I believe it is management's fault for insisting on designs that are unsecure (like ActiveX).
You can have coders who KNOW the correct way.
You can give them tools that help them secure their code.
But those only work if management focuses on secure code instead of "user friendly" features.
And management will only focus on security when the buyers focus on security.
I think we're seeing that now. More people are accepting that Linux is more secure than Windows, so Microsoft has to start focusing on security in an attempt to narrow that perception.
Microsoft has, for years, chosen "user friendly" over "secure".
In fact, security wasn't even a concern. If a feature could make a user's life a tiny bit easier, but would leave the machine wide open, then the feature was added.
This is a step in the right direction, but I don't believe it should have been added to the regular bug fixes of sp2. The security lock-down needs to be its own patch/install/upgrade.
The PROBLEM is that Microsoft is combining this new "feature" (security) with their bug fixes.
So, what do people do who are ALREADY running their software on XP, who need the bug fixes, and have already dealt with the security issues (firewalls, etc)?
This gets back to Microsoft's old behaviour or adding features and functionality in such "service packs".
Microsoft should release sp2 with ONLY bug fixes.
Microsoft should ALSO release a "security enhancement kit" that has the lock down features they're putting in sp2.
That way, the users have a chance to check out the new security and see what still works and deal with the things that break.
Why not re-write that stuff to throw up a big warning box saying that whatever application tried to do something stupid?
Oh, sorry. That might mean that another platform (like OS/2?) might get some converts.
Microsoft's management decided that it would be better to fill their OS with cruft rather than risk losing any marketshare.
That is what happens when you focus on "user friendly" above all else.
Microsoft programmers can blame the stupid 3rd party app coders for hacking away through the Microsoft code to use UNDOCUMENTED features (which other Microsoft apps have used in the past) but the real problem is Microsoft management not telling the 3rd party app management to get the 3rd party coders to fix the code and then telling the Microsoft coders to clean the cruft out.
You had said: "Look, numbers don't lie. Plain facts don't lie. Last December, the story broke that the homicide rate in Baghdad had fallen to below the largest American cities. If you took the military casualties out of the equation, the Baghdad murder rate was lower than any American city."
You cited a report that said that only TWENTY-FOUR people were killed in Baghdad in October 2003 (aside from the anti-coalition killings).
I said that those anti-coalition killings are exactly what a contractor over there would need to worry about.
You said that such was not the case. You said that those 24 killing INCLUDED all the killings not (and here I'll just quote you)... "Um... yeah. That's what I said. I said that if you take out the military casualties, the Baghdad homicide rate is lower than any US city."
So I went back and pulled stories of Iraqis being killing, in October 2003, that were NOT in the military (or Coalition or CGA as you like to phrase it).
Strangely, the numbers I pulled from those stories EXCEEDED the 24 deaths in the story you cited.
So, is the story you cited incorrect?
Or did you not understand how they arrived at only 24 deaths in October 2003?
Awwwww..., did poor widdle baby fall for someone else's propoganda and fail to check the real facts himself?
"We need to stop looking at terrorism as a crime issue and realize it is a National Security/War issue."
That's right! Everyone! Please REMEMBER to NOT VOTE FOR OSAMA IN NOVEMBER. Terrorist forces are only MONTHS away from overthowing the US government and forcing ALL US CITIZENS to attend Islamic schools!
"He is fighting a war, not shoplifting."
The same as various mafia families fight "wars".
The same as various drug gangs fight "wars".
More US citizens die from drug-related crime than from terrorists.
Terrorism can be reduced by simply applying the same techniques that law enforcement does. Track the money. That's how all of those other terrorist cells have been found in Europe.
"If you abide by the laws, then there shouldn't be any problems."
That is correct, citizen. Only those who oppose the government seek "privacy" and they only want "privacy" so they can plot to overthrow the government.
The government is your friend. The government takes care of you. Good citizens trust the government.
The government would never support a bad law. (slavey) The government respects all of its citizens. (women's sufferage) Only terrorists oppose the government. Only terrorists seek "privacy". Only terrorists oppose the Law.
"If you abide by the laws, then there shouldn't be any problems."
The government welcomes the support of good, concerned citizens such as yourself.
October 9, 2003. The same month that the report you cite says only 24 people were killed in Baghdad.
Yet 8 people died (not counting the 2 in the car) in that SINGLE attack. And those people were NOT Coalition or CGA. They were Iraqis.
