No, he reportedly died in 2002, so he no longer existed.
Yes; killed in Iraq because he rejected Saddam's requests to reactivate his terrorist networks in Saddam's service, specifically to include attacking the United States.
Hussein was giving $25K to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and harboring a former terrorist. But there's no evidence he was promoting terrorism.
News flash; giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers is promoting terrorism!
Cutting taxes in the long run generates more revenues than leaving them alone.
High taxes have no more of an effect on the economy than high deficit spending.
That's a ridiculous statement. If people have less money to spend, there is no way you can make the case that they spend the same amount.
So Bush has spent $100s of billions invading a country whose leader was quietly abusing his own people and otherwise living the high life, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis, to no effect at all on the pre-existing terrorists.
Abu Nidal wasn't a pre-existing terrorist? I think Leon Klinghoffer might disagree with this assessment.
Perhaps that was because before that, that horrible tax-and-spend Liberal president had eliminated the deficit?
No, largely the same Congress that created this deficit eliminated the old ones.
However, they kept taxes at levels that would restrain growth enough that it was all temporary; in a few years when the Baby Boomers start retiring, there will be deficits like you wouldn't believe unless somebody listens to Greenspan.
In any event, there are three situations in which a deficit is to be expected:
1) A recession that cuts revenues. 2) A national emergency that cuts revenues. (Possibly by creating or exacerbating situation 1.) 3) A war.
Bush inherited the Clinton/Gore recession, a national emergency hit the economy during it, and resulted in a war.
(P.S. If you aren't familiar with the Heritage Foundation and actually think it is a left-wing think-tank, just go to their front page.)
No, thanks. I'm familiar with them, and have toyed with the notion of sending them a resume a time or two. I don't doubt they're quoting correct numbers. Bush didn't exercise the veto pen enough, you won't get any disgreement from me on that. However, I'd rather have a deficit (which is at a much lower percentage of GDP than the deficits in the Reagan years, which didn't impact the economy negatively) for a while than have a crappy economy because of high taxes and terrorists blowing up my children.
We didn't try to militarize space after we put a man on the moon, so why should we try to do so today?
Because the former decision was a mistake, that just happened to work out sort of OK.
The Soviet Union faltered, and had no economy, so we had less worry about them beating us to the punch, and backed off. China, however, is another story.
Allowing our military to get behind any nation in any defense-related issue is dangerous; allowing it to get behind someone who's not a close ally is sheer folly, and would be a dereliction of the most fundamental duties of our elected officials.
I say, if politicians (which are by the way trusted with OUR FATE!) behave like they do today they are gambling with the chance of survival for the entire human race. This should be considered a crime and prosecuted accordingly.
What we need is just one politician with the courage to propose spending less money on low-orbit stuff like the shuttle, and more on platforms capable of taking us higher, such as to the Moon and Mars. This would increase both our ability to detect NEO asteroids and our ability to get to them to do something about it.
But where could we find a man like that, in this day and age?
If your witness is a single person, there's not enough probable cause to be arresting anybody. Witnesses are notoriously fallible. Unless you have corrooboration of facts by several witnesses, or have video or photographic evidence on the crime, I don't see probably cause for arrests.
You can only be arrested if you are witnessed commiting an illegal act, or there is probable cause to think that you have already commited an illegal act.
You're not getting it. Let's say you rob a bank. I see you rob the bank. I tell the police "I saw gerardrj rob the bank".
The police pull somebody over who looks like you. Should they be able to ask for ID, or do they just arrest everybody who looks like you?
Probable cause doesn't accomplish anything if you can't arrest the guy because you don't know him personally.
They pull over people who match the description, and they check their IDs. If the ID matches a wanted person, they arrest him. Unless the cops lose this case.
If you refuse to show ID, you get arrested for that. Unless the cops lose this case, in which case all a criminal will have to do is just refuse to show ID and he gets off scott-free.
Even if you're only walking, it's horribly difficult. A good shooter uses both hands when firing a handgun, because firing one-handed adds tremendous difficulty.
Now imagine the target is moving (which has less effect on your aim than your own motion), you're holding the gun in one hand, and steering with the other. You're paying attention to the road so you don't die, and the gun isn't even lined up with your eyes so you're not aiming, you're guessing.
I used to shoot with ex-SEALs and active DEA agents. I doubt any one of them would even TAKE a shot in that situation, much less expect to hit anything.
Fudge would also be a great system for Paranoia, but the existing system is quite fast and free-wheeling and will do just fine. I share your joy that they didn't succumb to the temptation to do this d20, especially since they're basically a d20 company.
