"Unfortunately we have become the world's police..."
Got American exceptionalism?
"We'd taken several approaches with Saddam..."
Again, got American exceptionalism?
"It will still be 20-30 year before we know the true effects [of the Iraq war]...."
Hmm. Well over 100,000 civilian deaths, not counting the years of brutal sanctions. Oh, but Saddam, Uday, and a few other boogeymen are gone, not that you give a fuck. Because if you did, you'd be out there calling for war with every single blood-soaked shit bag who holds power, including dare I say the ruling class of the United States and Great Britain. At that point your sad little mind may crack. Take your regime change bullshit and shove it up your ass.
"The 'truth' is that Hussein provoked, prodded, and pushed the U.S. into this bloody war."
Really? No one has ever pushed up into a war. Ever. We look for them, because there's money and power in it for the people who rule the country. We do not give two shits about atrocities, injustice, genocide, drugs, or terrorism unless we can use those thing to furthur our own goals.
Does US commercial journalism or editorial writing have any integrity or value to the public? No, especially the editorial writing. I don't see any reason to throw money away.
Trade-ins might ruffle developer feathers, but they should know that without getting some value back on my old games I could seldom afford to purchase new ones.
This may look like trolling, but a fact is a fact. The lot of you went knee-jerk through the ceiling regarding a sensationalist British article that avoiding some pretty glaring facts to paint an alarmist picture. Do some research before you rally the troops to fight the great fight, and maybe people won't take you for fools when a real issue comes along.
It's another example of bad journalism that plays to emotions and doens't offer nearly enough analysis to be useful. I had to do a lot of homework to understand the actual context of the amendment. Bills and amendments are structured in such a way that you can easily take bits and pieces of out context. By itself an amendment is meaningless. They conveniently overlook the following from the description of her proposed amendment to Inouye's proposed amendment
"To clarify that in establishing obligations under the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program..."
Now, presumably they expect the reader to research what the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program is, because they certainly don't mention it. It's a broadband access subsidy program. See for yourself.
http://www.foxrothschild.com/Newsstand/News.aspx?id=8888
I don't necessarily agree with the amendment, but it does appear to be an attempt to avoid letting subsidy funds be used for embarassing purposes.
If the vast majority of the action shots on SpeedNet's website (http://www.speednet.com/index.html) are any indication, hot women dig it as they must also dig surfing online with their laptops on the floor.
Implementing caps makes me assume that their infrastructure doesn't support growth in service to new customers. Therefore the rates on all their capped plans should go down in direct proportion to the reduction in service, or they should change the bandwidth on all plans to account for the growth in service without added infrastructure. If they're not doing either of those measure, then they're simply trying to milk more revenue out of their customers with no increase to their actual costs.
Insurance companies salivate at the prospect of large DNA databases that they can lobby their way into. If privatization people get hold of DNA data warehousing then sooner or later your DNA will be for sale.
What could have been.
On the other hand. It could also have been Fannie Mae execs attempting to cover up illegal activities and fraud. In that case, nice catch!
Because he's not disclosing classified materials. If the NSA does something illegal, they have no protection against someone disclosing that activity beyond the usual intimidation and threats they'll make to shut people up. That's why we have whistle-blower laws.
I'm really looking forward to The Forever War. I've never watched a novel-based movie that matches the experience of actually reading the novel, but I read it several years ago and will probably be able to watch it without constantly making the comparison. Ironically I found the book in an airman barracks on Prince Sultan Air Base back in early 2001.
That analogy might work if we're talking about a miscreant who rapes by proxy with an army of relatively stupid rape-bots that run around looking specifically for people with no nickers whose legs are spread wide open and/or ass cheeks spread to accommodate its specific design. In that case, if you know or suspect that there's an army of such rape-bots running around and you don't take adequate precautions, you won't get much sympathy.