Which means that either the numbers you're citing are NOT calculated the way you claim they are..or.. Baghdad has almost ZERO violence with only 16 people being murdered there in October 2003.
"Pentagon officials say the exemption would not affect civil liberties and is needed so that its agents can obtain information from sources who may be afraid of government agents, such as a green-card-holding professor of nanotechnology who formerly lived under a repressive government."
And this is supposed to make him feel better how? By HIDING the fact that he's talking to a government agent?
You're right. The DoD is not designed for law enforcement. And there is no reason for the DoD to have undercover agents checking on US citizens (and legal residents).
Do you really want Military Intelligence officers spying upon US citizens on US soil?
From the article: "In February, Army intelligence agents improperly sought information about attendees at a University of Texas law school conference about Muslim women. Conference organizers refused to provide a videotape of the event to the officers and publicized the request, leading to an apology by the Army."
The only way to keep the government honest is to keep it open.
"If that US citizen was a member of the Coalition--that is, one of the 138,000 American or Coalition troops, or one of the few dozen remaining CGA personnel--then that citizen's death would be tallied as part of an "anti-Coalition attack." Otherwise, then it's just a homicide."
Contractors are also filed under "coalition". Hell, that was even covered in the SECOND paragraph.
"While daily reports of violence give the impression that chaos reigns, the U.S. Army's 1st Armour Division, which controls the Iraqi capital, says the number of "non-political" murder victims has declined dramatically over recent months."
NON-POLITICAL
NON-POLITICAL
NON-POLITICAL
So if someone killed him because he was an American, that would be...... POLITICAL.
So his death would not be counted.
So, once again what you are ACTUALLY saying is...... "If we don't count people like you being killed, then the statistics for people like you being killed are very low."
"The interesting thing about Saudi Arabia is that there is a constant battle between the House of Saud and the religious leaders. Saud rules, but they know that they'd get overthrown quick if they tell the Islamic leaders to back off."
Whatever. That still does not change the fact that they are a US supported DICTATORSHIP that practices political assassinations.
"Why? Just because the Liberal Left hates Bush with a passion doesn't mean that they are CORRECT."
Those links are to commentary about a fictional movie. And the movie SUCKED from the reviews it has received. Would you care to focus on actual events instead of movies?
"Well, if Russia is to be believed...."
Where is the support for that claim? I don't remember seeing anything about that claim in any reports or papers. Bush certainly didn't mention it in any of his speeches.
No, it looks like, in this case, Russia is not to be believed. Sorry to break that to you.
"Hm. So Bush and Company didn't take into consideration that a loon like Saddam would have his army melt into the general population and resort to guerilla warfare and terrorism, and you want to blame him? Please."
Who, besides Bush and Co (and you), did NOT know that they would do that? Even the Pentagon said we'd need more troops.
"No, like the Democrats claiming that they are looking out for the Little Guy, when they are making a complete ass of them. (look how things are happening in Boston, with respect to the Democratic National Convention. That's one complete fuck-up if i ever saw one. It's already $10M over budget. They can't get their heads out of their ass for a peaceful conference like this, and they want us to believe that they can run a war?!? Whoever writes their game plan should get into comedy. they'd make a killing."
You are comparing a convention to a war that was sold by a series of lies to the US people? A war that is BILLIONS of dollars more expensive than was initially claimed? A war that is costing more US lives every month?
I'd take a fucked up convention over a stupid war any day. The sanctions were working. Saddam was not a threat.
"The general population should not be punished for the extreme actions of a (relative) few."
But they are. Just today the US fired missles into a residential area.
Look at how many prisoners were released from Abu Ghraib now. Yet they were being held there for weeks and months prior. If they were guilty, why release them? If they were innocent, why hold them? And don't try to tell me that they were just waiting for the paperwork to process. If that were so, we would NOT be seeing hundreds released a week all of a sudden.
The US is trapped in a war that Bush lied about. We have no exit strategy. We can't tell who the enemy is. And we're just breeding more terrorists.
The number of terrorist attacks has INCREASED.
When a rational person sees that his actions are costing more than anticipated and not achieving his goals, does not the rational person re-evaluate his strategy?
"Look, numbers don't lie. Plain facts don't lie. Last December, the story broke that the homicide rate in Baghdad had fallen to below the largest American cities. If you took the military casualties out of the equation, the Baghdad murder rate was lower than any American city."
