There is no question that torture is a bad thing. Very bad. But one can easily imagine where it would be warrented. Suppose your young daughter had been kidnapped and is being held and abused in some secret location that was known by a suspect you had in your custody. A suspect that you KNEW had the information about where you daughter was being held. Wouldn't you consider torture to get him to tell you where she was? This analogy is not far-fetched. If a suspect knows where a hidden cache of poison gas ready to deploy was, wouldn't that warrent at least some level of torture? What if your friends are to be the victims if the poison gas were released? The torture issue is not so clear as one would think if put in personal terms. The various international agreements being quoted by slashdot members do have merrit. Not only is torture wrong, but it could induce an enemy who would not otherwise torture to do so. Of course our current enemies have no qualms at all about torture, even of innocents, so that argument doesn't hold water. In my opinion, toture is valid in very, very limited scenarios, just like capital punishment. But, after the fact, the use of it must be reviewed by some sort of oversite, perhaps a court, to ensure the torture wasn't arbitrarily administered. After all, I wouldn't want someone torturing me whould would not later be held accountable. It is a tough subject.
You are right I have never flown Swiss Air. Interesting isn't it that the foreign airlines are better than the U.S.? I wonder if they get subsidies. British Air once lost a set of my golf clubs for a few days, and when they finally found them, they had broken one of the clubs. Every time I called them while looking for the clubs, they were very nice and apologetic. They told me to have the club repaired in the States and send them a bill. They promptly refunded the repair cost plus gave me an extra $60 for my troubles. On British Air I flew coach, but, except for the size of the seat, it was first class - continual free drinks, continual free cookies, free headsets, nice meals, etc, etc. So I'm looking forward to my first Swiss Air flight someday.
Well, British Airways has the best service of any airline I've ever flown on. And I've flown as a passenger literally thousands of times. Other passengers I talk to say the same. So don't compare them with some other airline and say you got better service on British Airways. You will ALWAYS get better service on British Airways. And often as not better prices.
The scenario works fine if the tickets are sold originally fairly, but often they are not. Recently, some entertainer performances are sold out even before the first ticket window opens or before TicketMaster even starts to sell them. Insiders get all the tickets and then sell them at whatever price they can get for them. Thus, the entertainers (or in this thread, the ball clubs) do not get the huge money; only a few scalpers get the money. For the most part, ball clubs, entertainers, etc wants fans from all walks of life to attend the games, not just the wealthy. And the scalpers don't just sell tickets for $50; sometimes they go for $thousands!! (Try to get a ticket to a Celine Dion concert.) Face value plus X is I think fair, notwithstanding my affection for the free market. Living in a capitalist society shouldn't give license to only a few insiders to make a profit. There are laws against insider equity trading for the same reasons. Special access at the expense of others is mostly a crime. Calling it free enterprise doesn't make it right. Just my 2 cents worth LOL.
Thanks! I'm saving this info for reference. Those of us who use a computer as a tool instead of a way of life are jealous of your knowledge. No joke. Have a good day Zy...
Thanks. That brings up an interesting thought: Assuming I don't turn off System Restore, is ALL the software on my computer that I may have thought deleted from my computer recoverable from the past? That could certainly use up a lot of HD space. I had thought that System Restore only kept various settings from the past; obviously that was wrong. One time on a Dell laptop w/ XP, I had to do a System Restore to a time before I even received the computer from Dell to get it to work (i.e., the very first restore point). Thus, I am reluctant to erase all previous restore points.
Hey Zy, you seem to know more than some. Can you answer this for me: If I "remove" a piece of software from my computer, how can System Restore bring it back; ie, "undo changes"? This happened to me a while back. I was trying to get McAfee Antivirus off my computer, but when I did a System Restore, it came back. Thus, it wasn't really off my computer. (PS I finally got it off by using McAfee's removal tool.)
Airline ticket holders must have their name on the ticket or they don't even get through security. Thus, one ticket per person. You can't buy a hundred tickets, then sell them to someone else. If entertainment tickets were sold by name, and identity checked at the gate, no more scalping.
I used to agree with this philosophy until the Miley Cyrus national news where her venue was sold out in something like 8 seconds, then tickets were only available for several $hundred. But she or her family don't get this money, the scalpers do. So what? It's capitalism. Maybe, but the Cyrus family don't want only the rich to view her concert. A solution: The venue stops using Ticketmaster until Ticketmaster controls how many tickets any one PERSON can purchase, say to eight at a time, and no more than four purchases per hour. Easily done by eliminating bots and back-door sales.
