If Saddam attacked Iran, which is implied by claims that he's invaded his neighbors twice in the last 30 years, then he shouldn't have needed protecting from the fundamentalists, eh?
If he didn't attack Iran, and did need our support to prevent Iraq from being overrun by the Iranians, then that hardly counts as having invaded his neighbors, does it?
And you must be smoking some kind of crack to think we didn't encourage the war by being right there to sell Saddam weapons. Bottom line, it's amazingly hypocritical to say he was wrong to be fighting against Iran, but we weren't wrong to have sold him weapons for that fight.
Amazing. We actively encouraged one of those, yet we can claim to use that as an excuse for war. Our hypocrisy and hubris must know no bounds.
As for the other bs about proof, you're just using the same tired arguments. I thought you weren't going to beat that dead horse? Here's the dead horse response: using that justification, we can attack just about anyone anywhere (hey, we ought to be attacking Russia, right, they supplied critical hi tech gear to the enemy).
Re:Offtopic, but this is my opinion dammit
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
An A/C wrote:
Exactly. Since we're both equally evil, last man who doesn't die, wins. Place your bets.
MMMMM who needs civilization after all?
Re:ABC cuts gore from injured child's Iraq war pho
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
There are many who have called the USA the new Roman Empire, including many evangelicals in our own country (who are likely currently supporting this war, of course). Ready to be toppled?
1) what precisely are the protesters doing that is interfering with the war effort? I can't see anything substantial.
2) To claim that this war is preserving our freedom is ignorant in and of itself. Saddam was no credible threat, no clear and present danger, by any measure of the real facts I've been able to gather. There are lots of assertions that he's a threat, but no one with the facts seems to want to actually share them (Even Colin Powell's speech, while it reconfirmed that Saddam is a bad bad man, did not provide substantial facts of a clear and present danger to the USA).
I don't trust the government any further than I can throw John Ashcroft, so asking me to "trust them, they know what they're talking about" is going to fall on deaf ears. There are so many credible explanations for the current administration's position on Iraq that don't involve Saddam being a threat that I need very strong proof that he really is before I'm going to believe what they say.
Re:Offtopic, but this is my opinion dammit
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 1
You must admit your people come across as awfully savage and unloveable. Fix the problem.
You should look in a mirror sometime.
Re:Did you trace to that?
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Interesting.
From my former university:
$ traceroute 217.26.193.10
traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 136.176.49.21 @ hme0
traceroute to 217.26.193.10 (217.26.193.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 rsm1.bradley.edu (136.176.48.1) 1.275 ms 1.263 ms 2.331 ms
2 bu.i2-f0.1.bradley.edu (136.176.2.33) 0.877 ms 0.775 ms 0.961 ms
3 bu.i2-f0.1.bradley.edu (136.176.2.33) 0.565 ms !H * 0.725 ms !H
Looks like your traceroute isn't the only place it gets blocked.
I just typed the IP into a browser....why? (Just double checked the email, that's the IP) (double checked my browser history too, and I have a bunch of arabic text in the history that opens up to that IP if I say "open in a new window".)
Other people have pointed this out too...."embed" sounds an awful lot like "in bed". I don't blame them being reasonably positive, after all, their life is in the hands of the people they're reporting about, but still, no one should pretend that the embedded journalists are going to be the objective face of this story.
Re:Slashdot effect on a global scale?
on
4l-j4z333ra 0wn3d
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I had some friends discussing this yesterday and someone was quick enough to snag the IP from cache and email it to a few of us. I haven't looked at the photos myself, but I did verify that this IP worked yesterday. Now, it appears to be not responding any better than its name servers did yesterday.
And before everyone jumps on the "TurboTax is the work of the devil" bandwagon, this year I bought it before I knew about the problems, and if they don't change their authentication I won't be using them next year.
Of the last 5 years, only one have I not done my own taxes with TurboTax (I bought my first house, and moved state-to-state, so I wanted a professional's help that one year), and done the e-file thing. Never have I had any problem whatsoever. My refunds have been promptly direct deposited, I have not been audited, it wasn't expensive (I bought TurboTax deluxe, which reimburses the costs of filing if you fill out the refund form), and was generally a Good Thing[tm].