Check out the FIRST PARAGRAPH of that story.:D
"The latest crime statistics for Baghdad show its murder rate is lower than that of any major U.S. city -- if anti-coalition attacks are discounted."
IF ANTI-COALITION ATTACKS ARE DISCOUNTED.
IF ANTI-COALITION ATTACKS ARE DISCOUNTED.
IF ANTI-COALITION ATTACKS ARE DISCOUNTED.
So, if a US citizen went to Baghdad and was killed, would that death be counted in the story you referenced?
No (most likely).
Because someone killing that person would PROBABLY be counted as "anti-coalition".
So, what you are ACTUALLY saying is...... "If we don't count people like you being killed, then the statistics for people like you being killed are very low."
Nice try. But I seem to understand statistics far better than you.:)
"Yes, and that would only take a couple of, what, DAYS, surely? CERTAINLY they could cope without infrastructure until THEN!"
While it would take longer than DAYS, it would still happen faster than the US rebuilding it.
Who do you think FIRST built the stuff we bombed? It was the Iraqis. They already know how to build the roads / schools / hospitals / etc.
"No, they couldn't. Come to think of it, though, training native people to build their infrastructure is probably why schools are being built, yes?"
If you take the long term (10 years) view, then that is an acceptable answer. So you view sending a kid to kindergarten as training someone to build a hospital?
"Just as the US had a responsibility to remove Saddam after they were the ones who put him in power, they are the ones who have the responsibility to begin forward momentum in rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq."
We removed him in a very IRRESPONSIBLE manner. We did NOT have a plan for stabilizing the country AFTER.
So our "responsibility to begin forward momentum in rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq" does NOT include huge salaries for US citizens.
Our responsibility is to get the Iraqis building and maintaining their own country NOW.
"Am I ticked about the probability of wrongdoing with Haliburton contracts? Yes."
While I just find the use of the term "wrongdoing" to be amusing. It sounds like something a 6 year old would say. Why not call it a "crime" or something?
"But that doesn't mean that my knee-jerk response is to say the US shouldn't be helping."
Nice try. We also were "helping" when we funded Saddam's war against Iran.
We also were "helping" when we funded Saddam's chemical weapons program.
We also were "helping" when we rounded up and tortured those Iraqis.
Isn't about time we stopped "helping"? Isn't it about time we turned Iraq over to the Iraqis?
"And helping, they are. Many people in Iraq already now live much, much better than they ever have."
Anytime the government changes, some people move up and some move down. I'm not interested in a select sub-group. I want the AVERAGE Iraqi to be better off.
If we were doing so much good for the AVERAGE Iraqi, we would NOT have lost Fallujah, which, on 19 June 2004, we are STILL firing missles at.
Losing your house and then paying the guy who wrecked it to help rebuild it is so much more intelligent than.....
hiring an exterminator?
The world (as a whole) is better off without Saddam's government.
Individual Iraqis are not. Some are dead. Some are maimed.
The US economy certainly isn't better off.
Suppose you have a brother and you give your brother $50 to bring back beer for you both for the weekend. He brings back 1 bottle. Would you think your brother was... a.) a very shrewd shopper or b.) an idiot who just paid $50 for a bottle of beer
You can "solve" a "problem" in a completely idiotic fashion and spend way too much time and money and LIVES doing so.
"(1) the idiot that authorized that kind of treatment should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
That would be Bush or Rumsfeld or whom?
"(2) those prisoners, although embarrassed, lived. they'll get over it."
Except for the ones that were killed. And there are photos that show that.
Not to mention the women that were raped. Seems Congress has access to pictures of THAT happening, too.
"Go find someone that's been to Viet Nam, and ask them if they had an easy time telling who the Enemy was."
So, it's okay to kill people who look different as long as they all look different in the same way?
WTF?
"In Iraq, most of the people are friendly enough. The few that are the problem cannot be picked out of a crowd based on their appearance."
That's correct. Irrelevant, but correct.
"Any time weapons are fired, they get nervous."
That is an understandable response.
"Given the nature of the environment, I'm actually more surprised that the people at this wedding party didn't have the sense to find another way to make noise, if they wanted to celebrate."
Why? They celebrated in that fashion while Saddam was in charge. Aren't we supposed to be BETTER than Saddam?