Who can possibly calculate the exact numbers, but LOTS of people die from the coal industry. Miners (direct accidents and subsequent black lung disease), construction of plants, operating the railroads (the coal-carrying part), running the plants...I'd guess at least a hundred per year, probably closer to a thousand. But then, that is still small potatoes compared to say, smoking, that kills more than 1,000 Americans PER DAY!! Sorry, got off the subject....My solution to our power problem: 1) tax subsidies for solar power development, and 2)return to building nuclear power plants. Plenty of Uranium available. The spent fuel is now and can always be stored on-site in pools. Nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, cheapest alternative to our current energy problems. The nuclear activists are misguided nuts. One recent observer said a nuclear protester was driving away from a nuclear protest in his SUV, not wearing a seat belt, and smoking a cigarette. What is going to kill that guy? Certainly not a nuclear power plant. Oops, got to step off my soapbox now....
It appears your knowledge of these plans is better than mine. I could find no reference to Chorister or Fleetwood, though Operation Dropshot is well known. Of course if we don't have such plans ready to go against potential enemies, we are incredibly shortsighted. I think it was in the news a couple of years ago we even have plans to attack Israel. It wouldn't surprise me if we gave nuclear weapons to Israel, so you could be right about that too. Even if oil were the only reason to secure the Middle East, I would think that is a sufficient reason. As long as the United States is prohibited from exploiting our own oil fields by environmental extremists (and the big companies who want us oil-dependent), we will be dependent on foreign oil. If the terrorists were, for example, to raise the price of oil to $500/barrel, what then? But that's a subject for a non-slashdot blog. As a matter of record, the United States did NOT violate the ABM Treaty. I am very familiar with that treaty, and it had a provision for abrogation with six months notice, which the United States carefully followed. Meanwhile, we had "caught" the [then] Soviets in several clear violations, which they admitted after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. For sure, it is very, very difficult for Iran to develop nuclear-tipped missiles which can reach the United States, but not so hard to develop ones that can reach our European allies. Are we to just forget our allies as Iran develops their terror weapons? And, Iran has asserted that Isreal must be destroyed. One can assume from all this rhetoric that Israel and/or the United States will soon attack Iran if it does't cease and desist with its nuclear program. Iran doesn't need such a program since it has all the oil it will ever need for power. I would estimate such an attack would be limited to only destroying the nuclear capability, but that may not be possible with a surgical strike since many of the facilities are likely burried so deep even a nuke can't reach them, even if we had perfect knowledge of where they are. It's a sad and dangerous world we live in. Always has been and probably always will be. It takes many years to develop, manufacture, and deploy missile defenses; therefore, we can't wait until Iran has deployed offensive missiles to start such a program. Sorry for rambling.
The only info I can find on Truman's post war nuclear plan is the one to eliminate nuclear weapons and form an international coalition to ensure that no nation developed them. See
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_06/LookingbackBaruch.asp
While it might make sense that Russia would not want any nearby nation to acquire nukes, Russia is apparently helping Iran do just that by selling them components and loaning scientists while at the same time standing in the way of our attempts to stop them (at least according to CNN).
The idea that a surviving missile shield could be effective after an attempted first strike has merit. But the corollary that the United States would suddenly, unprovoked, and with total lack of rationale or sanity, attack Russia is nonsensical. On the other hand, that some Muslim state or group might decide to do this would be totally consistent with their radical doctrine. While it would be nice to somehow talk the missile threat away, one observer noted that defensive weapons are better than paper at stopping enemy missiles.
If a defensive shield is so easy to penetrate, why would an enemy be concerned about it? An enemy should be happy we are wasting our money on it.
You are right about the uselessness of the big fuel-air bomb against hardened targets; not everyone is aware of that significant distinction.
Your point about Russia not installing bases is correct too. Since their government imploded, they even compressed lost most of their satellite countries. The use of nukes though in WWII, by historian accounts, saved many lives on both sides by ending the war almost immediately. Both my father and my ex-wife's father were on their way to Japan, probably to die, when the bombs were dropped. Thus, I am here, and perhaps you too, as a result of them.