The only reason I want bandwidth is for P2P. If my local cable company decides to start blocking or putting the squeeze on P2P traffic, I'll probably cancel my account and find the cheapest DSL option available through my phone service provider. I don't think I'd want to go back to dial-up, but I can certainly live without a 1 Mbps+ connection.
This is where I should've made my point regarding foreign IT contracts rather than the open source topic above. At any rate, we've been awarding government IT infrastructure contracts to foreign companies over the last decade. That this might be a problem shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone and should be regarded as criminal neglect by those who've let it happen. As for HBI's assertion that the executive branch is where the goods are, I want to point out that the Chinese and other foreign governments lobby our representatives as much as any industry. They have a huge incentive to gain leverage over them in order to influence US trade and foreign policy. I can't imagine that a US company operating in a similar capacity overseas wouldn't find itself under the uncomfortable scrutiny and manipulation of our intelligence services.
Ugh, I wish I'd better emphasized the physical/network security point I was trying to make with that example. You can convert software and operating systems, which is rather expensive in the short run, but if you don't solve some more fundamental problems first it won't be very effective. Not only do we have issues with who's running government IT, but we also have significant privacy issues that VERY FEW have had the presence of mind to address in our hallowed halls of government. I'd have more respect for the Obama administration if they'd take action on these issues first rather than make a watered-down nod to open source, especially following the IT atrocities of the Bush administration.
might be to eliminate IT contracts for sensitive services and communications that have been awarded to foreign companies. Foxcom, an Israeli company, comes to mind. The government should handle its own IT, not contract it out, especially when it involves communications that could easily be used to gain leverage (read blackmail) and shift US foreign and domestic policy further against our best interests than we typically experience.
Since it highlights the safety concerns of putting nuclear warheads on aircraft, this seems like a good excuse to resurrect a faded story that didn't live past the UK arms deal scandal. Whether or not the U.S. has, ahem, only a small number of serious incidents in its past, there's no doubting that we're guilty of significant negligence in our handling of nuclear weapons.
Here we have then Senator and later Secretary of Defense William Cohen's timely comments in 1992 regarding the W-69 warhead:
The Senator from Louisiana has pointed out--and I think very effectively, as has the Senator from New Mexico--that there are serious safety issues that have been raised... The Drell panel was the one that came to the conclusion that a substantial portion of our inventory still has major safety problems... The Senator from Louisiana started to deal with that, and he showed a photograph, which I did not see at the time, but perhaps it was that accident we had at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, in 1980 with a B-52 bomber. That bomber was loaded with SRAM-A missiles, and the W-69 warhead on that SRAM-A missile is not equipped with insensitive high explosives, or with a fire resistant pit, or with the enhanced nuclear detonation safety systems. It has none of those safety systems. We were lucky in this particular tragedy. As I recall, it was Dan Rowen who used the expression `the fickle finger of fate.' We were spared a major catastrophe by that fickle finger of fate, because the wind was blowing the wrong way that day.
So the Pentagon and perhaps the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services let a known safety problem and potential environmental disaster persist between 1980 and 1992 and more likely since the weapon's development in 1972. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence. I think their sudden interest in safer warheads in 1992 and the subsequent retirement of the W69 (pg 27) add credibility to the story's allegations. They may have been willing to overlook the risks until chance conspired to illustrate that it's also a proliferation risk. It'll be a few more decades before we admit that we actually lost them.
This is a clear attempt to apply the cell phone industry's business model to internet access. I think the traffic limits and outrageous overuse fees couldn't make my point more clearly. When you establish those limits, you profit both ways--when the customer limits their use to avoid exceeding the limit you can deliver less than what the customer paid for, and when they exceed you can rape them. Expect to see your monthly service become a 12 month or longer contract with early termination fees if they realize their ambitions.
Slashdot Mirror
"Unfortunately we have become the world's police..."
Got American exceptionalism?
"We'd taken several approaches with Saddam..."
Again, got American exceptionalism?