"I'll grant you that the RESPONSIBILITY ultimately falls on Bush (more on that in a second), but that does NOT mean that it was his call to do it."
Responsibility is Responsibility.
"When I served in the Navy, they taught us an important rule of leadership: You can delegate Authority, but you cannot delegate Responsibility. I think that speaks for itself."
But nothing is happening to Bush. If he was responsible, shouldn't he be doing jail time for the crime?
"I am sad that there are people that so hate President Bush that they are willing to blame him for every thing possible, all the while being completely blind to the facts at hand."
But you just said that they taught you in the Navy that you cannot delegate Responsibility. So Bush is Responsible.
So it isn't about people who "hate" Bush and "are willing to blame him for every thing possible".
It is a matter of Responsibility.
The question for YOU is "What does 'Responsibility' mean?"
When I was in the Army, if one of my troops fucked up, _I_ was the one explaining the situation to my commander and _I_ was the one who dealt with the situation and _I_ was the one who made sure it did not happen again.
Maybe it isn't people who "hate" Bush. Maybe it's just people who understand that "Responsibility" is not just a word.
"On a related note, I would like to see a comparison of the daily murder rate in Iraq compared to the daily murder rate for an inner-city such as, oh, let's say Detroit."
So, you're talking gang-related killings and such?
You do realize that, in the mid-east, you are the target for every "gang" out there, don't you?
In Detroit, the average, non-gang, person has a low probability of being shot. While the stats for gang-members are many times higher.
In the mid-east, the average person BORN AND RAISED THERE has a low chance of being shot. But a white American has a really big chance of being shot.
"What's your likelihood of being abducted by terrorists in Saudi Arabia? Not very high. Even if you are there."
Well, it's kind of hard to be kidnapped by terrorists in Saudi Arabia if you're NOT there.
But if you do go there AND you look like an American, then the chances go right up.
"Certainly not relative to any other of a number of ways you could die."
Stepped on by an elephant while having sex in Tacoma. Hmmm, statistically, that has NEVER HAPPENED.
Do you know what "relative" means?
"You can lock yourself up in your house if you want to. It just depends on how you want to live."
False dichotomy there.
Either Lock yourself in your house or Go someplace where lots of people who don't like you want to kill you and can recognize you easily.
Yeah. Whatever.
"If you are really concerned about your life being out of control and in the hands of terrorists, just get fitted with one of those poison teeth. Then at least you can save yourself from suffering while you die."
So, the terrorists can kill me or I can kill myself before the terrorists kill me.
Only on/. would something like that be mod'ed "Insightful".
How about he get a job at a small insurance company and die from a heart attack 60 years from now brought on by too many donuts for breakfast for 60 years?
I find that the books have the most value because they not only describe WHAT the mistakes were, but WHY people who knew better made those mistakes.
People keep making the same mistakes, for the same reasons. Even when they know better.
The trick is to identify the conditions that exist PRIOR to making the mistake and focus on changing those conditions (example: management does NOT know what they want, just that they want something and it has to be next month).
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't the coders.
I believe it is management's fault for insisting on designs that are unsecure (like ActiveX).
You can have coders who KNOW the correct way.
You can give them tools that help them secure their code.
But those only work if management focuses on secure code instead of "user friendly" features.
And management will only focus on security when the buyers focus on security.
I think we're seeing that now. More people are accepting that Linux is more secure than Windows, so Microsoft has to start focusing on security in an attempt to narrow that perception.
For an INDIVIDUAL, Bayesian filter works far better than just the regular SpamAssassin rulesets.
That's because the Bayesian system will LEARN from you what you consider to be spam and ham.
I use SpamAssassin with Bayesian filtering turned on and it catches over 90% of the spam. But then I've fed it a decent sized corpus.
People LOVE it.
There are some false positives and some false negatives.
But I have it set to delete anything 12+. That gets rid of the worst of the worst spam. So far, not a single complaint of any email being deleted.
Everything else has the subject re-written so people can run their own rule set against it.
In the past 8 hours
1867 messages received
375 messages deleted
1266 messages flagged as spam
So, only a few hundred actual, good emails.
Of course, that's only 4 hours during the regular work day (and 4 hours after work). But you can see the proportions. It saves people a TON of time.
And it makes them happier when they don't have to constantly dig through crap to see if any real messages have arrived.
