1) There's nothing in state motor vehicle licensing databases that a federal investigator can't get to anyway
That's right. But it is at the STATE level. Each one is slightly different. So cracking ONE state doesn't give you ID cards for EVERY state.
2) A consistent set of standards by which people (notably, of course, immigrants - legal or not) need to prove who they are before they get an item as enabling (in terms of access, banking, and so on) as a driver's license is.... well, not crazy, or draconian, or anything other than reasonable.
Isn't is already consistent? Within each state/county?
Why is it "reasonable" to have the criteria for IDs in southern California be the same as the criteria for Wisconsin?
More importantly, why should a corrupt state worker in New York be able to issue IDs for California?
Before you gush over how great the system is, look at how it can be abused.
Having a national ID that can be purchased from organized crime is worse than having 50 states with their own systems.
Think this through. In melee combat, proximity negates skill. At some point, Yoda would have been cut down if "he just stood there". Yoda HAD to move.
I think you're getting your references from too many movies.
Watch an Olympic fencing match. They don't dance. Yet that's 100% "melee combat" and they are highly skilled.
If you simply must rely upon movies, at least rely upon good Japanese movies. For example, contrast the final katana battle in Sanjuro (by Akira Kurosawa) between the good guy and the bad guy with any of the light saber duels in Star Wars. Sanjuro's fight lasted one pass.
The Star Wars audience doesn't want realism. They want flash. They want the long sword fights with dialog and dance and daring leaps!
Which is why showing Yoda as a true master instead of a bouncing ball would have been a memorable contrast and helped to define his character.
1. It was meant to remind people of the movies they liked. They remember Tatoonie from ep 4 and they liked ep 4. (and it saved Lucas from having to create another world and populate it).
Besides, you left out the part about hoping that Vader would NEVER have any desire to visit family members. But that's probably okay because Annie didn't even bother to save his mom.
2. It was meant to remind people of the movies they liked. They remember the droids from ep 4 and they liked ep 4. (and it saved Lucas from having to create another character to speak the lines).
3. Lucas equates "skill" with "flash". A skilled Yoda would be more believable just standing there and blocking every attack (like the two Jedi did when faced with the attack droids in ep 1).
4. That is "explained" by the "fact" that the Sith can "hide" themselves from the Jedi. That is their secret power. That and the ability to quickly find very powerful replacement apprentices who can train in secret to challenge the Jedi. The Jedi's secret power is the ability to blow up the Sith's Death Star in every movie.
5. Jedi may be great individually. But they don't seem to spend any time learning group tactics. If it wasn't for their secret ability to blow up Death Stars, they probably would have been wiped out a long time ago. And that would have been a good plot. Big Jedi convention at Jedi Central and evil Emperor sends a nova torpedo into the sun. All Jedi dead expect for a couple who learned of the plan while travelling and tried to fight the control ship... but failed.
Ep 3 is a fan boy movie. You get to see the things you've already seen and you get flashy battles. People like flashy battles, right?
I mean, other than having a movie about a guy talking about himself...
The characters are dropped into situations and they react. Like when Han shot a bounty hunter sitting across from him.
Lucas' problem isn't character development. His problem is back-story. Vader had more character development in ep 4 & 5 than any other bad guy has had in ep 1-3.
Lucas just doesn't know how to write a story that will result in the character he has already developed. Which is why he falls back on fan-boy tricks of re-introducing the previously created characters and such (the droids, Boba's daddy, Tatoonie, etc).
Vader has character.
Annie is just put through some badly written situations and dialog so we can get to the Vader suit.
See, even though Groklaw treats cell phones like they were Kleenex and changes its unpublished numbers regularly, one number it left with a journalist led to this flat and - wouldn't you know it but - some calls from there had been placed to the courts in Utah and to the Canopy Group so obviously this just isn't any Pamela Jones.
If she isn't making that up, it means that she's managed to get access to PJ's phone records.
So, the "story" is how a pro-SCO "journalist" digs up the phone records of someone running a different web site.
And how that "journalist" posts the address (with pictures?) of the other person's home.
And tracks down someone who may be the other person's mom.
And the police get involved.
This is a HUGE story not only for the invasion, but for the implications it carries for anyone who comes out against SCO.
The "big players" can contribute cash, but not hardware. It is too easy for them to contribute hardware specifically enhanced for their product.
#1. Each team gets X dollars and no restrictions on what it can buy. After all, that should be how businesses run their shops. We aren't comparing hardware, but total systems.
#2. Each team must purchase the software off the shelf.
#3. No team is allowed to recompile anything or to use any drivers, etc not available from a public server for the past 12 months. This might sound like a bad deal for Linux, but it will also stop Microsoft from re-writing the drivers. Again, most companies do not have access to that level of expertise so that won't be allowed.
#4. Each tweak or configuration setting must be documented and a reference for it shown on a public website or manual. Again, businesses only know what they can read.
#5. At the end of the competition, the other teams will critique each team's configuration. We've all seen the "tests" where Windows is running on a RAID 0 array which is beyond stupid for real production work.
That way, each team can deploy the best system they can think of for the test. I'm sure you all remember MindCraft and their massive single server "test" for webservers when anyone else would have run multiple cheaper servers and gotten higher throughput.
So, a test in run and the Windows team buys the biggest single system they can afford for the money. While the Linux team fields a dozen boxes booting from CD and one storage box.
Which system would be "better"?
Which system would be faster? Would that be the same answer under different loads?
I don't think it was sad. I didn't need E5 anyway, I wasn't planning on staying in, and even if I had, it wouldn't have done much good... read on:
What was that you said about "service"?
It isn't whether YOU "need" it.
It's whether the Army needs YOU to fulfill that role. The Army ALWAYS needs good NCO's. ALWAYS
When I was on TDY, it was me and a handfull of others. We were not anywhere near where a promotion board could be held. They weren't going to fly out the Sergeant Major, First Sergeant, etc, to the middle of nowhere on my behalf for a promotion board.
You were DivArty. How hard is it?
