ago.
You're trying to use that argument against people who take it as given that God created the entire universe in a week?
Ok, I'll give you their answer:
"God created them all."
You cannot argue against faith with science. They are two different things. Indeed, science cannot prove the efficacy of the scientific method for illuminating the origin of the universe; we have faith that it does.
You can no more use science to convince a Christian to be an Atheist than you can use it to convince the Atheist to drop his faith in his religion.
So what? It's essentially a $20,000 fee to guarantee getting past the antispam filters of 170 million people.
That's cheap, and thus economically feasible.
It will keep out spammers who have a low-margin product that gets a low (.0001%) response rate, but for spammers that have a high-margin product or a high response rate, it'll be seen as a fee.
If the response rate is even.001%, it'll be profitable for things like penis enlargement pills.
The reason there is such a backlash against GM is that it often involves inter-splicing pieces of gene THAT DID NOT EXIST BEFORE in this particular plant species.
they laughed at Mr. Hubbert too, when he said that the production of oil would peak in the US in 1970..
they aren't laughing now...
No, now they're angry about the stupid knee-jerk reaction law that prevents them from drilling where the oil is. A whole lot of jobs are essentially being outsourced to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela by that decision. I thought you guys were AGAINST outsourcing?
Slashdot Mirror
Because under the previous similar treaties, they ended up with all those unaccounted-for arms.
Repeating the same actions over and over again, hoping for different results, is a sign of insanity.
It did not claim, as your summary implies heavily, that the funding was earmarked for the 9/11 attacks, but just for Al-Queda's operations in general (which is still a problem, granted, but you are being deliberately deceptive with that summarization.)
The court found that Iraq was liable to VICTIMS OF THE 9/11 ATTACKS, to the tune of $104 million dollars.
The distinction you are attempting to make doesn't exist as a matter of law in this case, and is a pathetic attempt to cling to the liberal mantra that there was no Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection. The fact is that there has been found to be one by a US federal court, and upheld by the circuit appeals court. No amount of sophistry is going to make this go away.
Having a population of people better educated in science is just as important, and Bush is not going to make that happen.
Continuing the failed policies of forty years of liberal control of the education system certainly isn't going to do it.
It's not necessary with Windows either. The "run as" command has no problems running installers or other graphical applications.
Microsoft's own Freelancer game won't work with it.
Also, their Halo demo has problems, although the full game works.
If it's that hard for THEM to get it right, I find it difficult to believe there aren't other programs out there with a problem.
In order to keep this from happening to us, we need to:
1) Advance as far technologically as we can, as fast as we can, especially in manned space travel.
2) Learn how to survive with a polluted atmosphere, instead of just avoiding polluting it in the first place, which would retard technological growth.
3) Get as many people the hell off this rock as fast as we can. A moonbase would be a great start.
So, if you want the human race to become extinct, vote for John Kerry. If you want us to survive, vote for George Bush.
Thanks for your support.
You're welcome. Wouldn't want to take food from your kids' mouths, or those of all the other people employed to refine and ship your product.
No, I believe it! So, in order to prevent global warming, we all need to do is create more pollution!
Thanks, scientists! I'll sell my midsize and buy a second SUV immediately!
The ideas of licensing and patenting and copyrighting were all originally conceived as a communal, societal gift to innovators; an acknowledgement that you can't own an idea but "we'll let you make some money off it anyways."
I would expect that period of money-making would be longer than a couple of years.
Information wants to be free.
Perhaps, but technical writers want to be $43,314 a year.
In this case, bribing criminals to hand-over their own is a classic but short-term solution.
The reason it's a classic is, it's very effective, and continues to be so.
No, you cannot use this tactic against criminal gangs. $5m is not a lot when compared to the value of a large botnet.
This assumes that every person with knowledge of who runs a botnet has both full control of that net, and the ability to see that full value from it, for less effort than it takes to turn somebody in.
In reality, there are always people with sufficient knowledge to put the big fish in jail, and who either don't have sufficient access to make use of the scheme (whether it be a botnet or any other organized criminal activity) to get the same value from it, or cannot do so without significant effort.
If the potential informant can get $5 million worth of value out of the botnet only by fighting other people for control of it, then laziness may set in. Even if all you're offering is $2.5 million, it may be worth it to him.