Now, those spam messages are NOT distributed evenly. Our HR manager had her email address posted on the website. So she gets about 20-25% of the spam.
It's not exactly Big Brother 'cause no human sees the deleted spam.
Microsoft has, for years, chosen "user friendly" over "secure".
In fact, security wasn't even a concern. If a feature could make a user's life a tiny bit easier, but would leave the machine wide open, then the feature was added.
This is a step in the right direction, but I don't believe it should have been added to the regular bug fixes of sp2. The security lock-down needs to be its own patch/install/upgrade.
The PROBLEM is that Microsoft is combining this new "feature" (security) with their bug fixes.
So, what do people do who are ALREADY running their software on XP, who need the bug fixes, and have already dealt with the security issues (firewalls, etc)?
This gets back to Microsoft's old behaviour or adding features and functionality in such "service packs".
Microsoft should release sp2 with ONLY bug fixes.
Microsoft should ALSO release a "security enhancement kit" that has the lock down features they're putting in sp2.
That way, the users have a chance to check out the new security and see what still works and deal with the things that break.
Why not re-write that stuff to throw up a big warning box saying that whatever application tried to do something stupid?
Oh, sorry. That might mean that another platform (like OS/2?) might get some converts.
Microsoft's management decided that it would be better to fill their OS with cruft rather than risk losing any marketshare.
That is what happens when you focus on "user friendly" above all else.
Microsoft programmers can blame the stupid 3rd party app coders for hacking away through the Microsoft code to use UNDOCUMENTED features (which other Microsoft apps have used in the past) but the real problem is Microsoft management not telling the 3rd party app management to get the 3rd party coders to fix the code and then telling the Microsoft coders to clean the cruft out.
What's the problem?
You had said:
"Look, numbers don't lie. Plain facts don't lie. Last December, the story broke that the homicide rate in Baghdad had fallen to below the largest American cities. If you took the military casualties out of the equation, the Baghdad murder rate was lower than any American city."
You cited a report that said that only TWENTY-FOUR people were killed in Baghdad in October 2003 (aside from the anti-coalition killings).
I said that those anti-coalition killings are exactly what a contractor over there would need to worry about.
You said that such was not the case. You said that those 24 killing INCLUDED all the killings not (and here I'll just quote you)...
"Um... yeah. That's what I said. I said that if you take out the military casualties, the Baghdad homicide rate is lower than any US city."
So I went back and pulled stories of Iraqis being killing, in October 2003, that were NOT in the military (or Coalition or CGA as you like to phrase it).
Strangely, the numbers I pulled from those stories EXCEEDED the 24 deaths in the story you cited.
So, is the story you cited incorrect?
Or did you not understand how they arrived at only 24 deaths in October 2003?
Awwwww..., did poor widdle baby fall for someone else's propoganda and fail to check the real facts himself?
Awwwww.....
Why do WE need to "qualify" them or "oversee" them?
They built the place before we bombed it.
"We need to stop looking at terrorism as a crime issue and realize it is a National Security/War issue."
That's right! Everyone! Please REMEMBER to NOT VOTE FOR OSAMA IN NOVEMBER. Terrorist forces are only MONTHS away from overthowing the US government and forcing ALL US CITIZENS to attend Islamic schools!
"He is fighting a war, not shoplifting."
The same as various mafia families fight "wars".
The same as various drug gangs fight "wars".
More US citizens die from drug-related crime than from terrorists.
Terrorism can be reduced by simply applying the same techniques that law enforcement does. Track the money. That's how all of those other terrorist cells have been found in Europe.
"If you abide by the laws, then there shouldn't be any problems."
That is correct, citizen.
Only those who oppose the government seek "privacy" and they only want "privacy" so they can plot to overthrow the government.
The government is your friend.
The government takes care of you.
Good citizens trust the government.
The government would never support a bad law.
(slavey)
The government respects all of its citizens.
(women's sufferage)
Only terrorists oppose the government.
Only terrorists seek "privacy".
Only terrorists oppose the Law.
"If you abide by the laws, then there shouldn't be any problems."
The government welcomes the support of good, concerned citizens such as yourself.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/09/iraq/mai n577335.shtml
..or..
s tm
..or..
October 9, 2003. The same month that the report you cite says only 24 people were killed in Baghdad.
Yet 8 people died (not counting the 2 in the car) in that SINGLE attack. And those people were NOT Coalition or CGA. They were Iraqis.
