More recent films, from "Signs" to "Contact" have used a sci-fi setting to discuss serious questions of faith.
Why is this true? Because science and religion are closely entwined--if not the same thing. They are both the search for the truth. There is a reason so many scientific discoveries were made by priests and monks
At some point, the major religions lost the bit about the search, and decided the truth had been found. I think science, as Contact points out, must also acknowledge that not everything is knowable.
This is what is what's is so disturbing about "the origin of the species through evolution" and "creationism" debate where it seems each considers the other "blasphemous". They aren't really so mutually exclusive.
This is just an anti-libertarian rant/flame from some disgruntled control freak. Ignore it and move on.
You should know that this is Lawrence Lessig of Eldred v. Ashcroft fame (challenge to the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act). He's not some nut-job that should just be dismissed. This doesn't mean his ideas are good or should be used, but I'll give you 10-to-1 that he has answers to your questions. They may not satisfy you, but I don't think it's very safe to assume that a Stanford Law professor, with significant experience arguing before the Supreme Court can't handle your questions.
That's absolutely correct. You will be judged by the company you "keep" (in fact that's what Slashdot just did), but that doesn't mean it's fair or accurate.
Anyway, I'm guessing the Doubleclick brought her on because of her credibilty and if nothing happened at Doubleclick during her tenure, she should keep the credibility.
She joined DoubleClick in February 2000
after the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into complaints that the company was improperly storing and sharing private user data.... DoubleClick settled most of those lawsuits, and created a division specializing in privacy compliance, which O'Connor Kelly ran.
Anyone have more details about what her involvement was here. From this article, I'm not sure I can jump to the conclusion that she's evil. Just curious, this certainly makes you think anyway. Thanks for answers!;-)
Trying to put a computer in every home? Try getting clean water in every home first. For now lets work on that. We can put in computers once we can help them READ.
This is such a tired argument. Yes, choosing between water and net access, I'd choose water. But, there is a balance.
Just because there are homeless in the U.S., doesn't mean we should all give up Internet access. (We should find a way to fix that problem, but...)
Guess what, the portion of the population that CAN read can benefit through Internet access. More to the point, that portion of the population, can bring less-well-off up. Can improve efficiency of operations and bring in NEW things to TEACH.
Well, duh. But Iraq is no third or fourth world country. This is a fairly rich country with a pretty educated work force. Do they need Internet first? No, but will internet infastructure improve life? YES.
Internet access is very much like phone lines. It's not just for leisure anymore-it moves information REALLY efficiently.
Anyone who suggests otherwise should get their heads out of the 90s.
The story to me seems the opposite. Web sites are handling this quite well. The BBC is WFM currently. No big slowdown.
More to the point, both NY Times and WashingtonPost.com are serving huge images on their home page. MSNBC, FOXNEWS and CNN also seem to have no problem keeping up with my broadband connection.
The news organizations use InMarSat [inmarsat.com] video terminals -- it's a 64k ISDN connection, which is why it is so grainy.
Yes, and mostly yes. The news organizations are also using regular Sat broadcast equipment in more establish/less dangerous places (in Kuwait for example). That, however, requires a big truck.
The InMarSat is a relatively new -- much more portable -- method.
I know, this isn't a joke, but let's pretend the war was taking place in the US. Imagine it in your mind. Then turn on the TV and look at their cute little "Showdown with Saddam" graphics and glitz.
We don't have to. We saw Sept. 11.
For better or worse, the glitz was well entrenched by nightfall.
Sure there are points, but I don't think they all weigh up to taking the deal.
Totally removing Microsoft from the University is bound to create lots of havoc.
Let's talk to that donor and get $10.4 million for a kick-ass Apple/Linux lab. Perhaps even prohibit the use of MS software there--on THOSE MACHINES.
But keeping it out of the University is overkill. You don't win users by forcing them to use your software (ok well MS does, but;-) ) win them over by providing a better experience.