Russia recently upgraded its missile shield around Moscow, which has been in place for more than 30 years.
Your description of the mutual assured destruction ability of both the United States and Russia is accurate. But, as R. Reagan said in 1983, wouldn't it be better if we could defend Americans rather than avenge them? It is simply not affordable to protect against an attack from Russia, so we don't even try. They have thousands of nukes, we have less than two dozen interceptors - you do the math. Our defensive missiles are to protect agains rogue nations which have nukes and missiles, but no fear of retaliation.
Yours was the first comment I noticed that addressed the relevant point in the article that two eyes look at two different things from time to time. Could it be that this is normal behavior for all visual tasks, not just reading? Mostly one eye is doing the work while the other is assessing the work to do, and possibly they switch functions several times per second, or not, or something like that. Funded study anyone, anyone.....?
A friend recently returned from an Alaskan cruise. He among others admired the glaciers. He reported that a tour guide said those glaciers are retreating (as from global warming). He also pointed out they had been retreating since being discovered in 1770. This, among other GW/AGW comments, does not belong on this thread, but I just heard the story and finally found a spot for it. Sorry...
The technique works only for a very small area of the sky at any one time since the jitter associated with the atmosphere varries depending on where one looks. Invented in 1995? The idea was around long before that and successfully demonstrated in the early 80's -- yes, in the eighties.
You are 100% correct in everything you wrote. Unless the store employees were certain you stole the merchandise (which they couldn't have been since you didn't steal it), they should not have questioned you. I've been in that same situation many times (going to a return desk with a receipt and merchandise I COULD have just picked up right then), but have never been questioned about it. BTW SAM'S CLUB has always (at least for the 15 years I have been going to them) checked customer's receipts against merchandise in the cart as they exit the store. Good luck if you sue. Perhaps it will teach them to fix their procedures.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no question that torture is a bad thing. Very bad. But one can easily imagine where it would be warrented. Suppose your young daughter had been kidnapped and is being held and abused in some secret location that was known by a suspect you had in your custody. A suspect that you KNEW had the information about where you daughter was being held. Wouldn't you consider torture to get him to tell you where she was? This analogy is not far-fetched. If a suspect knows where a hidden cache of poison gas ready to deploy was, wouldn't that warrent at least some level of torture? What if your friends are to be the victims if the poison gas were released? The torture issue is not so clear as one would think if put in personal terms. The various international agreements being quoted by slashdot members do have merrit. Not only is torture wrong, but it could induce an enemy who would not otherwise torture to do so. Of course our current enemies have no qualms at all about torture, even of innocents, so that argument doesn't hold water. In my opinion, toture is valid in very, very limited scenarios, just like capital punishment. But, after the fact, the use of it must be reviewed by some sort of oversite, perhaps a court, to ensure the torture wasn't arbitrarily administered. After all, I wouldn't want someone torturing me whould would not later be held accountable. It is a tough subject.
This has gotten off track. For all you Bush-bashers who have forgotten how and why we got in this war, check this: http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
You are right I have never flown Swiss Air. Interesting isn't it that the foreign airlines are better than the U.S.? I wonder if they get subsidies. British Air once lost a set of my golf clubs for a few days, and when they finally found them, they had broken one of the clubs. Every time I called them while looking for the clubs, they were very nice and apologetic. They told me to have the club repaired in the States and send them a bill. They promptly refunded the repair cost plus gave me an extra $60 for my troubles. On British Air I flew coach, but, except for the size of the seat, it was first class - continual free drinks, continual free cookies, free headsets, nice meals, etc, etc. So I'm looking forward to my first Swiss Air flight someday.
Well, British Airways has the best service of any airline I've ever flown on. And I've flown as a passenger literally thousands of times. Other passengers I talk to say the same. So don't compare them with some other airline and say you got better service on British Airways. You will ALWAYS get better service on British Airways. And often as not better prices.