Which means that either the numbers you're citing are NOT calculated the way you claim they are
Baghdad has almost ZERO violence with only 16 people being murdered there in October 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3216539.
Seems that lots of Iraqis have died.
Again, either the numbers are not calculated the way you claim
well, there is no "or" now, is there?
"Pentagon officials say the exemption would not affect civil liberties and is needed so that its agents can obtain information from sources who may be afraid of government agents, such as a green-card-holding professor of nanotechnology who formerly lived under a repressive government."
And this is supposed to make him feel better how? By HIDING the fact that he's talking to a government agent?
You're right. The DoD is not designed for law enforcement. And there is no reason for the DoD to have undercover agents checking on US citizens (and legal residents).
Do you really want Military Intelligence officers spying upon US citizens on US soil?
From the article:
"In February, Army intelligence agents improperly sought information about attendees at a University of Texas law school conference about Muslim women. Conference organizers refused to provide a videotape of the event to the officers and publicized the request, leading to an apology by the Army."
The only way to keep the government honest is to keep it open.
They said "anti-coalition".
... ... "If we don't count people like you being killed, then the statistics for people like you being killed are very low."
"If that US citizen was a member of the Coalition--that is, one of the 138,000 American or Coalition troops, or one of the few dozen remaining CGA personnel--then that citizen's death would be tallied as part of an "anti-Coalition attack." Otherwise, then it's just a homicide."
Contractors are also filed under "coalition". Hell, that was even covered in the SECOND paragraph.
"While daily reports of violence give the impression that chaos reigns, the U.S. Army's 1st Armour Division, which controls the Iraqi capital, says the number of "non-political" murder victims has declined dramatically over recent months."
NON-POLITICAL
NON-POLITICAL
NON-POLITICAL
So if someone killed him because he was an American, that would be...... POLITICAL.
So his death would not be counted.
So, once again what you are ACTUALLY saying is
"The interesting thing about Saudi Arabia is that there is a constant battle between the House of Saud and the religious leaders. Saud rules, but they know that they'd get overthrown quick if they tell the Islamic leaders to back off."
Whatever. That still does not change the fact that they are a US supported DICTATORSHIP that practices political assassinations.
"Why? Just because the Liberal Left hates Bush with a passion doesn't mean that they are CORRECT."
Those links are to commentary about a fictional movie. And the movie SUCKED from the reviews it has received. Would you care to focus on actual events instead of movies?
"Well, if Russia is to be believed...."
Where is the support for that claim? I don't remember seeing anything about that claim in any reports or papers. Bush certainly didn't mention it in any of his speeches.
No, it looks like, in this case, Russia is not to be believed. Sorry to break that to you.
"Hm. So Bush and Company didn't take into consideration that a loon like Saddam would have his army melt into the general population and resort to guerilla warfare and terrorism, and you want to blame him? Please."
Who, besides Bush and Co (and you), did NOT know that they would do that? Even the Pentagon said we'd need more troops.
"No, like the Democrats claiming that they are looking out for the Little Guy, when they are making a complete ass of them. (look how things are happening in Boston, with respect to the Democratic National Convention. That's one complete fuck-up if i ever saw one. It's already $10M over budget. They can't get their heads out of their ass for a peaceful conference like this, and they want us to believe that they can run a war?!? Whoever writes their game plan should get into comedy. they'd make a killing."
You are comparing a convention to a war that was sold by a series of lies to the US people? A war that is BILLIONS of dollars more expensive than was initially claimed? A war that is costing more US lives every month?
I'd take a fucked up convention over a stupid war any day. The sanctions were working. Saddam was not a threat.
"The general population should not be punished for the extreme actions of a (relative) few."
But they are. Just today the US fired missles into a residential area.
Look at how many prisoners were released from Abu Ghraib now. Yet they were being held there for weeks and months prior. If they were guilty, why release them? If they were innocent, why hold them? And don't try to tell me that they were just waiting for the paperwork to process. If that were so, we would NOT be seeing hundreds released a week all of a sudden.
The US is trapped in a war that Bush lied about. We have no exit strategy. We can't tell who the enemy is. And we're just breeding more terrorists.
The number of terrorist attacks has INCREASED.
When a rational person sees that his actions are costing more than anticipated and not achieving his goals, does not the rational person re-evaluate his strategy?