How often do we hear about "the best tool for the job" on Slashdot. If MS comes up with a decent program -- LET THE DAMN STUDENTS AND PROFESSORS USE IT! Are you going to have a business school that doesn't ever show its students Power Point?
Further, making any commitment for up to 10 years in the software industry is just looney.
Third world countries are stuck in a vicious cycle. Internet access should be the last thing on their minds. Basic infrastructure such as roads, sewage, hydro are needed first and formost.
What do you think the Internet is. It's basic infastructure. Computers and the Internet move information -- FAST and EFFICIENTLY.
Not only is that important for health, education and general quality of life, but employment can arise through it too.
The Internet is no longer a simple luxury. In fact, my specific job would be impossible without the Internet, but it has nothing to do with the Internet. It's just how we deliver our product.
I'd much rather that we mined asteroids - to me the moon is an international treasure (I wanted to say "wonder of the World, but heh) and to start to slowly erode it would be a crime second only to ruining our own planet.
That's why we should just mine the creamy filling.;-)
It was literally 'found' in a rock pool. They stumbled across it.
Your logic astounds me. They didn't "stumble across it." They dutifully collected thousands and thousands of samples and tested each of them for anti-biotic properties. They spent some SEROIUS money.
Kinda like how Kleenex and Xerox lost theirs (everyone says "may I have a kleenex?" or "could you xerox this?" and so it became colloquial and no longer a trademark).
?!?!?
Both are still very much trademarks. You may use the words in conversation, but I can't make a photocopier named "Xerox."
What Google is doing is stupid. Mostly because, "to google" refers only at this point to USING GOOGLE!. (Not search)
I don't think going full force against Iraq for crimes the US has failed to prove is the correct choice of action.
Ok, but personally, I feel that all signs point to Iraq being guilty. (Even if its not indisputable proof).
The US can afford to be patient in this matter.
12 years is a very long time. The point is the only real evidence of ABC weapons has come out through defectors. One of whom (a Hussein son-in-law) returned to Iraq and was killed.
It is clear, the US are going to attack very soon, disregarding the position of all of its allies
Spain and the U.K. don't count??? How about Australia?
The president is supposed to represent and accomodate the will of the people.
Yes and no. We could use polls to run foreign policy, but that's not how we believe these things work. We (ideally) elect experts to these positions because we feel they will do a better job. Our influence is in making sure the experts actually do a good job. If Bush is wrong, he will suffer in '04. He is not supposed to do whatever is popular.
And if it is truly about getting rid of a dangerous tyrant, why the *hell* are they ignoring N. Korea
A. I think Bush bungled it diplomatically, but given the current situation:
N. Korea has nukes and one hell of a strong army. In other words, N. Korea is nearly beyond the point of no return.
We can't take Korea without losing thousands of men and risking a nuclear conflict. N. Korea has also (for now) stayed in it's box. Hussein screwed up when he went after Kuwait. That war ended in a LEGAL requirement (via U.N.) that it meet certain demands. It didn't. The only option beyond sactions, is war. That's it.
If Bush's convicitons are right, why should he fear a debate?
What is there to DEBATE? It's bizare. It's very clear what has to happen hear to avoid war. This idea doesn't even really warrent a response.
How would a debate solve this conflict? Give me one question that won't make me laugh and you get a cookie.
Bush: Should you be required to disarm? Hussein: Noperooney!
Everyone knows that ultimately this is about getting oil so those SUVs can keep on wasting that gas.
If Bush was after the gas, he would of ended the sanctions 2 years ago and said "let it flow". It's not hard. Persian Gulf I was about oil--and the power Iraq would have acquired with like 40-50% of the oil deposits (or something crazy like that). That would be dangerous, but unacceptable under and expansionistic lunatic.
Shouldn't the US get its own house in order before it starts forcing its demands or will on another country? I guess I feel that my government should spend more of its time at home rather than outside its borders.
Because isolationism and appeasment has worked so well in the past. Yay WW1, WW2, Kosovo, Rawanda (oops never went).