"It will still be 20-30 year before we know the true effects [of the Iraq war]...."
Hmm. Well over 100,000 civilian deaths, not counting the years of brutal sanctions. Oh, but Saddam, Uday, and a few other boogeymen are gone, not that you give a fuck. Because if you did, you'd be out there calling for war with every single blood-soaked shit bag who holds power, including dare I say the ruling class of the United States and Great Britain. At that point your sad little mind may crack. Take your regime change bullshit and shove it up your ass.
"The 'truth' is that Hussein provoked, prodded, and pushed the U.S. into this bloody war." Really? No one has ever pushed up into a war. Ever. We look for them, because there's money and power in it for the people who rule the country. We do not give two shits about atrocities, injustice, genocide, drugs, or terrorism unless we can use those thing to furthur our own goals.
Does US commercial journalism or editorial writing have any integrity or value to the public? No, especially the editorial writing. I don't see any reason to throw money away.
I hope you remembered to buy an extra LCD for that laptop.
Trade-ins might ruffle developer feathers, but they should know that without getting some value back on my old games I could seldom afford to purchase new ones.
This may look like trolling, but a fact is a fact. The lot of you went knee-jerk through the ceiling regarding a sensationalist British article that avoiding some pretty glaring facts to paint an alarmist picture. Do some research before you rally the troops to fight the great fight, and maybe people won't take you for fools when a real issue comes along.
Exactly.
"To clarify that in establishing obligations under the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program..."
Now, presumably they expect the reader to research what the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program is, because they certainly don't mention it. It's a broadband access subsidy program. See for yourself. http://www.foxrothschild.com/Newsstand/News.aspx?id=8888 I don't necessarily agree with the amendment, but it does appear to be an attempt to avoid letting subsidy funds be used for embarassing purposes.
If the vast majority of the action shots on SpeedNet's website (http://www.speednet.com/index.html) are any indication, hot women dig it as they must also dig surfing online with their laptops on the floor.
...they should change the bandwidth on all plans and decrease rates...
Implementing caps makes me assume that their infrastructure doesn't support growth in service to new customers. Therefore the rates on all their capped plans should go down in direct proportion to the reduction in service, or they should change the bandwidth on all plans to account for the growth in service without added infrastructure. If they're not doing either of those measure, then they're simply trying to milk more revenue out of their customers with no increase to their actual costs.
Insurance companies salivate at the prospect of large DNA databases that they can lobby their way into. If privatization people get hold of DNA data warehousing then sooner or later your DNA will be for sale.
What could have been. On the other hand. It could also have been Fannie Mae execs attempting to cover up illegal activities and fraud. In that case, nice catch!
Because he's not disclosing classified materials. If the NSA does something illegal, they have no protection against someone disclosing that activity beyond the usual intimidation and threats they'll make to shut people up. That's why we have whistle-blower laws.
I'm really looking forward to The Forever War. I've never watched a novel-based movie that matches the experience of actually reading the novel, but I read it several years ago and will probably be able to watch it without constantly making the comparison. Ironically I found the book in an airman barracks on Prince Sultan Air Base back in early 2001.
I'm glad to see that someone's stepping up to fill Katherine Harris's crazy shoes.
That analogy might work if we're talking about a miscreant who rapes by proxy with an army of relatively stupid rape-bots that run around looking specifically for people with no nickers whose legs are spread wide open and/or ass cheeks spread to accommodate its specific design. In that case, if you know or suspect that there's an army of such rape-bots running around and you don't take adequate precautions, you won't get much sympathy.
The only reason I want bandwidth is for P2P. If my local cable company decides to start blocking or putting the squeeze on P2P traffic, I'll probably cancel my account and find the cheapest DSL option available through my phone service provider. I don't think I'd want to go back to dial-up, but I can certainly live without a 1 Mbps+ connection.