Damn straight the Sergeant Major is going to come out and make sure that his best soldier gets board'ed. Mine did.
And your First Sergeant? He should have even more reasons than the Sergeant Major.
But, nothing short of me driving up to Seattle and showing you the papers myself is going to convince you. Even then, you could simply dismiss the photocopy as a forgery.
Possibly. And given the rest of the bullshit you've been spewing, it would be a valid position on my part.
You might think just under 6 months is a somewhat larger training time, it was. I asked for airborne school on enlistment, but I bowed out of it after I learned I was afraid of heights. It also nullified my unit of choice agreement, too, and thus I did not go to Fort Bragg upon finishing AIT.
...and then...
You want to know why I was stuck at Sill for so long? Fine, I'll come out and say it. I was crossing a crosswalk in the PX parking lot, when someone came flying around the corner in their POV and hit me about 30 miles an hour. I was laid up in physical therapy treating the hyperextension of both knees, which kept me at Sill until I was off profile. Over time, this caused a deterioration of my knees over time, and got me a permanent no-running profile (while I was in the reserves).
So... by the numbers...
#1. You enlist for 3 years (choosing airbourne) #2. You go to basic #3. You go to AIT (you refuse airbourne) #4. Because you refuse airbourne, you don't get your station of choice. #5a. Because you didn't get your station of choice the Army let you hang around for a few months (total time 6 months). #5b. You were injured and spent a few months in the hospital (total time 6 months). #6. You spend 34 months in the 10th at Ft. Hood. #7. You get out in Dec 1998 after spending 42 months in service.
42 months. That's an interesting number. It's not 36 and it's not 48.
So, the Army kept you in past your 3 year enlistment -or- the Army let you out before your 4 year enlistment had expired.
Interesting.
That only leaves the TDY to account for, which is none of your business.
I think you're still on the wrong track there. You've made claims about your great "service" yet your rank doesn't seem to reflect that.
And now you've claimed 42 months which makes it even worse.
Again, E5 only takes 31 months time in service. That makes 11 months that the Army refused to promote such an outstanding soldier such as yourself.
Call me a liar if you like. It's inconsequential, and means nothing to me coming from someone who makes the implication that someone's military service is "nothing" unless that person has personally gone out and killed someone.
Hardly. There are lots of average soldiers who spend their average lives doing an average job in the Army.
And very few of them have the self delusion to believe that they'd make better choices than a Major General.
That is what distinguished you from them.
There is a HUGE difference between being a follower (E4) and a leader (E
Actually, there was a 1995 executive order that mandated the use of the nondisclosure agreement. This is the executive order was implemented in regulation by AR 380-5. However, the executive order issued by Bill Clinton on April 17, 1995, and went into effect 180 days later.
The executive order requires anyone with access to classified information to sign an approved NDA, That approved NDA was SF 312. More information on this here. See questions 3 and 4, specifically.
Third, the "Security Debriefing Acknowledgement," which appears in the SF 189-A, but not the SF 189,is included in the SF 312. Its use is optional at the discretion of the implementing agency.
Which seems to be saying that 312 did not have that statement on it and that it was added in the revised form.
I entered service in 1995. Promotion points for my MOS were high for E-5 in 1998, but not unachievable. I was studying for the promotion board when I had an abrupt TDY assignment in the latter half of 1998. When I returned, I was assigned to the transition unit and never attended the promotion board.
I signed the SF 312, the copy of which I have in my posession, in Dec, 1998.
Awwww, so you were almost promoted and then the mean Army TDY'd you before you could appear before the board. That is so sad.
So sad because it is bullshit. I was promoted to E5 while on TDY. I was promoted to E4 while on TDY. The "promotion board" is nothing. My battalion held them every month. You claimed you were DivArty so it should have been even easier for you.
I entered service in 1995.
What was that? "in 1995"?
I signed the SF 312, the copy of which I have in my posession, in Dec, 1998.
So, they made you sign it before you left service? What was that you had claimed earlier?
No, I said I was at 10th Mountain Division during that time, which is exactly what the post you referenced says. Learn to read and actually understand what you're reading.
You entered service in 1995 (you're a bit lax on the month) Basic AIT You were assigned to your unit on Feb 1996. You left that unit on Dec 1998. Which is also when you claimed to have signed the 312.
That doesn't leave much room for an assignment after AIT and before DivArty, does it?
So I said you spent 34 months in the Army...
You say I'm wrong and can't read because you didn't say that...
When the FACT is that my statement is about right, except I didn't count basic and AIT.
Well, it seems that not only can I read but I can figure out the facts that you keep trying to hide.
Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that you really spent 36 months in the Army and not 34.
Are you sure you've got no ego-boosting going on? You've been pissed off from the start that I might know more about something than you, and you've just *had* to be right this entire time.
You know more about what? Read back over this thread. Look how long it's taken you to answer very basic questions.
The reason you couldn't answer them is that you don't want people to know that you were nothing more than an average soldier doing an average tour in an average unit and you couldn't even make E5.
That's it. You're a kid who spent 3 years in the Army and got out. And you still claim to know more than an Italian Major General because YOU (who have never seen combat) would have done things different.
You haven't even read the Italian report so you don't know their version of it.
No, I said I was at 10th Mountain Division during that time, which is exactly what the post you referenced says. Learn to read and actually understand what you're reading. You are proof that the American education system has been failing for a long time.
Yeah, you DO seem to have problems stating anything clearly.
But I don't. I was in the Army from 1983 to 1990.
You're the one who has a problem stating simple facts.
Guess what the revision date on *my* SF 312 is? 1-91.
That's so nice of you to specifically (remember that word you have problems with?) state that.
So, there was the 1-91 version, which was obsoleted by the 1-00 version.
Here is proof that an even earlier version exists:
I didn't say that an earlier version did not exist. I was pointing out the version number that could be confirmed as having the text you claim on it.
And then I pointed out when that form was available (after you had ETS'd).
And then I provided a link showing that the text you refered to was not on an earlier version of the form.
Strange that you skipped over those links.