Don't forget, Bush came into office with the intent on pulling back from Clinton's "loony" policies in Kosovo, Somalia and Hati.
Granted, Hussein hasn't provided documents to prove he doesn't have the weapons anymore. But I would have to ask that even if he did, would we believe him? Seems to be a case of Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
In mid-90s, there was proof--he did have an illegal (internationally) program. He says he's stopped, but has no paper work etc to even say that. Hussein is renowned for documenting EVERYTHING. He's gotten 12 years--and it's a pretyt pitiful showing. He's only damned if he fights the international community at each step.
As I sat and read through some of the recent legislation that has been passed (The Patriot Act) I really begin to wonder what it is that is going on in Washington. Granting wide sweeping power to allow search and seizure of records, property, etc. all in the name of Homeland Security leaves me wondering what country I'm living in. That people can be held without trial, or tried in a military tribunal without public knowledge orbeing allowed to present a defence worries me.
It's worries me too, but that does not pursuad me against this policy.
Is it possible that Bush is just using Iraq as an excuse to make a power grab or to place himself as a possible dictator?
Oh come on. Let's not play fiction here. Besides that this is ludicrous, how do you suppose this would occur. You think the military would actualy support Bush as a Dictator? The civilian population? In fact, Bush strikes me as one of the lesser power hungry leaders we've had in a long time. I don't like most of his policies, but he's not not going to be a dictator and he's not fucking Hitler.
After all, with the patriot act, opposing the "current government" and its "policies" can land you in jail. And wouldn't anyone that runs against Bush in the next election, run the risk of possibly being labeled a threat to national security and jailed? I know its far fetched, but still, the powers being given to the CIA, FBI and other agencies to monitor, track, investigate, hold, jail and question anyone for any reason even without probible cause can't be a good thing. It bothers me that a president would pass and sign anything that sets aside the bill of rights for its citizens. Sacrificing freedom in the name of securing freedom seems like too much to ask.
You say that as if its not a continum. We have swung too far in the wrong direction IMO. It was shoot-from-the-hip legislation. Congress backed off on the Total Information Awarness system and we should see some slow recovery begin. Fast enough for me? But we havn't lost our legitmacy as striving for a better world.
It reminds me of the old saying of "We want peace so much we're willing to go to war for it."
Exactly--and it's true. Imagine a brutal regime, that is willing to attack outside it's boreders and has B/C weapons and neared nuclear ones was required by the international community to disarm. It AGREED--to avoid its destruction.
Pop quiz. It went back on it's agreement. What do you do.
I don't know what the answers are, but the questions are making my head hurt!
Well, you asked!;-). We are off-topic, so moderators. Moderate with abandon.
You can start by watching Parliament debate it. Blair made some very persuasive arguments (better than I will in the few minutes I'm spending here). link
The basic idea is that Hussein attacked Kuwait. He surrendered under certain demands, but he has failed to meet them. "Peace" was granted only because of those demands. However, he has never met those demands. He has tried to get out from under them. In other words, "we" have been at war with Iraq for 12+ years.
There is a moral argument. It's a brutal regime by itself and the current "containment" program (sanctions) has made it even worse. He will be able to threaten millions in the middle-east and beyond.
There is a legal argument. Iraq has not met U.N. demand. Some countries/people want absolute and definitive proof of weapons. This is nearly impossible -- even with complete compliance with inspections. Iraq is big. ABC's (Atomic, Biological, Chemical) are small.
There is a common sense argument. Can we point to the ABC weapons? No, at least not with unclassifiable data. (Read, the value of having the ability to get the information is to high to give up for the political benefit). However all reason points to him having these weapons. Further, Hussein has prooven time and time again the willingness to back down just before war. As troops move back home, he rachets up the rhetoric and his weapons programs. (Fool me one, shame on you. Fool me five times... shame on me)
There is a strategic argument. If the U.N. can't uphold its promise of disarmament (do it voluntarily or we'll do it by force) because it rejects forece, then it is a body that will not be taken seriously by the world. It would then become powerless. Hussein would then go Kim Jung Il on us, put together a nuclear program and cause some serious havoc in the region.