It sounds very much like you have a very strange set of circumstances (two state returns?), and/or you were using some cheap or badly designed software (and for that matter, it could have been TurboTax, I haven't plumbed the more bizarre alternatives; as I said, when I did stuff that was significantly complex, I went to H&R Block--and their e-file was as easy, just way more expensive).
Presumably, Intel will still sell CPUs without this protection on a no-warranty basis so people can overclock if they like, and Intel loses
neither money nor reputation.
Got and example of some chip that they sell like that today (at least one modern enough to possibly have had the anti-overclock circuitry in it)?
You must not have been reading the right stuff then. I was a child reading "Ranger Rick Magazine" in the 70's. While I don't agree with the change in perspecting being sufficient to discount all things Greens say, or to discount global warming out of hand, it is definitely true that people were warning of another ice age possibly coming. I think the theory at the time was something about all the smog reflecting away all our heat.
As for this article, I think it's interesting. So the sun is the biggest culprit in global warming? I'd say human activity is still likely the biggest culprit that we can do anything about. And if the sun really is warming significantly, it might be a good idea to get moving on resolving our own contributions before the sun's make our efforts moot.
I wonder if a Sun or IBM unix box could handle this.
It all depends on how the I/O busses are laid out. For a single channel, I believe 2GB fibre channel is the fastest they can do, but if you stripe a bunch of channels together, you can probably sink that much data.
I really like the liberal bias today: absolutely no coverage whatsoever on CNN about US war protesters. Only the folks protesting overseas matter, I guess.
They find out because the hospital, or your health provider, or someone else in that chain has agreed to sell your information. Yes, I agree, that's a bad thing, but it's pretty difficult to find the exact culprit. And the good thing is, if you could find the culprit you could just "not get" the spam, because the IRL baby spammers aren't just dumping phone books and sending mail to randome people.
And they actually make some effort to make sure you're in the right demographic to receive that junk mail. You buy a house, you get home related junk mail. You have a baby, you get baby related junk mail. With spam, my dad gets breast enhancement offers, and my wife gets penis lengthening offers. I'm sure once my baby is old enough to have his own email, he'll be getting porn spam. The spammers have no limits of any sort on what they're sending or who it goes to, because they have nearly zero overhead. Put some overhead in place, and they'll get a lot pickier. Spam won't ever go away, but at least it'll stop being the huge waster of bandwidth it is today.
The four listed above have violated UNSEC resolutions regarding trade with Iraq and the 91 cease fire for many years now.
Prove it, embarass them publically. That couldn't possibly be any diplomatically worse than what we're doing now, and it'd convince me that you were right to boot.
More and more I realize that my policy of keeping my cellphone turned off unless I'm replying to a page or explicitly asking someone to call me at it is the best one.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, right.
If Saddam attacked Iran, which is implied by claims that he's invaded his neighbors twice in the last 30 years, then he shouldn't have needed protecting from the fundamentalists, eh?
If he didn't attack Iran, and did need our support to prevent Iraq from being overrun by the Iranians, then that hardly counts as having invaded his neighbors, does it?
And you must be smoking some kind of crack to think we didn't encourage the war by being right there to sell Saddam weapons. Bottom line, it's amazingly hypocritical to say he was wrong to be fighting against Iran, but we weren't wrong to have sold him weapons for that fight.
Amazing. We actively encouraged one of those, yet we can claim to use that as an excuse for war. Our hypocrisy and hubris must know no bounds.
As for the other bs about proof, you're just using the same tired arguments. I thought you weren't going to beat that dead horse? Here's the dead horse response: using that justification, we can attack just about anyone anywhere (hey, we ought to be attacking Russia, right, they supplied critical hi tech gear to the enemy).
Exactly. Since we're both equally evil, last man who doesn't die, wins. Place your bets.
MMMMM who needs civilization after all?
There are many who have called the USA the new Roman Empire, including many evangelicals in our own country (who are likely currently supporting this war, of course). Ready to be toppled?
2) To claim that this war is preserving our freedom is ignorant in and of itself. Saddam was no credible threat, no clear and present danger, by any measure of the real facts I've been able to gather. There are lots of assertions that he's a threat, but no one with the facts seems to want to actually share them (Even Colin Powell's speech, while it reconfirmed that Saddam is a bad bad man, did not provide substantial facts of a clear and present danger to the USA).