You mean, got kicked out in 1990 because someone figured out you don't have any reading comprehension, and you jump to conclusions before you've put even an ounce of thought in.
Hardly. But then, I'm not the one that has trouble stating simple facts.
You're just afraid that if you commit yourself to a set time frame, you won't have any wiggle room to claim that you signed forms that didn't exist when you claimed you signed them.
I don't have any such problem. I can state when I was active, when I was promoted and everything else. That degree of confidence scares you, doesn't it.
I never claimed to be a combat veteran (as in, earned a combat patch), and you know it.
You claimed to be a "veteran" and when I asked you to specify exactly what you meant by that, all you could do was to put up a link to a dictionary definition that listed "political veteran" as its first example.
Once again, you seem to have trouble with basic words and stating simple facts. I don't.
The government still defines me as a "veteran", the dictionary definition agrees, and I put in my required time, all 8 years split up between active duty, reserves, and IRR (during which I was called up twice, so it's not like I sat twiddling my thumbs for a few years).
I didn't ask what the government classified you as.
Again, the dumbest Private can accomplish everything you just claimed (active duty, reserves, IRR) for the same amount of time you claimed and still meet the government's defition of "veteran".
I gave you the chance to provide more information and you just keep retreating into meaningless claims.
The fact that that is all you can do tells me all I need to know about your service record.
I may not have been stationed in a combat zone, but I did more for my country than the average person has.
That depends upon how you define "average person". If you include children under 16 years old, you're probably right.
But that only makes you look more pathetic when compared to people such as myself and Major General Calipari.
Anyway, I have proved the existence of the SF312 as early as 1988, which is well before I left the service, and before you claim to have left.
But I have shown that the text you claim was added after 2000.
Ah, this is the fun part where you have to start figuring out how to wiggle around the times you've committed to and the forms you claim to have signed without going over the total time you originally hinted at and without looking like a loser for only making E-4 during that time period.
Third, the "Security Debriefing Acknowledgement," which appears in the SF 189-A, but not the SF 189,is included in the SF 312. Its use is optional at the discretion of the implementing agency.
So, it seems that the form with the verbiage you are referencing is from an updated form that was available years after your tour ended.
You were never in the service. I suspect that you play a little too much America's Army in your parents basement.
Make all the claims you want to. It doesn't matter to me. I did 7 years and got out in 1990.
I don't have to play games with words like you claiming to be a "veteran" (no combat time and only 34 months in service) to boost my self-esteem. Nor do I have to spin lies about forms I was required to sign before they were even printed.
You have pointed to an example of micro evolution.
No. "Micro evolution" refers to changes made below the species level. Any change that still allows the two species to inter-breed can be called "micro evolution".
The evolution forms in question are macro/spot/hyper evolution, and as I stated at present, there is no example of these.
I cannot find any references for
"spot evolution" or "hyper evolution"
"Macro evolution" is when a new species branches off. That is demonstrated by the fruit fly experiment.
With respect to vision, poor vision is a weakness.
Simply being a "weakness" does not mean it will be have any effect on evolution.
Evolution is not about weakness/strength but about adaptability to the environment.
If the point of natural selection is removing weakness then when is it going to start?
Again, evolution is NOT weakness/strength.
Even "fatal" genetic problems have not been selected out.
Actually, most of them have. There aren't many genetic issues now that kill before the individual can breed.
With respect to the fast breeding/quick changes these are still only examples of micro evolution.
Macro evolution is about a fly becoming a higher order life form.
No, macro evolution is about two colonies that descend from the same original colony that are not capable of inter-breeding.
You're looking for chimps to "evolve" into humans and that takes billions of years.
Actually, that assumes that existance within the other realm is also linear.
If it is not, then why do you assume that this one is? If the "other realm" is cyclic, then why can't this universe be cyclic?
And ignoring an answer which is potentally the truth is science?
It may be the "truth", but you won't be able to demonstrate that it is.
Which makes it a "religion".
Imagine if aliens came to the earth after mankind was dead. Some alien scientist wonders, are all these natural or were they designed. He gets ingored because that is religion not science (assuming they have nothing similar to genetic engineering).
"all these natural" what?
Buildings? We carve names and dates onto them. Our DNA strands don't have (tm) after them.
Science is about attempting to determine truth.
No. It is about attempting to determine the facts. Reproducible facts. Facts that can be confirmed through experiments.
If design/direct manipulation is automatically discounted as weakminded anti-science, then don't expect aliens to ever give us credit for the same.
Hey, if they've mastered inter-stellar travel and they can't read plaques bolted into our buildings, why should it concern me?
It also goes without saying you have just classified "scientists" who design/direct as being in the realm of religion instead of science.
So you say that I say that a programmer who writes a program (design) is part of a religion?
Nope. I'm not saying that.
Desigining is not a relgion.
The religion is believing that some intelligent thing we cannot see, feel, smell, hear, taste or detect the presence of in any other way constructed us.
Just like the study regarding the underwater rock formations.
And your only support for that claim is the standard out-processing form that everybody fills out.
Yet, when you were out-processing, you had to sign an "NDA" and the "proof" you offer is the S2/S3 section on that standard out-processing form.
Here's a clue. If it was an Army NDA, then there would be a standard Army form number that you could quote. But you can't, can you?
Because there isn't one.
Take all the guesses you want. That's just as valid as me saying you got the boot because you don't comprehend written English, which you don't.
Claim whatever you want. Claim that the reference to you NDA is on the same form that has a checkbox for "Weight Control Program".
You're the one making up the lies, not me.
Furthermore, I'd point out at this time that if you *really* wanted to check, you could call the 10th Mtn. DivArty S2 and *ask* if they made anyone sign NDAs on ETS. You claim to have served, it'd be really simple for you to get the number and check.
And why do you believe that they give SSG's the phone numbers to every unit out there?
Wading through the phone menu for "Fort Drum Directory Assistance" gets me the information that DivArty has been disbanded.
So, talking do Division S2 (315 772-5404) gets me the information that NO they don't even know what an "NDA" is much less ever required one to be signed by any E-4's assigned to that Division.