On Sept. 11: Personally, I am not quite convinced on the links between Iraq and Sept. 11. Bin Laden and Hussein are -- at best -- "enemy of my enemy is my friend" types. Still, Sept. 11, showed the possibility for small powers to do great damage to the Western world. It was a realization that to protect our lives--one cannot
My reservations are: 1) End game -- can we build safer, better state within Iraq 2) Will the cities go black-hawk-down on us 3) Will the economic and political cost for (my) country--the United States be to great to bear alone. 4) After this, can we afford the even more expensive task of building greater relationships with the rest of the world. It will be difficult to put down this active enemy, but it will be much more difficult to make the more passive ones friends.
But those are mine.
P.S. The worst, however, has been much of Europe's unwillingness to even threaten war. If the allies had acted more as one, it seems to me war might have been less likely.
Congratulations, you're voting for politicians who openly take bribes. Back in my days, they at least did it in secret.
OR
It's not that they are bribes it's that the money SELECTS THE CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT. You assume that these candidates are evil and will vote for anything for money. I assume these candidates got this money BECAUSE they supported these companies' views.
In other words, what Candidate have YOU supported lately.
Slashdot Mirror
Trying to sell web pages is like attempting to sell mp3s on a p2p services where all mp3s are free.
It wont work. Instead you should use your websites to market and sell your magazine subscriptions.
Like Wired.
New York Times digital is PROFITABLE.
New York Times is PROFITABLE.
Apple sold one million songs in a week.
If you want to call people's business strategies stupid, try not to pick on the ones that are doing well.
More recent films, from "Signs" to "Contact" have used a sci-fi setting to discuss serious questions of faith.
Why is this true? Because science and religion are closely entwined--if not the same thing. They are both the search for the truth. There is a reason so many scientific discoveries were made by priests and monks
At some point, the major religions lost the bit about the search, and decided the truth had been found. I think science, as Contact points out, must also acknowledge that not everything is knowable.
This is what is what's is so disturbing about "the origin of the species through evolution" and "creationism" debate where it seems each considers the other "blasphemous". They aren't really so mutually exclusive.
This is just an anti-libertarian rant/flame from some disgruntled control freak. Ignore it and move on.
You should know that this is Lawrence Lessig of Eldred v. Ashcroft fame (challenge to the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act). He's not some nut-job that should just be dismissed. This doesn't mean his ideas are good or should be used, but I'll give you 10-to-1 that he has answers to your questions. They may not satisfy you, but I don't think it's very safe to assume that a Stanford Law professor, with significant experience arguing before the Supreme Court can't handle your questions.
That's absolutely correct. You will be judged by the company you "keep" (in fact that's what Slashdot just did), but that doesn't mean it's fair or accurate.
Anyway, I'm guessing the Doubleclick brought her on because of her credibilty and if nothing happened at Doubleclick during her tenure, she should keep the credibility.
In other words, give me evidence, not FUD.
Thanks for answers!
First Drool!
;-)
Eh, I can only go as low as -1... right?
Trying to put a computer in every home? Try getting clean water in every home first. For now lets work on that. We can put in computers once we can help them READ.
This is such a tired argument. Yes, choosing between water and net access, I'd choose water. But, there is a balance.
Just because there are homeless in the U.S., doesn't mean we should all give up Internet access. (We should find a way to fix that problem, but...)
Guess what, the portion of the population that CAN read can benefit through Internet access. More to the point, that portion of the population, can bring less-well-off up. Can improve efficiency of operations and bring in NEW things to TEACH.
FOOD/ELECTRICITY FIRST!
Well, duh. But Iraq is no third or fourth world country. This is a fairly rich country with a pretty educated work force. Do they need Internet first? No, but will internet infastructure improve life? YES.
Internet access is very much like phone lines. It's not just for leisure anymore-it moves information REALLY efficiently.
Anyone who suggests otherwise should get their heads out of the 90s.