Unless you intend to completely give up on the idea of police arresting wanted criminals, these are the options:
1) Keep biometric data on everybody. 2) Arrest people if they look sort of like a wanted criminal. 3) Arrest people if they can't show valid ID.
Which one of those do YOU think is less of an invasion of privacy? Option 4 is "never arrest anybody unless you actually see them committing the crime right in front of you."
The simplest solution in this case isn't that the weapons were moved (after all, that would have taken some serious logistics, which would likely have been noticed), but rather that no such weapons existed in the first place.
The UN found lots of chemical weapons. Iraq documented in detail the elimination of part of them. What's the simplest explanation as to why they refused to document elimination of the rest, even after threat of invasion?
Yep. Just like it's okay to post doctored photos of John Kerry with Jane Fonda*, but questioning Bush's desertion from the National Guard is somehow inappropriate, and perhaps unpatriotic, and an insult to all our brave Guardsmen currently fighting in Iraq, and -- oooh, shiny!
No, saying Bush deserted the National Guard is all of those things, plus one more; easily disproven.
Questioning the supposed desertion is called "healthy skepticism".
Which means that after you track them down and actually find someone operating inside the borders of your country, you can DO something about it.
Screw that; if they send even one spam to an FBI agent, they're interfering with his ability to do his job, and thus providing aid and comfort to terrorists.
Slashdot Mirror
While nmap is a great tool, I don't think this is going to have much effect on SCO.
Pull the license for something they can't easily do without, like Apache or ksh, and you might have something.
No, he reportedly died in 2002, so he no longer existed.
e ws/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml
Yes; killed in Iraq because he rejected Saddam's requests to reactivate his terrorist networks in Saddam's service, specifically to include attacking the United States.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n
That's the same Saddam you claim wasn't a threat.
Hussein was giving $25K to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and harboring a former terrorist. But there's no evidence he was promoting terrorism.
News flash; giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers is promoting terrorism!
Or perhaps... not cutting taxes?
Cutting taxes in the long run generates more revenues than leaving them alone.
High taxes have no more of an effect on the economy than high deficit spending.
That's a ridiculous statement. If people have less money to spend, there is no way you can make the case that they spend the same amount.
So Bush has spent $100s of billions invading a country whose leader was quietly abusing his own people and otherwise living the high life, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis, to no effect at all on the pre-existing terrorists.
Abu Nidal wasn't a pre-existing terrorist? I think Leon Klinghoffer might disagree with this assessment.
Perhaps that was because before that, that horrible tax-and-spend Liberal president had eliminated the deficit?
No, largely the same Congress that created this deficit eliminated the old ones.
However, they kept taxes at levels that would restrain growth enough that it was all temporary; in a few years when the Baby Boomers start retiring, there will be deficits like you wouldn't believe unless somebody listens to Greenspan.
In any event, there are three situations in which a deficit is to be expected:
1) A recession that cuts revenues.
2) A national emergency that cuts revenues. (Possibly by creating or exacerbating situation 1.)
3) A war.
Bush inherited the Clinton/Gore recession, a national emergency hit the economy during it, and resulted in a war.
(P.S. If you aren't familiar with the Heritage Foundation and actually think it is a left-wing think-tank, just go to their front page.)
No, thanks. I'm familiar with them, and have toyed with the notion of sending them a resume a time or two. I don't doubt they're quoting correct numbers. Bush didn't exercise the veto pen enough, you won't get any disgreement from me on that. However, I'd rather have a deficit (which is at a much lower percentage of GDP than the deficits in the Reagan years, which didn't impact the economy negatively) for a while than have a crappy economy because of high taxes and terrorists blowing up my children.
We didn't try to militarize space after we put a man on the moon, so why should we try to do so today?
Because the former decision was a mistake, that just happened to work out sort of OK.
The Soviet Union faltered, and had no economy, so we had less worry about them beating us to the punch, and backed off. China, however, is another story.
Allowing our military to get behind any nation in any defense-related issue is dangerous; allowing it to get behind someone who's not a close ally is sheer folly, and would be a dereliction of the most fundamental duties of our elected officials.
Since when it is "courage" for a politician to propose spending still more money?
Since the press suddenly decided that they don't like deficits.
Actually, it's not that suddenly; they decided it in January of 2001. I'm sure they'll change back in January of 2009.
A toolbar button to download the next upcoming Fark Photoshop contest.