But they DO know what a DA Form 137-1 is and no, the "Security Briefing/Debriefing" on that does NOT require an "NDA" to be signed.
That's "IRR". Idiot.
Either way. The dumbest Private can still accomplish that. Yet YOU seem to think that it merits specific mention.
And a fine line separates idiocy from heroism, doesn't it? He's a national hero because he rescued a pinko like you.
No. He's a national hero because he's going into a war zone to rescue Italians.
Damn right. I would have been smart enough to stop or turn around when the laser and spotlight came on me... not to mention the warning shots.
So you claim. Again, the Italians say that there was no delay between the lights and the shots.
I'm sure you would have gone ahead and gotten shot, though. Since you clearly don't have any level of reading comprehension, it is likely that if someone pointed a laser and spotlight at you, you'd keep driving because you lack enough gray matter to comprehend what that means, despite it being well publicized.
"well publicized" how?
Again, you are basing everything you say off of what you've heard other people say. You haven't bothered to read the reports.
Not to mention your lies about your "NDA" and how you can't say anything more about your secret knowledge.
Yeah, I even know what your next claim will be. You'll be claiming that maybe it was DivArty that required the "NDA's" but Division S2 didn't so they don't know about them but you know you signed one so all the evidence showing otherwise doesn't count.
Trivial, yes - so I presume you can provide me an example of a species diverging? So far as I know, we haven't actually seen one species change into another, merely a species adapting to it's environment.
See the bit about "reproductive isolation". That means that the new fruit flies cannot breed with the other descendants of the the original colony. They are a different species.
Pray, enlighten us mortals, then. (Or do I need to find a mountain top first?)
Did you miss the rest of what I posted? The "It was too easy to knock the "Creationists" before, so they decided that they could hide "God" behind the phrase "intelligent design" and attempt to get it taught in schools."
Assuming that science is the formulation of ideas based on what we see, based on this definition, I think it is interesting to note that Darwin formed a theory based on what he saw in the Galapagos Islands.
Rather than pursuing that weird line, why don't you look up the "Scientific Method"? Here, I'll make it easy for you.
It seems to me that a lot of people have a tendency to try to back up what they believe by finding data, and not so much finding conclusions based on the data.
Which is why we have the "Scientific Method".
It is easy to find material that supports your beliefs. And because it is easy, it is almost worthless.
So the Scientific Method requires experimentation to confirm/deny the hypothesis.
"Intelligent Design" does not. In fact, there is no way to test whether "Intelligent Design" is valid or not. Therefore, "Intelligent Design" is useless as anything other than a religious statement.
If there is a test of macro evolution that is successful, I would like to know about it. If there is a test of spot evolution that is successful, I would like to know about it.
I do not see evidence that natural selection has removed people with vision problems from the gene pool.
And why would it? You don't understand the theory of evolution.
How does my wearing glasses make me less likely to survive?
It has also done nothing about ugly or stupid people.
Again, you don't understand evolution. Very few humans are below 20 IQ now.
Go back a million years or so and you'd find very few animals with above a 20 IQ.
Evolution.
In other words, the testing issue has been weak on both sides.
Check the URL I provided. Do more research. It's easy to show how fast breeding species can be forced to evolve into none interbreeding colonies.
That is evolution. That has been tested. That has been documented.
Claiming that it hasn't happened won't make it go away.
If the ID was done by something that is external to our realm of existence (ie a 3-D entity acting upon a 2-D) what is to say that our concept of creation/design and existence has any relevance in the other realm of existance?
Which results in infinite recursion. Who Designed the Designers?
If they could just spontaniously appear, then why not the universe we see?
Just because something is potentially beyond our scope of comprehension does not mean it does not exist.
The same can be said of Santa and Bigfoot and the Easter Bunny.
What you are describing is a RELIGION. Not science.
Well, I'm not particularly qualified in science. However, the book I found most convincing from a scientific perspective was "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. Basically, his argument is that, at the micro level, many cellular functionas are irreducibly complex - that they require a host of different parts to work, none of which do anything independent of the rest. So, how would all these parts have evolved gradually when each of them was useless without the others?
Simple, evolution happens over many millions/billions of years.
What you see right now is nothing more than a snapshot.
Cellular processes that are dependant upon each other also evolve over time. Each individual process can evolve and other processes can take advantage of the new functionality. Over time, they evolve to depend upon that functionality.
Now, when you look at a snapshot, you don't see the many changes to each process that has been happening for millions/billions of years. All you see is the CURRENT inter-relationship.
And THAT is the problem with all the "Intelligent Design" books and people.
They are starting with their conclusion (complex systems are impossible without an Intelligent Designer) and then looking for complex systems that they then claim must have been Designed.
The correct way (if this was science and not religion) would be to look for something that CONTRADICTED the hypothesis that it is impossible for complex systems to evolve.
Ah, so now we're getting into the "secret wisdom" part of the game.
You know, the part where you know things that mere mortals do not.
i have read books on it, listened to speakers on it, had my questions answered on it, studdied it.
You left off the bit about travelling to distant lands and sitting on mountain tops.
I know a lot that is not common knowledge.
Bingo! You have much to teach us mere mortals oh enlightened master.
Why does a discussion of ID never bring up the merits or science but always turns it into a fight against evolution?
Because "Intelligent Design" does not have any scientific basis.
With evolution, it is easy to show how species diverge. With actual animals.
Why not learn about ID before you judge it?
I have. And there isn't anything that is scientifically demonstratable to it.
If you believe otherwise, then please enlighten these mere mortals.
By judging so quickly aren't you just the same as those christian fundamentalists that won't even look at evolution?
Why do you assume that people who dismiss it haven't looked at it?
I have and I see that there isn't anything to it.
It simply attempts to cover any "holes" in evolution theory by claiming such "holes" must be because of an Intelligent Design.
It becomes very easy to understand once you know the evolution of "Intelligent Design".
It was too easy to knock the "Creationists" before, so they decided that they could hide "God" behind the phrase "intelligent design" and attempt to get it taught in schools.