This strikes me as an ego thing. Yahoo thinks it's a search site and thinks it should be the BEST search site.
Instead, it truly is a "portal" that offers a bunch of services in a "nice" wrapper -- ONE being search.
Google provides ONLY search and it does it really well. Yahoo should use google.
This is like news.yahoo.com forgoing all AP/Reuters/NY Times/ other sources of information and going into the news gathering business.
It doesn't make any sense!
Do it yourself rape!
Breaking your leg for dummies!
<really fast>Only $29.95</reallyfast>
Buy 1000 hours of music, get a free car!
;-)
1000 hours * $15 is $15,000. Amazingly, it probably is actually better the original way
The story to me seems the opposite. Web sites are handling this quite well. The BBC is WFM currently. No big slowdown.
More to the point, both NY Times and WashingtonPost.com are serving huge images on their home page. MSNBC, FOXNEWS and CNN also seem to have no problem keeping up with my broadband connection.
And they have been quite responsive.
They are even serving up video and audio.
Seem prepared to me.
The news organizations use InMarSat [inmarsat.com] video terminals -- it's a 64k ISDN connection, which is why it is so grainy.
Yes, and mostly yes. The news organizations are also using regular Sat broadcast equipment in more establish/less dangerous places (in Kuwait for example). That, however, requires a big truck.
The InMarSat is a relatively new -- much more portable -- method.
I know, this isn't a joke, but let's pretend the war was taking place in the US. Imagine it in your mind. Then turn on the TV and look at their cute little "Showdown with Saddam" graphics and glitz.
We don't have to. We saw Sept. 11.
For better or worse, the glitz was well entrenched by nightfall.
Sure there are points, but I don't think they all weigh up to taking the deal.
;-) ) win them over by providing a better experience.
Totally removing Microsoft from the University is bound to create lots of havoc.
Let's talk to that donor and get $10.4 million for a kick-ass Apple/Linux lab. Perhaps even prohibit the use of MS software there--on THOSE MACHINES.
But keeping it out of the University is overkill. You don't win users by forcing them to use your software (ok well MS does, but
How often do we hear about "the best tool for the job" on Slashdot. If MS comes up with a decent program -- LET THE DAMN STUDENTS AND PROFESSORS USE IT! Are you going to have a business school that doesn't ever show its students Power Point?
Further, making any commitment for up to 10 years in the software industry is just looney.
Third world countries are stuck in a vicious cycle. Internet access should be the last thing on their minds. Basic infrastructure such as roads, sewage, hydro are needed first and formost.
What do you think the Internet is. It's basic infastructure. Computers and the Internet move information -- FAST and EFFICIENTLY.
Not only is that important for health, education and general quality of life, but employment can arise through it too.
The Internet is no longer a simple luxury. In fact, my specific job would be impossible without the Internet, but it has nothing to do with the Internet. It's just how we deliver our product.
I'd much rather that we mined asteroids - to me the moon is an international treasure (I wanted to say "wonder of the World, but heh) and to start to slowly erode it would be a crime second only to ruining our own planet.
;-)
That's why we should just mine the creamy filling.
It was literally 'found' in a rock pool. They stumbled across it.
... why didn't you find it?
Your logic astounds me. They didn't "stumble across it." They dutifully collected thousands and thousands of samples and tested each of them for anti-biotic properties. They spent some SEROIUS money.
If it was so easy
Heh. Thanks for backing up my shoot from the hip comment with facts ;-)
Kinda like how Kleenex and Xerox lost theirs (everyone says "may I have a kleenex?" or "could you xerox this?" and so it became colloquial and no longer a trademark).
?!?!?
Both are still very much trademarks. You may use the words in conversation, but I can't make a photocopier named "Xerox."
What Google is doing is stupid. Mostly because, "to google" refers only at this point to USING GOOGLE!. (Not search)
I don't think going full force against Iraq for crimes the US has failed to prove is the correct choice of action.
Ok, but personally, I feel that all signs point to Iraq being guilty. (Even if its not indisputable proof).