But Bush? "Stay the course".
"Look, numbers don't lie. Plain facts don't lie. Last December, the story broke that the homicide rate in Baghdad had fallen to below the largest American cities. If you took the military casualties out of the equation, the Baghdad murder rate was lower than any American city."
:D
... ... "If we don't count people like you being killed, then the statistics for people like you being killed are very low."
:)
Check out the FIRST PARAGRAPH of that story.
"The latest crime statistics for Baghdad show its murder rate is lower than that of any major U.S. city -- if anti-coalition attacks are discounted."
IF ANTI-COALITION ATTACKS ARE DISCOUNTED.
IF ANTI-COALITION ATTACKS ARE DISCOUNTED.
IF ANTI-COALITION ATTACKS ARE DISCOUNTED.
So, if a US citizen went to Baghdad and was killed, would that death be counted in the story you referenced?
No (most likely).
Because someone killing that person would PROBABLY be counted as "anti-coalition".
So, what you are ACTUALLY saying is
Nice try. But I seem to understand statistics far better than you.
"Yes, and that would only take a couple of, what, DAYS, surely? CERTAINLY they could cope without infrastructure until THEN!"
0 94 117.html
While it would take longer than DAYS, it would still happen faster than the US rebuilding it.
Who do you think FIRST built the stuff we bombed? It was the Iraqis. They already know how to build the roads / schools / hospitals / etc.
"No, they couldn't. Come to think of it, though, training native people to build their infrastructure is probably why schools are being built, yes?"
If you take the long term (10 years) view, then that is an acceptable answer. So you view sending a kid to kindergarten as training someone to build a hospital?
"Just as the US had a responsibility to remove Saddam after they were the ones who put him in power, they are the ones who have the responsibility to begin forward momentum in rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq."
We removed him in a very IRRESPONSIBLE manner. We did NOT have a plan for stabilizing the country AFTER.
So our "responsibility to begin forward momentum in rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq" does NOT include huge salaries for US citizens.
Our responsibility is to get the Iraqis building and maintaining their own country NOW.
"Am I ticked about the probability of wrongdoing with Haliburton contracts? Yes."
While I just find the use of the term "wrongdoing" to be amusing. It sounds like something a 6 year old would say. Why not call it a "crime" or something?
"But that doesn't mean that my knee-jerk response is to say the US shouldn't be helping."
Nice try.
We also were "helping" when we funded Saddam's war against Iran.
We also were "helping" when we funded Saddam's chemical weapons program.
We also were "helping" when we rounded up and tortured those Iraqis.
Isn't about time we stopped "helping"? Isn't it about time we turned Iraq over to the Iraqis?
"And helping, they are. Many people in Iraq already now live much, much better than they ever have."
Anytime the government changes, some people move up and some move down. I'm not interested in a select sub-group. I want the AVERAGE Iraqi to be better off.
If we were doing so much good for the AVERAGE Iraqi, we would NOT have lost Fallujah, which, on 19 June 2004, we are STILL firing missles at.
http://kutv.com/topstories/topstories_story_171
Almost every dictator has built schools. That is no accomplishment.
Losing your house and then paying the guy who wrecked it to help rebuild it is so much more intelligent than.....
hiring an exterminator?
The world (as a whole) is better off without Saddam's government.
Individual Iraqis are not. Some are dead. Some are maimed.
The US economy certainly isn't better off.
Suppose you have a brother and you give your brother $50 to bring back beer for you both for the weekend. He brings back 1 bottle. Would you think your brother was...
a.) a very shrewd shopper
or
b.) an idiot who just paid $50 for a bottle of beer
You can "solve" a "problem" in a completely idiotic fashion and spend way too much time and money and LIVES doing so.
Check out the photo of the chick next to the corpse.
The bloody corpse.
The bloody, bruised corpse.
He died of "humiliation"?
"(1) the idiot that authorized that kind of treatment should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
That would be Bush or Rumsfeld or whom?
"(2) those prisoners, although embarrassed, lived. they'll get over it."
Except for the ones that were killed. And there are photos that show that.
Not to mention the women that were raped. Seems Congress has access to pictures of THAT happening, too.
"Go find someone that's been to Viet Nam, and ask them if they had an easy time telling who the Enemy was."
So, it's okay to kill people who look different as long as they all look different in the same way?
WTF?