Which brings up the question that I never got answererd when in school, and I'm hoping someone here with an advanced degree can answer... Where did all the matter and energy in the Universe come from?
We don't know where it came from.
And since we cannot travel back in time, we will never know, for sure, where it came from.
The most we can do is to work on various theories and try to test them to see if we can increase our understanding.
That's funny, because during the part of the final clearance process for ETS, I had to visit the S2 and sign said NDA, a copy of which happens to be in my paperwork, and the S2 office stamp seems to be on my papers, right there in box 15 of form DA-137-1, where it says "Security Debriefing" (which involved signing the NDA), and "Anti-terrorism Briefing") which involved listening to short lecture.
That's nothing more than the standard outprocessing form.
You might notice that your "NDA" also has a place for S1 to sign off on whether you're too fat.
With all due respect (which is about none, from my point of view), you don't know what clearance I had, nor do you know much else about me. Your rank also means jack shit to me at this point.
Listen kid, you're the one claiming that the a DA-137-1 is an "NDA".
Yeah, an "NDA" that has a block for "Weight Control Program".
I know that you had, at best, a "Secret" clearance which requires almost nothing in the way of background checks and gives you access to almost no real information.
If you had a Top Secret clearance, you wouldn't be going around claiming to have signed an "NDA" that was nothing more than your out-processing checklist.:D
You're ignorant and delusional.
Hey, I'm not the one claiming that "Weight Control Program" has to be signed off on an NDA.:)
But that's okay. My honorable discharge certificate, DD214, several medals, various training certs and certificates of achievement, and 8 years total service (including a few that were in IRR, but I was called up *twice* during that time after Sept. 11 - nothing came of either one, though) all speak to my service.
Actually, they don't.
The IIR does NOT say ANYTHING about your service.
The dumbest private who could barely manage a 3 year tour can ALSO make that same claim.
Because YOU think it says something good about you just confirms that you have no idea what you're talking about.
The same with the "training certs". EVERYONE gets those. Only a fool or a liar would think they were representative of his "service".
The same with the DD-214. As long as you weren't thrown out of the Army, you got an "honorable discharge". That is all it says about your "service".
Meanwhile, the guy you were talking about is a NATIONAL HERO in his home country and has the President of his country investigating his death.
Yet you still claim that you know more than he did and you "training certs" and "honorable discharge" and "form DA-137-1" (the "UNIT CLEARANCE RECORD") shows how well you served (as an E-4).
Right. You forgot to include your "Good Conduct Medal". You know the one. The one everybody gets after being in for a while?
I don't need to give you details or tell you of my experience because you have no need to know and I'd be violating the NDA I signed upon my departure.
Enlisted don't sign NDA's with the Army.
I was a higher rank than you, in for longer than you and I had a higher security clearance than you.
Enlisted don't sign NDA's with the Army.
You're a liar.
But I already knew that when you tried to pull the "veteran" bullshit.
I asked:When you say "veteran", what do you mean, specifically?
Note the use of the word "specifically".
Yet your response was a link to a dictionary page where the first example was
a veteran of political campaigns.
So you really have no experience in these issues, do you?
And no, I was never in the Middle East, and wasn't physically in the AO of any "combat" operation. I've pulled "security" operations and done "humanitarian relief".
And any rent-a-cop can say the exact same thing.
They do "security" operations and sometimes "humanitarian relief".
You assume the enemy has been that observant. I think that is a good assumption. That still does not warrant giving operational information out as if they surely had it already.
Why not?
Oh, that's right. You don't understand the meaning of "specifically" and you have no direct experience with any of this and the highest you've got was E-4.
And you claim to be a "veteran".
Newsflash, kid. The enemy does observe. The enemy adapts his attacks based upon those observations.
Trying to hide info that the enemy already has is worse than a waste of time. You have to assume that the enemy knows everything, already.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it "reasonable" to have the criteria for IDs in southern California be the same as the criteria for Wisconsin?
More importantly, why should a corrupt state worker in New York be able to issue IDs for California?
Before you gush over how great the system is, look at how it can be abused.
Having a national ID that can be purchased from organized crime is worse than having 50 states with their own systems.
Watch an Olympic fencing match. They don't dance. Yet that's 100% "melee combat" and they are highly skilled.
If you simply must rely upon movies, at least rely upon good Japanese movies. For example, contrast the final katana battle in Sanjuro (by Akira Kurosawa) between the good guy and the bad guy with any of the light saber duels in Star Wars. Sanjuro's fight lasted one pass.
The Star Wars audience doesn't want realism. They want flash. They want the long sword fights with dialog and dance and daring leaps!
Which is why showing Yoda as a true master instead of a bouncing ball would have been a memorable contrast and helped to define his character.
1. It was meant to remind people of the movies they liked. They remember Tatoonie from ep 4 and they liked ep 4. (and it saved Lucas from having to create another world and populate it).
... but failed.
Besides, you left out the part about hoping that Vader would NEVER have any desire to visit family members. But that's probably okay because Annie didn't even bother to save his mom.
2. It was meant to remind people of the movies they liked. They remember the droids from ep 4 and they liked ep 4. (and it saved Lucas from having to create another character to speak the lines).
3. Lucas equates "skill" with "flash". A skilled Yoda would be more believable just standing there and blocking every attack (like the two Jedi did when faced with the attack droids in ep 1).
4. That is "explained" by the "fact" that the Sith can "hide" themselves from the Jedi. That is their secret power. That and the ability to quickly find very powerful replacement apprentices who can train in secret to challenge the Jedi. The Jedi's secret power is the ability to blow up the Sith's Death Star in every movie.
5. Jedi may be great individually. But they don't seem to spend any time learning group tactics. If it wasn't for their secret ability to blow up Death Stars, they probably would have been wiped out a long time ago. And that would have been a good plot. Big Jedi convention at Jedi Central and evil Emperor sends a nova torpedo into the sun. All Jedi dead expect for a couple who learned of the plan while travelling and tried to fight the control ship
Ep 3 is a fan boy movie. You get to see the things you've already seen and you get flashy battles. People like flashy battles, right?