I don't trust the government any further than I can throw John Ashcroft, so asking me to "trust them, they know what they're talking about" is going to fall on deaf ears. There are so many credible explanations for the current administration's position on Iraq that don't involve Saddam being a threat that I need very strong proof that he really is before I'm going to believe what they say.
You should look in a mirror sometime.
From my former university:
$ traceroute 217.26.193.10
traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 136.176.49.21 @ hme0
traceroute to 217.26.193.10 (217.26.193.10), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 rsm1.bradley.edu (136.176.48.1) 1.275 ms 1.263 ms 2.331 ms
2 bu.i2-f0.1.bradley.edu (136.176.2.33) 0.877 ms 0.775 ms 0.961 ms
3 bu.i2-f0.1.bradley.edu (136.176.2.33) 0.565 ms !H * 0.725 ms !H
Looks like your traceroute isn't the only place it gets blocked.
I just typed the IP into a browser....why? (Just double checked the email, that's the IP) (double checked my browser history too, and I have a bunch of arabic text in the history that opens up to that IP if I say "open in a new window".)
Other people have pointed this out too...."embed" sounds an awful lot like "in bed". I don't blame them being reasonably positive, after all, their life is in the hands of the people they're reporting about, but still, no one should pretend that the embedded journalists are going to be the objective face of this story.
I had some friends discussing this yesterday and someone was quick enough to snag the IP from cache and email it to a few of us. I haven't looked at the photos myself, but I did verify that this IP worked yesterday. Now, it appears to be not responding any better than its name servers did yesterday.
And before everyone jumps on the "TurboTax is the work of the devil" bandwagon, this year I bought it before I knew about the problems, and if they don't change their authentication I won't be using them next year.
It sounds very much like you have a very strange set of circumstances (two state returns?), and/or you were using some cheap or badly designed software (and for that matter, it could have been TurboTax, I haven't plumbed the more bizarre alternatives; as I said, when I did stuff that was significantly complex, I went to H&R Block--and their e-file was as easy, just way more expensive).
And how exactly does that contradict the point that at some point, maybe even now, there are or will be ways to cheat PunkBuster?
exZACKtly.
Got and example of some chip that they sell like that today (at least one modern enough to possibly have had the anti-overclock circuitry in it)?
As for this article, I think it's interesting. So the sun is the biggest culprit in global warming? I'd say human activity is still likely the biggest culprit that we can do anything about. And if the sun really is warming significantly, it might be a good idea to get moving on resolving our own contributions before the sun's make our efforts moot.
It all depends on how the I/O busses are laid out. For a single channel, I believe 2GB fibre channel is the fastest they can do, but if you stripe a bunch of channels together, you can probably sink that much data.
What are your children doing up at 10 and 11pm (CST) watching adult swim? You have a problem with it, don't let them watch it.
I'm thinking late at night in adult swim, it may not be quite so out of bounds.
Riiiight. Ted Turner, anti-capitalist.
I really like the liberal bias today: absolutely no coverage whatsoever on CNN about US war protesters. Only the folks protesting overseas matter, I guess.
They find out because the hospital, or your health provider, or someone else in that chain has agreed to sell your information. Yes, I agree, that's a bad thing, but it's pretty difficult to find the exact culprit. And the good thing is, if you could find the culprit you could just "not get" the spam, because the IRL baby spammers aren't just dumping phone books and sending mail to randome people.
And they actually make some effort to make sure you're in the right demographic to receive that junk mail. You buy a house, you get home related junk mail. You have a baby, you get baby related junk mail. With spam, my dad gets breast enhancement offers, and my wife gets penis lengthening offers. I'm sure once my baby is old enough to have his own email, he'll be getting porn spam. The spammers have no limits of any sort on what they're sending or who it goes to, because they have nearly zero overhead. Put some overhead in place, and they'll get a lot pickier. Spam won't ever go away, but at least it'll stop being the huge waster of bandwidth it is today.
Prove it, embarass them publically. That couldn't possibly be any diplomatically worse than what we're doing now, and it'd convince me that you were right to boot.
More and more I realize that my policy of keeping my cellphone turned off unless I'm replying to a page or explicitly asking someone to call me at it is the best one.