"In Iraq, most of the people are friendly enough. The few that are the problem cannot be picked out of a crowd based on their appearance."
That's correct. Irrelevant, but correct.
"Any time weapons are fired, they get nervous."
That is an understandable response.
"Given the nature of the environment, I'm actually more surprised that the people at this wedding party didn't have the sense to find another way to make noise, if they wanted to celebrate."
Why? They celebrated in that fashion while Saddam was in charge. Aren't we supposed to be BETTER than Saddam?
"I'll grant you that the RESPONSIBILITY ultimately falls on Bush (more on that in a second), but that does NOT mean that it was his call to do it."
Responsibility is Responsibility.
"When I served in the Navy, they taught us an important rule of leadership: You can delegate Authority, but you cannot delegate Responsibility. I think that speaks for itself."
But nothing is happening to Bush. If he was responsible, shouldn't he be doing jail time for the crime?
"I am sad that there are people that so hate President Bush that they are willing to blame him for every thing possible, all the while being completely blind to the facts at hand."
But you just said that they taught you in the Navy that you cannot delegate Responsibility. So Bush is Responsible.
So it isn't about people who "hate" Bush and "are willing to blame him for every thing possible".
It is a matter of Responsibility.
The question for YOU is "What does 'Responsibility' mean?"
When I was in the Army, if one of my troops fucked up, _I_ was the one explaining the situation to my commander and _I_ was the one who dealt with the situation and _I_ was the one who made sure it did not happen again.
Maybe it isn't people who "hate" Bush. Maybe it's just people who understand that "Responsibility" is not just a word.
Since Iraq needs to be rebuilt....
Why not hire and train Iraqi citizens to rebuild it?
There, no moral questions about hourly pay rates for the citizens of the country that bombed them in the first place.
"On a related note, I would like to see a comparison of the daily murder rate in Iraq compared to the daily murder rate for an inner-city such as, oh, let's say Detroit."
So, you're talking gang-related killings and such?
You do realize that, in the mid-east, you are the target for every "gang" out there, don't you?
In Detroit, the average, non-gang, person has a low probability of being shot. While the stats for gang-members are many times higher.
In the mid-east, the average person BORN AND RAISED THERE has a low chance of being shot. But a white American has a really big chance of being shot.
"What's your likelihood of being abducted by terrorists in Saudi Arabia? Not very high. Even if you are there."
/. would something like that be mod'ed "Insightful".
Well, it's kind of hard to be kidnapped by terrorists in Saudi Arabia if you're NOT there.
But if you do go there AND you look like an American, then the chances go right up.
"Certainly not relative to any other of a number of ways you could die."
Stepped on by an elephant while having sex in Tacoma. Hmmm, statistically, that has NEVER HAPPENED.
Do you know what "relative" means?
"You can lock yourself up in your house if you want to. It just depends on how you want to live."
False dichotomy there.
Either
Lock yourself in your house
or
Go someplace where lots of people who don't like you want to kill you and can recognize you easily.
Yeah. Whatever.
"If you are really concerned about your life being out of control and in the hands of terrorists, just get fitted with one of those poison teeth. Then at least you can save yourself from suffering while you die."
So, the terrorists can kill me or I can kill myself before the terrorists kill me.
Only on
How about he get a job at a small insurance company and die from a heart attack 60 years from now brought on by too many donuts for breakfast for 60 years?
I notice that you left out YOUR response. :D
Here is what you say NOW:
"I did answer it. Here's the summary: I wasn't defending MS, I was correcting what I believed to be an error."
Yet here is your ORIGINAL response:
"That works until everybody cries "anti-trust!" Damned if they do, damned if they don't. There's a lot of lightening up that needs to happen."
So, where is the "error" that you were "correcting" with that statement?
"I did answer it. Here's the summary: I wasn't defending MS, I was correcting what I believed to be an error."
As I pointed out, the ORIGINAL post your replied to had nothing to do with your pro-Microsoft rant.
The ORIGINAL post was about legitimate technological issues (such as "single point of failure").
I find that the books have the most value because they not only describe WHAT the mistakes were, but WHY people who knew better made those mistakes.
People keep making the same mistakes, for the same reasons. Even when they know better.
The trick is to identify the conditions that exist PRIOR to making the mistake and focus on changing those conditions (example: management does NOT know what they want, just that they want something and it has to be next month).
Managing the conditions is very tricky.