I mean, other than having a movie about a guy talking about himself ...
The characters are dropped into situations and they react. Like when Han shot a bounty hunter sitting across from him.
Lucas' problem isn't character development. His problem is back-story. Vader had more character development in ep 4 & 5 than any other bad guy has had in ep 1-3.
Lucas just doesn't know how to write a story that will result in the character he has already developed. Which is why he falls back on fan-boy tricks of re-introducing the previously created characters and such (the droids, Boba's daddy, Tatoonie, etc).
Vader has character.
Annie is just put through some badly written situations and dialog so we can get to the Vader suit.
So, the "story" is how a pro-SCO "journalist" digs up the phone records of someone running a different web site.
And how that "journalist" posts the address (with pictures?) of the other person's home.
And tracks down someone who may be the other person's mom.
And the police get involved.
This is a HUGE story not only for the invasion, but for the implications it carries for anyone who comes out against SCO.
Their goal is to sell ads.
/. readers, she is doing what she is paid to do.
She brings in page hits.
The page hits ratchet up the ad hits.
So, if she publishes an article that gets 1 million hits from
If you want to change that, talk to the advertisers. Don't bother with the publisher.
The "big players" can contribute cash, but not hardware. It is too easy for them to contribute hardware specifically enhanced for their product.
#1. Each team gets X dollars and no restrictions on what it can buy. After all, that should be how businesses run their shops. We aren't comparing hardware, but total systems.
#2. Each team must purchase the software off the shelf.
#3. No team is allowed to recompile anything or to use any drivers, etc not available from a public server for the past 12 months. This might sound like a bad deal for Linux, but it will also stop Microsoft from re-writing the drivers. Again, most companies do not have access to that level of expertise so that won't be allowed.
#4. Each tweak or configuration setting must be documented and a reference for it shown on a public website or manual. Again, businesses only know what they can read.
#5. At the end of the competition, the other teams will critique each team's configuration. We've all seen the "tests" where Windows is running on a RAID 0 array which is beyond stupid for real production work.
That way, each team can deploy the best system they can think of for the test. I'm sure you all remember MindCraft and their massive single server "test" for webservers when anyone else would have run multiple cheaper servers and gotten higher throughput.
So, a test in run and the Windows team buys the biggest single system they can afford for the money. While the Linux team fields a dozen boxes booting from CD and one storage box.
Which system would be "better"?
Which system would be faster? Would that be the same answer under different loads?
Which system would be easier to maintain?
Which system would have higher uptime?
Which system would be easier to scale up?
Potatoes don't run fast or put up much of a fight.
A given amount of land can support more grazers than carnivores.
Switching to an omnivorous diet means that there will be more of them.
... someone has to make the claim that he runs Windows without anti-virus/anti-spyware and doesn't have any problems.
First off, if your router has a DMZ, then you are running a firewall.
As for the rest, without running current anti-virus software, you won't know if you have a virus.
The same with spyware.
The fact is, "common sense" will not prevent you from accidentally typing in a wrong URL and ending up at a site that would exploit IE.
The same with Outlook Express. There is nothing stopping someone else from sending you email with a virus that would exploit an auto-run sequence.
"Common sense" is knowing that Windows is vulnerable and needs to be protected.
"Common sense" is running the necessary protections and keeping them updated.
when text is appearing on a screen.
No matter who/what is generating the text.
I can use statistics to predict where a bank robbery will be.
....... at a bank.
It will (99.9% certain) be
The real trick is to predict WHEN it will be at that bank.
Knowing where, but not when is useless.
Knowing when, but not where is useless.
And both are very easy to do.
Knowing where and when is beyond the capability of statistics.
What was that you said about "service"?
It isn't whether YOU "need" it.
It's whether the Army needs YOU to fulfill that role. The Army ALWAYS needs good NCO's. ALWAYS
You were DivArty. How hard is it?
Damn straight the Sergeant Major is going to come out and make sure that his best soldier gets board'ed. Mine did.
And your First Sergeant? He should have even more reasons than the Sergeant Major.
Possibly. And given the rest of the bullshit you've been spewing, it would be a valid position on my part.
...and then...
So ... by the numbers ...
#1. You enlist for 3 years (choosing airbourne)
#2. You go to basic
#3. You go to AIT (you refuse airbourne)
#4. Because you refuse airbourne, you don't get your station of choice.
#5a. Because you didn't get your station of choice the Army let you hang around for a few months (total time 6 months).
#5b. You were injured and spent a few months in the hospital (total time 6 months).
#6. You spend 34 months in the 10th at Ft. Hood.
#7. You get out in Dec 1998 after spending 42 months in service.
42 months. That's an interesting number. It's not 36 and it's not 48.
So, the Army kept you in past your 3 year enlistment
-or-
the Army let you out before your 4 year enlistment had expired.
Interesting.
I think you're still on the wrong track there. You've made claims about your great "service" yet your rank doesn't seem to reflect that.
And now you've claimed 42 months which makes it even worse.
Again, E5 only takes 31 months time in service. That makes 11 months that the Army refused to promote such an outstanding soldier such as yourself.
Hardly. There are lots of average soldiers who spend their average lives doing an average job in the Army.
And very few of them have the self delusion to believe that they'd make better choices than a Major General.
That is what distinguished you from them.
There is a HUGE difference between being a follower (E4) and a leader (E
Been through that already. In my post here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=147973&cid=124 17926
Which seems to be saying that 312 did not have that statement on it and that it was added in the revised form.
Awwww, so you were almost promoted and then the mean Army TDY'd you before you could appear before the board. That is so sad.
So sad because it is bullshit. I was promoted to E5 while on TDY. I was promoted to E4 while on TDY. The "promotion board" is nothing. My battalion held them every month. You claimed you were DivArty so it should have been even easier for you.
What was that? "in 1995"?
So, they made you sign it before you left service? What was that you had claimed earlier?
You entered service in 1995 (you're a bit lax on the month)
...
...
Basic
AIT
You were assigned to your unit on Feb 1996.
You left that unit on Dec 1998.