Whoa, you really don't get it, do you? The *BSD projects take great care in what code is incorporated into their projects.
As does Linux, but still both projects have been in court.
What do you mean? This addresses the very most important problem with RFID, namely:
The fact that RSA can't make any money off it!
If there's a debate at all, it's not worth wasting your time thinking about it.
Totally agree, but:
This is why people like the BSD license.
Like BSD has never had licensing issues wind up in court.
I say, if politicians (which are by the way trusted with OUR FATE!) behave like they do today they are gambling with the chance of survival for the entire human race. This should be considered a crime and prosecuted accordingly.
What we need is just one politician with the courage to propose spending less money on low-orbit stuff like the shuttle, and more on platforms capable of taking us higher, such as to the Moon and Mars. This would increase both our ability to detect NEO asteroids and our ability to get to them to do something about it.
But where could we find a man like that, in this day and age?
While you're there, look up "humor".
If your witness is a single person, there's not enough probable cause to be arresting anybody. Witnesses are notoriously fallible. Unless you have corrooboration of facts by several witnesses, or have video or photographic evidence on the crime, I don't see probably cause for arrests.
Congratulations; you just made rape legal.
You can only be arrested if you are witnessed commiting an illegal act, or there is probable cause to think that you have already commited an illegal act.
You're not getting it. Let's say you rob a bank. I see you rob the bank. I tell the police "I saw gerardrj rob the bank".
The police pull somebody over who looks like you. Should they be able to ask for ID, or do they just arrest everybody who looks like you?
Probable cause doesn't accomplish anything if you can't arrest the guy because you don't know him personally.
They pull over people who match the description, and they check their IDs. If the ID matches a wanted person, they arrest him. Unless the cops lose this case.
If you refuse to show ID, you get arrested for that. Unless the cops lose this case, in which case all a criminal will have to do is just refuse to show ID and he gets off scott-free.
Have you ever TRIED to shoot while moving?
Even if you're only walking, it's horribly difficult. A good shooter uses both hands when firing a handgun, because firing one-handed adds tremendous difficulty.
Now imagine the target is moving (which has less effect on your aim than your own motion), you're holding the gun in one hand, and steering with the other. You're paying attention to the road so you don't die, and the gun isn't even lined up with your eyes so you're not aiming, you're guessing.
I used to shoot with ex-SEALs and active DEA agents. I doubt any one of them would even TAKE a shot in that situation, much less expect to hit anything.
Always build the program from source code. Don't even consider running pre-compiled binaries.
Wait, how am I going to get the C compiler on there?
Maybe now Joss Whedon will get busy on that "Ripper" idea he wanted to do for the BBC.
You realize the first episode of that aired two years ago, right?
Fudge would also be a great system for Paranoia, but the existing system is quite fast and free-wheeling and will do just fine. I share your joy that they didn't succumb to the temptation to do this d20, especially since they're basically a d20 company.
Unless you intend to completely give up on the idea of police arresting wanted criminals, these are the options:
1) Keep biometric data on everybody.
2) Arrest people if they look sort of like a wanted criminal.
3) Arrest people if they can't show valid ID.
Which one of those do YOU think is less of an invasion of privacy? Option 4 is "never arrest anybody unless you actually see them committing the crime right in front of you."
Great. So where are the frickin' drivers for all the Intel USB cameras?
You mean there might actually be water on Mars, meaning that there's oxygen, that we could extract and breathe?
If only someone had mentioned this possibility before.
B is clearly the simpler explanation.
Then what was in all those trucks headed to Syria?
The simplest solution in this case isn't that the weapons were moved (after all, that would have taken some serious logistics, which would likely have been noticed), but rather that no such weapons existed in the first place.
It was noticed.
However, OK, you want to play Occam's Razor:
The UN found lots of chemical weapons. Iraq documented in detail the elimination of part of them. What's the simplest explanation as to why they refused to document elimination of the rest, even after threat of invasion?
Yep. Just like it's okay to post doctored photos of John Kerry with Jane Fonda*, but questioning Bush's desertion from the National Guard is somehow inappropriate, and perhaps unpatriotic, and an insult to all our brave Guardsmen currently fighting in Iraq, and -- oooh, shiny!
No, saying Bush deserted the National Guard is all of those things, plus one more; easily disproven.
Questioning the supposed desertion is called "healthy skepticism".
Which means that after you track them down and actually find someone operating inside the borders of your country, you can DO something about it.
Screw that; if they send even one spam to an FBI agent, they're interfering with his ability to do his job, and thus providing aid and comfort to terrorists.