The US can afford to be patient in this matter.
12 years is a very long time. The point is the only real evidence of ABC weapons has come out through defectors. One of whom (a Hussein son-in-law) returned to Iraq and was killed.
It is clear, the US are going to attack very soon, disregarding the position of all of its allies
Spain and the U.K. don't count??? How about Australia?
The president is supposed to represent and accomodate the will of the people.
Yes and no. We could use polls to run foreign policy, but that's not how we believe these things work. We (ideally) elect experts to these positions because we feel they will do a better job. Our influence is in making sure the experts actually do a good job. If Bush is wrong, he will suffer in '04. He is not supposed to do whatever is popular.
And if it is truly about getting rid of a dangerous tyrant, why the *hell* are they ignoring N. Korea
A. I think Bush bungled it diplomatically, but given the current situation:
N. Korea has nukes and one hell of a strong army. In other words, N. Korea is nearly beyond the point of no return.
We can't take Korea without losing thousands of men and risking a nuclear conflict. N. Korea has also (for now) stayed in it's box. Hussein screwed up when he went after Kuwait. That war ended in a LEGAL requirement (via U.N.) that it meet certain demands. It didn't. The only option beyond sactions, is war. That's it.
If Bush's convicitons are right, why should he fear a debate?
What is there to DEBATE? It's bizare. It's very clear what has to happen hear to avoid war. This idea doesn't even really warrent a response.
How would a debate solve this conflict? Give me one question that won't make me laugh and you get a cookie.
Bush: Should you be required to disarm?
Hussein: Noperooney!
Everyone knows that ultimately this is about getting oil so those SUVs can keep on wasting that gas.
If Bush was after the gas, he would of ended the sanctions 2 years ago and said "let it flow". It's not hard. Persian Gulf I was about oil--and the power Iraq would have acquired with like 40-50% of the oil deposits (or something crazy like that). That would be dangerous, but unacceptable under and expansionistic lunatic.
Shouldn't the US get its own house in order before it starts forcing its demands or will on another country? I guess I feel that my government should spend more of its time at home rather than outside its borders.
Because isolationism and appeasment has worked so well in the past. Yay WW1, WW2, Kosovo, Rawanda (oops never went).
Don't forget, Bush came into office with the intent on pulling back from Clinton's "loony" policies in Kosovo, Somalia and Hati.
Granted, Hussein hasn't provided documents to prove he doesn't have the weapons anymore. But I would have to ask that even if he did, would we believe him? Seems to be a case of Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
In mid-90s, there was proof--he did have an illegal (internationally) program. He says he's stopped, but has no paper work etc to even say that. Hussein is renowned for documenting EVERYTHING. He's gotten 12 years--and it's a pretyt pitiful showing. He's only damned if he fights the international community at each step.
As I sat and read through some of the recent legislation that has been passed (The Patriot Act) I really begin to wonder what it is that is going on in Washington. Granting wide sweeping power to allow search and seizure of records, property, etc. all in the name of Homeland Security leaves me wondering what country I'm living in. That people can be held without trial, or tried in a military tribunal without public knowledge orbeing allowed to present a defence worries me.
It's worries me too, but that does not pursuad me against this policy.
Is it possible that Bush is just using Iraq as an excuse to make a power grab or to place himself as a possible dictator?
Oh come on. Let's not play fiction here. Besides that this is ludicrous, how do you suppose this would occur. You think the military would actualy support Bush as a Dictator? The civilian population? In fact, Bush strikes me as one of the lesser power hungry leaders we've had in a long time. I don't like most of his policies, but he's not not going to be a dictator and he's not fucking Hitler.
After all, with the patriot act, opposing the "current government" and its "policies" can land you in jail. And wouldn't anyone that runs against Bush in the next election, run the risk of possibly being labeled a threat to national security and jailed? I know its far fetched, but still, the powers being given to the CIA, FBI and other agencies to monitor, track, investigate, hold, jail and question anyone for any reason even without probible cause can't be a good thing. It bothers me that a president would pass and sign anything that sets aside the bill of rights for its citizens. Sacrificing freedom in the name of securing freedom seems like too much to ask.