The scenario works fine if the tickets are sold originally fairly, but often they are not. Recently, some entertainer performances are sold out even before the first ticket window opens or before TicketMaster even starts to sell them. Insiders get all the tickets and then sell them at whatever price they can get for them. Thus, the entertainers (or in this thread, the ball clubs) do not get the huge money; only a few scalpers get the money. For the most part, ball clubs, entertainers, etc wants fans from all walks of life to attend the games, not just the wealthy. And the scalpers don't just sell tickets for $50; sometimes they go for $thousands!! (Try to get a ticket to a Celine Dion concert.) Face value plus X is I think fair, notwithstanding my affection for the free market. Living in a capitalist society shouldn't give license to only a few insiders to make a profit. There are laws against insider equity trading for the same reasons. Special access at the expense of others is mostly a crime. Calling it free enterprise doesn't make it right. Just my 2 cents worth LOL.
Thanks! I'm saving this info for reference. Those of us who use a computer as a tool instead of a way of life are jealous of your knowledge. No joke. Have a good day Zy...
Thanks. That brings up an interesting thought: Assuming I don't turn off System Restore, is ALL the software on my computer that I may have thought deleted from my computer recoverable from the past? That could certainly use up a lot of HD space. I had thought that System Restore only kept various settings from the past; obviously that was wrong. One time on a Dell laptop w/ XP, I had to do a System Restore to a time before I even received the computer from Dell to get it to work (i.e., the very first restore point). Thus, I am reluctant to erase all previous restore points.
Hey Zy, you seem to know more than some. Can you answer this for me: If I "remove" a piece of software from my computer, how can System Restore bring it back; ie, "undo changes"? This happened to me a while back. I was trying to get McAfee Antivirus off my computer, but when I did a System Restore, it came back. Thus, it wasn't really off my computer. (PS I finally got it off by using McAfee's removal tool.)
Why did Bush attack Iraq? Check out http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
Airline ticket holders must have their name on the ticket or they don't even get through security. Thus, one ticket per person. You can't buy a hundred tickets, then sell them to someone else. If entertainment tickets were sold by name, and identity checked at the gate, no more scalping.
I used to agree with this philosophy until the Miley Cyrus national news where her venue was sold out in something like 8 seconds, then tickets were only available for several $hundred. But she or her family don't get this money, the scalpers do. So what? It's capitalism. Maybe, but the Cyrus family don't want only the rich to view her concert. A solution: The venue stops using Ticketmaster until Ticketmaster controls how many tickets any one PERSON can purchase, say to eight at a time, and no more than four purchases per hour. Easily done by eliminating bots and back-door sales.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/08/31/nifong.contempt/index.html?eref=edition_us
Slashdot, though frequently used as such, is not an appropriate forum for this type of political venom Rosie.
Who can possibly calculate the exact numbers, but LOTS of people die from the coal industry. Miners (direct accidents and subsequent black lung disease), construction of plants, operating the railroads (the coal-carrying part), running the plants...I'd guess at least a hundred per year, probably closer to a thousand. But then, that is still small potatoes compared to say, smoking, that kills more than 1,000 Americans PER DAY!! Sorry, got off the subject....My solution to our power problem: 1) tax subsidies for solar power development, and 2)return to building nuclear power plants. Plenty of Uranium available. The spent fuel is now and can always be stored on-site in pools. Nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, cheapest alternative to our current energy problems. The nuclear activists are misguided nuts. One recent observer said a nuclear protester was driving away from a nuclear protest in his SUV, not wearing a seat belt, and smoking a cigarette. What is going to kill that guy? Certainly not a nuclear power plant. Oops, got to step off my soapbox now....
And who would you judge has the requisite experience in "intelligent diplomacy?"
It appears your knowledge of these plans is better than mine. I could find no reference to Chorister or Fleetwood, though Operation Dropshot is well known. Of course if we don't have such plans ready to go against potential enemies, we are incredibly shortsighted. I think it was in the news a couple of years ago we even have plans to attack Israel. It wouldn't surprise me if we gave nuclear weapons to Israel, so you could be right about that too. Even if oil were the only reason to secure the Middle East, I would think that is a sufficient reason. As long as the United States is prohibited from exploiting our own oil fields by environmental extremists (and the big companies who want us oil-dependent), we will be dependent on foreign oil. If the terrorists were, for example, to raise the price of oil to $500/barrel, what then? But that's a subject for a non-slashdot blog. As a matter of record, the United States did NOT violate the ABM Treaty. I am very familiar with that treaty, and it had a provision for abrogation with six months notice, which the United States carefully followed. Meanwhile, we had "caught" the [then] Soviets in several clear violations, which they admitted after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. For sure, it is very, very difficult for Iran to develop nuclear-tipped missiles which can reach the United States, but not so hard to develop ones that can reach our European allies. Are we to just forget our allies as Iran develops their terror weapons? And, Iran has asserted that Isreal must be destroyed. One can assume from all this rhetoric that Israel and/or the United States will soon attack Iran if it does't cease and desist with its nuclear program. Iran doesn't need such a program since it has all the oil it will ever need for power. I would estimate such an attack would be limited to only destroying the nuclear capability, but that may not be possible with a surgical strike since many of the facilities are likely burried so deep even a nuke can't reach them, even if we had perfect knowledge of where they are. It's a sad and dangerous world we live in. Always has been and probably always will be. It takes many years to develop, manufacture, and deploy missile defenses; therefore, we can't wait until Iran has deployed offensive missiles to start such a program. Sorry for rambling.