Generally, people who are willing to work hard for their gains don't become criminals. There are of course exceptions, but they tend to be insane.
What I believe did Os/2 in (aside from IBM's hamfisted marketing department)--and this is the same scenario--is that if it runs Windows apps too there is no incentive to develope native apps, 'cuz developing Windows apps means developing for Linux (then Os/2) and Windows at the same time with no added overhead to the development cycle, save for perhaps bug testing.
Explain, then, why running DOS apps didn't doom Windows.
I've never understood why they don't move to ReiserFS, at least for new installations.
Because for most uses, it's not the best option. So, if you're going to junk ext2 compatibility, why would you go to Reiser?
Noo! TechLive did not survive!
Forget these prattling fools of Sarah and Morgan fans, we want our Jessie!
Get rid of Scott on G4TV.com; Jessie, Tina, and Lara are the perfect combination of hosts.
The fix is not to buy hardware with binary-only drivers.
It is, however, an NIST standard.
How does 800 billion less GDP and 17,000 less per-capita GDP rank 1rst?
Everybody is bitching that the FBI didn't investigate why people wanted to know about crop dusters and 727s, but god forbid they DO investigate something odd.
It's an investigation. They showed up and asked him a couple of questions. Ooooh, what fascists. Next thing you know, they'll be doing something REALLY outrageous, like asking him THREE questions.
Wil did warn you that G4 sucked.
So now, they dicked a whole bunch of other nice people. Is this a news flash?
What's more, is that one episode was penned by another author you may have heard of in which he mingled concepts of his own distinct mythology with that of trek-lore. ...and which is generally regarded by fans of both series as a horrible idea.
I suppose a few gamers in Austin think it was a pretty good idea, but that's about it.
Once. Once you spam, you lose it by degrees -- each complaint takes a chunk out of your bond -- and then you have to pay it again. This makes it more than a little expensive to use for spam.
.0001% of the recipients, it'd be worth it.
Actually, in my calculations that show it's economically worthwhile for some spammers, I was using the assumption that you lose the entire $20,000 if you spam once.
If you lose only a part of it, it's economical for just about any spammer.
In fact, if you were to lose 25% of your bond every time, it'd be worthwhile for some pretty low-margin stuff. If you make three bucks off of
Well, by "high response rate" I mean "order of magnitude higher than the .0001% presumptive default I see in articles", and by "high-margin" I mean "significantly higher than the $11 or so it would cost per response if they only got .0001% and paid $20,000 for it".
So, within those definitions, I think yes, there probably are some.
Did those same creation scientists bother to mention the list of animals that did contain all the DNA needed to produce the offspring we have now? Please explain to me how only a pair of dogs is able to father the complete dog genus as we know it now, and make sure you take into account the age of the Noah story being ~6000 years ago.
You're trying to use that argument against people who take it as given that God created the entire universe in a week?
Ok, I'll give you their answer:
"God created them all."
You cannot argue against faith with science. They are two different things. Indeed, science cannot prove the efficacy of the scientific method for illuminating the origin of the universe; we have faith that it does.
You can no more use science to convince a Christian to be an Atheist than you can use it to convince the Atheist to drop his faith in his religion.
So what? It's essentially a $20,000 fee to guarantee getting past the antispam filters of 170 million people.
.001%, it'll be profitable for things like penis enlargement pills.
That's cheap, and thus economically feasible.
It will keep out spammers who have a low-margin product that gets a low (.0001%) response rate, but for spammers that have a high-margin product or a high response rate, it'll be seen as a fee.
If the response rate is even
The reason there is such a backlash against GM is that it often involves inter-splicing pieces of gene THAT DID NOT EXIST BEFORE in this particular plant species.
I figured it was just because their cars suck.
they laughed at Mr. Hubbert too, when he said that the production of oil would peak in the US in 1970..
they aren't laughing now...
No, now they're angry about the stupid knee-jerk reaction law that prevents them from drilling where the oil is. A whole lot of jobs are essentially being outsourced to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela by that decision. I thought you guys were AGAINST outsourcing?
Does anyone here think critically?
New here, huh?
First thing I'd install on a Windows machine:
Linux.