Which is also when you claimed to have signed the 312.
That doesn't leave much room for an assignment after AIT and before DivArty, does it?
So I said you spent 34 months in the Army
You say I'm wrong and can't read because you didn't say that
When the FACT is that my statement is about right, except I didn't count basic and AIT.
Well, it seems that not only can I read but I can figure out the facts that you keep trying to hide.
Go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me that you really spent 36 months in the Army and not 34.
You know more about what? Read back over this thread. Look how long it's taken you to answer very basic questions.
The reason you couldn't answer them is that you don't want people to know that you were nothing more than an average soldier doing an average tour in an average unit and you couldn't even make E5.
That's it. You're a kid who spent 3 years in the Army and got out. And you still claim to know more than an Italian Major General because YOU (who have never seen combat) would have done things different.
You haven't even read the Italian report so you don't know their version of it.
There's nothing so amazing as the suret
Yeah, you DO seem to have problems stating anything clearly.
But I don't. I was in the Army from 1983 to 1990.
You're the one who has a problem stating simple facts.
That's so nice of you to specifically (remember that word you have problems with?) state that.
So, there was the 1-91 version, which was obsoleted by the 1-00 version.
I didn't say that an earlier version did not exist. I was pointing out the version number that could be confirmed as having the text you claim on it.
And then I pointed out when that form was available (after you had ETS'd).
And then I provided a link showing that the text you refered to was not on an earlier version of the form.
Strange that you skipped over those links.
Hardly. But then, I'm not the one that has trouble stating simple facts.
You're just afraid that if you commit yourself to a set time frame, you won't have any wiggle room to claim that you signed forms that didn't exist when you claimed you signed them.
I don't have any such problem. I can state when I was active, when I was promoted and everything else. That degree of confidence scares you, doesn't it.
You claimed to be a "veteran" and when I asked you to specify exactly what you meant by that, all you could do was to put up a link to a dictionary definition that listed "political veteran" as its first example.
Once again, you seem to have trouble with basic words and stating simple facts. I don't.
I didn't ask what the government classified you as.
Again, the dumbest Private can accomplish everything you just claimed (active duty, reserves, IRR) for the same amount of time you claimed and still meet the government's defition of "veteran".
I gave you the chance to provide more information and you just keep retreating into meaningless claims.
The fact that that is all you can do tells me all I need to know about your service record.
That depends upon how you define "average person". If you include children under 16 years old, you're probably right.
But that only makes you look more pathetic when compared to people such as myself and Major General Calipari.
But I have shown that the text you claim was added after 2000.
Ah, this is the fun part where you have to start figuring out how to wiggle around the times you've committed to and the forms you claim to have signed without going over the total time you originally hinted at and without looking like a loser for only making E-4 during that time period.
Looks like that was released on May 2000.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf
Hmmm, revision 1-00.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=147973&cid=12
So you were in from "Feb. 1996 to Dec. 1998".
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520
So, it seems that the form with the verbiage you are referencing is from an updated form that was available years after your tour ended.
What was that you said about the AR requiring that form? http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r380_5.pdf
Published on
29 September 2000
2 years after your tour ended.Make all the claims you want to. It doesn't matter to me. I did 7 years and got out in 1990.
I don't have to play games with words like you claiming to be a "veteran" (no combat time and only 34 months in service) to boost my self-esteem. Nor do I have to spin lies about forms I was required to sign before they were even printed.
Target destroyed.
No. "Micro evolution" refers to changes made below the species level. Any change that still allows the two species to inter-breed can be called "micro evolution".
I cannot find any references for
"spot evolution"
or
"hyper evolution"
"Macro evolution" is when a new species branches off. That is demonstrated by the fruit fly experiment.
Simply being a "weakness" does not mean it will be have any effect on evolution.
Evolution is not about weakness/strength but about adaptability to the environment.
Again, evolution is NOT weakness/strength.
Actually, most of them have. There aren't many genetic issues now that kill before the individual can breed.
Here's a URL http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.htm l
No, macro evolution is about two colonies that descend from the same original colony that are not capable of inter-breeding.
You're looking for chimps to "evolve" into humans and that takes billions of years.
If it is not, then why do you assume that this one is? If the "other realm" is cyclic, then why can't this universe be cyclic?
It may be the "truth", but you won't be able to demonstrate that it is.
Which makes it a "religion".
"all these natural" what?
Buildings? We carve names and dates onto them. Our DNA strands don't have (tm) after them.
No. It is about attempting to determine the facts. Reproducible facts. Facts that can be confirmed through experiments.
Hey, if they've mastered inter-stellar travel and they can't read plaques bolted into our buildings, why should it concern me?
So you say that I say that a programmer who writes a program (design) is part of a religion?
Nope. I'm not saying that.
Desigining is not a relgion.
The religion is believing that some intelligent thing we cannot see, feel, smell, hear, taste or detect the presence of in any other way constructed us.
There are lots of underwater rock formations.
Maybe. So?
And your only support for that claim is the standard out-processing form that everybody fills out.
Yet, when you were out-processing, you had to sign an "NDA" and the "proof" you offer is the S2/S3 section on that standard out-processing form.
Here's a clue. If it was an Army NDA, then there would be a standard Army form number that you could quote. But you can't, can you?
Because there isn't one.Claim whatever you want. Claim that the reference to you NDA is on the same form that has a checkbox for "Weight Control Program".
You're the one making up the lies, not me.And why do you believe that they give SSG's the phone numbers to every unit out there?
No, just because I spent 7 years in the Army, I'd have to go through the SAME process as everyone else and FIND the number.
http://www.drum.army.mil/sites/about/phonebook.as
Wading through the phone menu for "Fort Drum Directory Assistance" gets me the information that DivArty has been disbanded.
So, talking do Division S2 (315 772-5404) gets me the information that NO they don't even know what an "NDA" is much less ever required one to be signed by any E-4's assigned to that Division.