This is where I should've made my point regarding foreign IT contracts rather than the open source topic above. At any rate, we've been awarding government IT infrastructure contracts to foreign companies over the last decade. That this might be a problem shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone and should be regarded as criminal neglect by those who've let it happen. As for HBI's assertion that the executive branch is where the goods are, I want to point out that the Chinese and other foreign governments lobby our representatives as much as any industry. They have a huge incentive to gain leverage over them in order to influence US trade and foreign policy. I can't imagine that a US company operating in a similar capacity overseas wouldn't find itself under the uncomfortable scrutiny and manipulation of our intelligence services.
Ugh, I wish I'd better emphasized the physical/network security point I was trying to make with that example. You can convert software and operating systems, which is rather expensive in the short run, but if you don't solve some more fundamental problems first it won't be very effective. Not only do we have issues with who's running government IT, but we also have significant privacy issues that VERY FEW have had the presence of mind to address in our hallowed halls of government. I'd have more respect for the Obama administration if they'd take action on these issues first rather than make a watered-down nod to open source, especially following the IT atrocities of the Bush administration.
I wasn't trying to be subtle. And I don't apologize for what I implied.
might be to eliminate IT contracts for sensitive services and communications that have been awarded to foreign companies. Foxcom, an Israeli company, comes to mind. The government should handle its own IT, not contract it out, especially when it involves communications that could easily be used to gain leverage (read blackmail) and shift US foreign and domestic policy further against our best interests than we typically experience.
Since it highlights the safety concerns of putting nuclear warheads on aircraft, this seems like a good excuse to resurrect a faded story that didn't live past the UK arms deal scandal. Whether or not the U.S. has, ahem, only a small number of serious incidents in its past, there's no doubting that we're guilty of significant negligence in our handling of nuclear weapons.
This first article was first published in July 2005, Lost Nuclear Warheads from a B-52 Now in Iran? and the second nearly a year later in April 2006, Cheney Violated International Law In Failing To Report The 1991 B-52 'Lost Nuke Incident' In Iran, According To Former Forensic Intelligence Officer. According to both, the incident involved W-69 SRAM warheads.
Here we have then Senator and later Secretary of Defense William Cohen's timely comments in 1992 regarding the W-69 warhead:
The Senator from Louisiana has pointed out--and I think very effectively, as has the Senator from New Mexico--that there are serious safety issues that have been raised... The Drell panel was the one that came to the conclusion that a substantial portion of our inventory still has major safety problems... The Senator from Louisiana started to deal with that, and he showed a photograph, which I did not see at the time, but perhaps it was that accident we had at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, in 1980 with a B-52 bomber. That bomber was loaded with SRAM-A missiles, and the W-69 warhead on that SRAM-A missile is not equipped with insensitive high explosives, or with a fire resistant pit, or with the enhanced nuclear detonation safety systems. It has none of those safety systems. We were lucky in this particular tragedy. As I recall, it was Dan Rowen who used the expression `the fickle finger of fate.' We were spared a major catastrophe by that fickle finger of fate, because the wind was blowing the wrong way that day.
So the Pentagon and perhaps the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services let a known safety problem and potential environmental disaster persist between 1980 and 1992 and more likely since the weapon's development in 1972. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence. I think their sudden interest in safer warheads in 1992 and the subsequent retirement of the W69 (pg 27) add credibility to the story's allegations. They may have been willing to overlook the risks until chance conspired to illustrate that it's also a proliferation risk. It'll be a few more decades before we admit that we actually lost them.
This is a clear attempt to apply the cell phone industry's business model to internet access. I think the traffic limits and outrageous overuse fees couldn't make my point more clearly. When you establish those limits, you profit both ways--when the customer limits their use to avoid exceeding the limit you can deliver less than what the customer paid for, and when they exceed you can rape them. Expect to see your monthly service become a 12 month or longer contract with early termination fees if they realize their ambitions.
But they might want to rethink that opinion when people start dropping all their extra mobile services to afford food and gas.