You say that as if its not a continum. We have swung too far in the wrong direction IMO. It was shoot-from-the-hip legislation. Congress backed off on the Total Information Awarness system and we should see some slow recovery begin. Fast enough for me? But we havn't lost our legitmacy as striving for a better world.
It reminds me of the old saying of "We want peace so much we're willing to go to war for it."
Exactly--and it's true. Imagine a brutal regime, that is willing to attack outside it's boreders and has B/C weapons and neared nuclear ones was required by the international community to disarm. It AGREED--to avoid its destruction.
Pop quiz. It went back on it's agreement. What do you do.
I don't know what the answers are, but the questions are making my head hurt!
Sorry the truth hurts
I enjoyed the debate.
Well, you asked! ;-). We are off-topic, so moderators. Moderate with abandon.
You can start by watching Parliament debate it. Blair made some very persuasive arguments (better than I will in the few minutes I'm spending here). link
The basic idea is that Hussein attacked Kuwait. He surrendered under certain demands, but he has failed to meet them. "Peace" was granted only because of those demands. However, he has never met those demands. He has tried to get out from under them. In other words, "we" have been at war with Iraq for 12+ years.
There is a moral argument. It's a brutal regime by itself and the current "containment" program (sanctions) has made it even worse. He will be able to threaten millions in the middle-east and beyond.
There is a legal argument. Iraq has not met U.N. demand. Some countries/people want absolute and definitive proof of weapons. This is nearly impossible -- even with complete compliance with inspections. Iraq is big. ABC's (Atomic, Biological, Chemical) are small.
There is a common sense argument. Can we point to the ABC weapons? No, at least not with unclassifiable data. (Read, the value of having the ability to get the information is to high to give up for the political benefit). However all reason points to him having these weapons. Further, Hussein has prooven time and time again the willingness to back down just before war. As troops move back home, he rachets up the rhetoric and his weapons programs. (Fool me one, shame on you. Fool me five times... shame on me)
There is a strategic argument. If the U.N. can't uphold its promise of disarmament (do it voluntarily or we'll do it by force) because it rejects forece, then it is a body that will not be taken seriously by the world. It would then become powerless. Hussein would then go Kim Jung Il on us, put together a nuclear program and cause some serious havoc in the region.
On Sept. 11: Personally, I am not quite convinced on the links between Iraq and Sept. 11. Bin Laden and Hussein are -- at best -- "enemy of my enemy is my friend" types. Still, Sept. 11, showed the possibility for small powers to do great damage to the Western world. It was a realization that to protect our lives--one cannot
My reservations are: 1) End game -- can we build safer, better state within Iraq 2) Will the cities go black-hawk-down on us 3) Will the economic and political cost for (my) country--the United States be to great to bear alone. 4) After this, can we afford the even more expensive task of building greater relationships with the rest of the world. It will be difficult to put down this active enemy, but it will be much more difficult to make the more passive ones friends.
But those are mine.
P.S. The worst, however, has been much of Europe's unwillingness to even threaten war. If the allies had acted more as one, it seems to me war might have been less likely.
Congratulations, you're voting for politicians who openly take bribes. Back in my days, they at least did it in secret.
OR
It's not that they are bribes it's that the money SELECTS THE CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT. You assume that these candidates are evil and will vote for anything for money. I assume these candidates got this money BECAUSE they supported these companies' views.
In other words, what Candidate have YOU supported lately.
sipthe seriousness of the offense is generally comparable to white-collar fraud cases.
Read: The fast-growing, little-punished type of crime that destroys the finances of thousands every year.
"Hacking" is no more the refuge of the geek. True criminals have embraced it as a way to siphon off lots of money with little risk.
Let's not charge people looking for CC#'s with terrorism, but let's not label it "annoying" and offer up slaps for people's wrists.