But they DO know what a DA Form 137-1 is and no, the "Security Briefing/Debriefing" on that does NOT require an "NDA" to be signed.Either way. The dumbest Private can still accomplish that. Yet YOU seem to think that it merits specific mention.No. He's a national hero because he's going into a war zone to rescue Italians.So you claim. Again, the Italians say that there was no delay between the lights and the shots."well publicized" how?
Again, you are basing everything you say off of what you've heard other people say. You haven't bothered to read the reports.
Not to mention your lies about your "NDA" and how you can't say anything more about your secret knowledge.
Yeah, I even know what your next claim will be. You'll be claiming that maybe it was DivArty that required the "NDA's" but Division S2 didn't so they don't know about them but you know you signed one so all the evidence showing otherwise doesn't count.
Santa
Easter Bunny
Tooth Fairy
Your "NDA"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.htm
See the bit about "reproductive isolation". That means that the new fruit flies cannot breed with the other descendants of the the original colony. They are a different species.Did you miss the rest of what I posted? The "It was too easy to knock the "Creationists" before, so they decided that they could hide "God" behind the phrase "intelligent design" and attempt to get it taught in schools." Rather than pursuing that weird line, why don't you look up the "Scientific Method"? Here, I'll make it easy for you.
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/Append
It is easy to find material that supports your beliefs. And because it is easy, it is almost worthless.
So the Scientific Method requires experimentation to confirm/deny the hypothesis.
"Intelligent Design" does not. In fact, there is no way to test whether "Intelligent Design" is valid or not. Therefore, "Intelligent Design" is useless as anything other than a religious statement.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.htm
Easy enough.And why would it? You don't understand the theory of evolution.
How does my wearing glasses make me less likely to survive?Again, you don't understand evolution. Very few humans are below 20 IQ now.
Go back a million years or so and you'd find very few animals with above a 20 IQ.
Evolution.Check the URL I provided. Do more research. It's easy to show how fast breeding species can be forced to evolve into none interbreeding colonies.
That is evolution. That has been tested. That has been documented.
Claiming that it hasn't happened won't make it go away.Which results in infinite recursion. Who Designed the Designers?
If they could just spontaniously appear, then why not the universe we see?The same can be said of Santa and Bigfoot and the Easter Bunny.
What you are describing is a RELIGION. Not science.
What you see right now is nothing more than a snapshot.
Cellular processes that are dependant upon each other also evolve over time. Each individual process can evolve and other processes can take advantage of the new functionality. Over time, they evolve to depend upon that functionality.
Now, when you look at a snapshot, you don't see the many changes to each process that has been happening for millions/billions of years. All you see is the CURRENT inter-relationship.
And THAT is the problem with all the "Intelligent Design" books and people.
They are starting with their conclusion (complex systems are impossible without an Intelligent Designer) and then looking for complex systems that they then claim must have been Designed.
The correct way (if this was science and not religion) would be to look for something that CONTRADICTED the hypothesis that it is impossible for complex systems to evolve.
You know, the part where you know things that mere mortals do not.You left off the bit about travelling to distant lands and sitting on mountain tops.Bingo! You have much to teach us mere mortals oh enlightened master.Because "Intelligent Design" does not have any scientific basis.
With evolution, it is easy to show how species diverge. With actual animals.I have. And there isn't anything that is scientifically demonstratable to it.
If you believe otherwise, then please enlighten these mere mortals.Why do you assume that people who dismiss it haven't looked at it?
I have and I see that there isn't anything to it.
It simply attempts to cover any "holes" in evolution theory by claiming such "holes" must be because of an Intelligent Design.
It becomes very easy to understand once you know the evolution of "Intelligent Design".
It was too easy to knock the "Creationists" before, so they decided that they could hide "God" behind the phrase "intelligent design" and attempt to get it taught in schools.
And since we cannot travel back in time, we will never know, for sure, where it came from.
The most we can do is to work on various theories and try to test them to see if we can increase our understanding.
http://www.army.mil/usapa/eforms/pdf/A137_1.PDF
That's nothing more than the standard outprocessing form.
You might notice that your "NDA" also has a place for S1 to sign off on whether you're too fat.Listen kid, you're the one claiming that the a DA-137-1 is an "NDA".
Yeah, an "NDA" that has a block for "Weight Control Program".
I know that you had, at best, a "Secret" clearance which requires almost nothing in the way of background checks and gives you access to almost no real information.
If you had a Top Secret clearance, you wouldn't be going around claiming to have signed an "NDA" that was nothing more than your out-processing checklist.
The IIR does NOT say ANYTHING about your service.
The dumbest private who could barely manage a 3 year tour can ALSO make that same claim.
Because YOU think it says something good about you just confirms that you have no idea what you're talking about.
The same with the "training certs". EVERYONE gets those. Only a fool or a liar would think they were representative of his "service".
The same with the DD-214. As long as you weren't thrown out of the Army, you got an "honorable discharge". That is all it says about your "service".
Meanwhile, the guy you were talking about is a NATIONAL HERO in his home country and has the President of his country investigating his death.
Yet you still claim that you know more than he did and you "training certs" and "honorable discharge" and "form DA-137-1" (the "UNIT CLEARANCE RECORD") shows how well you served (as an E-4).
Right. You forgot to include your "Good Conduct Medal". You know the one. The one everybody gets after being in for a while?
hahahahahhhahahahahahaha
I was a higher rank than you, in for longer than you and I had a higher security clearance than you.
Enlisted don't sign NDA's with the Army.
You're a liar.
But I already knew that when you tried to pull the "veteran" bullshit.
Note the use of the word "specifically".
Yet your response was a link to a dictionary page where the first example was
So you really have no experience in these issues, do you?And any rent-a-cop can say the exact same thing.
They do "security" operations and sometimes "humanitarian relief".Why not?
Oh, that's right. You don't understand the meaning of "specifically" and you have no direct experience with any of this and the highest you've got was E-4.
And you claim to be a "veteran".
Newsflash, kid. The enemy does observe. The enemy adapts his attacks based upon those observations.
Trying to hide info that the enemy already has is worse than a waste of time. You have to assume that the enemy knows everything, already.
And you do not know more than a Major General.