The only info I can find on Truman's post war nuclear plan is the one to eliminate nuclear weapons and form an international coalition to ensure that no nation developed them. See http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_06/LookingbackBaruch.asp While it might make sense that Russia would not want any nearby nation to acquire nukes, Russia is apparently helping Iran do just that by selling them components and loaning scientists while at the same time standing in the way of our attempts to stop them (at least according to CNN). The idea that a surviving missile shield could be effective after an attempted first strike has merit. But the corollary that the United States would suddenly, unprovoked, and with total lack of rationale or sanity, attack Russia is nonsensical. On the other hand, that some Muslim state or group might decide to do this would be totally consistent with their radical doctrine. While it would be nice to somehow talk the missile threat away, one observer noted that defensive weapons are better than paper at stopping enemy missiles. If a defensive shield is so easy to penetrate, why would an enemy be concerned about it? An enemy should be happy we are wasting our money on it.
You are right about the uselessness of the big fuel-air bomb against hardened targets; not everyone is aware of that significant distinction. Your point about Russia not installing bases is correct too. Since their government imploded, they even compressed lost most of their satellite countries. The use of nukes though in WWII, by historian accounts, saved many lives on both sides by ending the war almost immediately. Both my father and my ex-wife's father were on their way to Japan, probably to die, when the bombs were dropped. Thus, I am here, and perhaps you too, as a result of them. Russia recently upgraded its missile shield around Moscow, which has been in place for more than 30 years. Your description of the mutual assured destruction ability of both the United States and Russia is accurate. But, as R. Reagan said in 1983, wouldn't it be better if we could defend Americans rather than avenge them? It is simply not affordable to protect against an attack from Russia, so we don't even try. They have thousands of nukes, we have less than two dozen interceptors - you do the math. Our defensive missiles are to protect agains rogue nations which have nukes and missiles, but no fear of retaliation.
check out this site http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
Yours was the first comment I noticed that addressed the relevant point in the article that two eyes look at two different things from time to time. Could it be that this is normal behavior for all visual tasks, not just reading? Mostly one eye is doing the work while the other is assessing the work to do, and possibly they switch functions several times per second, or not, or something like that. Funded study anyone, anyone.....?
A friend recently returned from an Alaskan cruise. He among others admired the glaciers. He reported that a tour guide said those glaciers are retreating (as from global warming). He also pointed out they had been retreating since being discovered in 1770. This, among other GW/AGW comments, does not belong on this thread, but I just heard the story and finally found a spot for it. Sorry...
I think DSCS was manufactured by Lockheed Martin, so there you go....
I'm not positive what detector material was used for the specific application, but CCDs have been around since the mid 1970s in military research. Bob Fugate is the real expert in this area. See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0RBE/is_200 4_Annual/ai_n8589053
The technique works only for a very small area of the sky at any one time since the jitter associated with the atmosphere varries depending on where one looks. Invented in 1995? The idea was around long before that and successfully demonstrated in the early 80's -- yes, in the eighties.
You are 100% correct in everything you wrote. Unless the store employees were certain you stole the merchandise (which they couldn't have been since you didn't steal it), they should not have questioned you. I've been in that same situation many times (going to a return desk with a receipt and merchandise I COULD have just picked up right then), but have never been questioned about it. BTW SAM'S CLUB has always (at least for the 15 years I have been going to them) checked customer's receipts against merchandise in the cart as they exit the store. Good luck if you sue. Perhaps it will teach them to fix their procedures.