"The Bush administration on Monday renewed its attack on the European Commission's decision against Microsoft, but insisted that US-European Union antitrust co-operation was as strong as ever."
It seems the US government IS looking to protect Microsoft.
It's even on/.
Just from the other day. Read it in reverse order. Keep hitting "parent".
Here
Windows can be made stable. But it takes very rigid control. The problem is that ANY change can break that stability. Even something as necessary as applying a patch for a known exploit.
Which is more important? Making a claim that you haven't rebooted your Windows box in the past 6 months or the claim that you're fully patched?
In order for him to have achieved his claimed "stability", he would have had to skip the service packs and hot fixes that Microsoft issues.
So it isn't a matter of "sufficient proficiency" on his part. It seems to be a matter of finding a stable configuration, at that time, and then skipping further patching.
Now, look at the other stories on/. about worms and such. Look at how many of the Windows fans claim that it isn't Windows' fault that those machines were exploited, but that it is the admins' fault for not installing the patches that had been available for months prior.:D
In order for him to have achieved his claimed "stability", he would have had to skip the service packs and hot fixes that Microsoft issues.
So it isn't a matter of "sufficient proficiency" on his part. It seems to be a matter of finding a stable configuration, at that time, and then skipping further patching.
Now, look at the other stories on/. about worms and such. Look at how many of the Windows fans claim that it isn't Windows' fault that those machines were exploited, but that it is the admins' fault for not installing the patches that had been available for months prior.:):D:)
And I don't mean "will instantly wipe your hard drive".
I mean ones that will randomly alter numbers in Excel spreadsheets and Access databases.
At the moment, viruses are just a really huge annoyance and a means for spammers to grab more zombies.
I think the copycat viruses are because it is far easier to copy what someone else has already proven than it is to do original work. I also believe that most virus writers aren't that great at writing code. But that's just my personal opinion. The majority of "viruses" I see via the email scanner are the old "click the attachment" types of trojans. Social engineering.
"Anyone sufficiently proficient with (name your OS) and knowledgable about what they're running should."
And how is "sufficiently proficient" defined?:)
"I know what software is running on my computer, I know what bugs my OS has (and how to workaround/deal with them), I know what issues may come up because of my hardware configuration."
Strange. Very strange. Because, what if a known bug (say a memory leak) causes you to have to reboot your machine?
Is this because Windows needs rebooting? (As many claim.) -or- Is it you working around a known bug? (Because you're so much more proficient than those others.)
Now, given that Microsoft has released more than a few service packs for their software, and that many bugs relating to memory leaks have been fixed in those service packs......
How is it that you managed that "reliability" prior to those service packs being released?
Not that such is not possible. But it is less a matter of "sufficient proficiency" than a matter of redefining what "stable" and "reboot" means.
I have, in the past, "discussed" this same issue with people who swore that they had not rebooted their Win95 machine for months. Win95 was just so stable that they never had to.
Of course, then Microsoft confirms that there was a bug that caused problems with Win95 after 49.5days of uptime.
At which point those same people who had said that they did not need to reboot their machines for months now said that of course they restarted their computers every day.
The difference is how someone looks at the situation. A Windows fan will see "reboot" in one fashion while a Debian fan (your's truly) will see reboot in a different fashion (type "uptime" and see when the last reboot was).
If your Windows boxes run for months at a time without rebooting, then you're not applying the critical patches and such that Microsoft releases. Which gets back to the service packs that fix memory leaks.:)
"It's not like it's terribly hard to keep Windows stable."
So, anyone who disagrees with that statement is admitting to being less technically proficient than trb001. And there is ALWAYS someone who will post that claim. Regardless of whether the OS is Win95, Win2000 or whatever.
Yet when the NEXT version of Microsoft's OS is released, EVERYONE claims how it is so much more stable and reliable than the last. Even Microsoft got into that with comparing NT and Windows2000 and showing that NT wouldn't stay up for more than a few days of heavy work (sorry, I couldn't find a citation for that yet).
I get dragged in to fix all kinds of Windows problems. From corrupt registries to tons of spyware, I've seen it and fixed it. It is a PAIN keeping Windows stable. Even installing the DCom patch on NT broke apps.
Here's a tip on how much everyone else in the world has to reboot. Call Microsoft tech support with any problem and see what the FIRST thing they tell you to do is.
"It's very interesting that many of the complaints people have about Microsoft Products are actually addressed in later releases, but if the customer never upgrades to that new release they'll never see the changes."
Which, in essence, means that you have to PAY for bug fixes.
This has been a very profitable practice for Microsoft. That way they can keep selling you the same product(Win95) over(Win98) and over(Win2000) and over(WinXP).
I wouldn't have that big of a problem with the practice except for one major "bug". As was mentioned in the article, moving your apps from one version to another is damn painful.
So, people don't pay for the bug fixes (or feature packs) because applying them is too painful.
That's why I like Debian so much. I don't have that problem with Debian (and it is very stable and reliable).
I'll help the FBI out with catching them.
on
NYT on Spam Cops
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
#1. Buy the pills (in the article, they're already saying that they do that) and pay with a CHECK.
#2. Find the bank that accepted the check.
#3. Call the local field office and have them meet with the bank manager.
#4. Local agent picks up the name, address and social security number of the person who has the account that deposited that check.
I'm the one running the spam filter (SpamAssassin) at work. Overall, it has been VERY popular with everyone else. They don't receive the most obnoxious sex spams any more.
On the other hand, there are a few false positives that reduce the overall savings in your post. I auto-delete anything about 10 and flag anything above 5.
But the end users still have to look through the flagged stuff to see if there are any false positives. Then they drop them into the false positive folder. The users also have to identify all the missed spam and drop that into the spam folder.
It's still work for them so the costs aren't as clear as in your post. But the non-tangible benefits are also important.
I think we're at the point of dimishing returns on simple scanning processes. I think we need to look at actively seeding the spammer's lists with false names and tuning the spam filters with those.
"But they have taken all my money for three years and pulled me up the day before I finished. If they had pulled me up with my first essay at the beginning and warned me of the problems and consequences, it would be fair enough."
He's complaining that he spent 3 years and lots of money submitting stolen papers and that the University should have made him understand EARLIER that submitting stolen papers would REALLY get him kicked out of the program.
His case is that no one at the university REALLY explained to him that stealing papers was not acceptable and what the ACTUAL consequences would be. Or at least that they didn't do it early enough to satisfy him.
Whether he wins or loses that case, you have to ask yourself, would you want to HIRE him to work for you?
"It's not an easy situation, perhaps you believe that Saddam Hussain was a just and kind leader who was no threat at all, I think that it is pretty obvious that he wasn't."
I don't think ANYONE believes that Saddam was a "just and kind leader".
I also believe that ANYONE who believes Saddam was a threat to the US is living in a fantasy.
"The morning of Sept 11, we had no troops in hostile teritories, no prisoners being held illegally, and no delared wars with any country."
Well, we had people in Saudi Arabia and that is what pissed off Osama. We also had a history of supporting some "bad" people in places like Iraq and Honduras.
"I know that the war in Iraq is more of a distraction in the "war on terror", but *hopefully* we can pull a stable democracy out of this mess. It's going to be hard, I believe that the arabs can't see the forest for the trees."
Ummm, we invaded Afghanistan FIRST. If we haven't been able to establish a democracy THERE, why would we be able to do so in Iraq?
"Troops should shoot insurgants 'on the spot' as spies (as the Geneva conventional allows), rather than send them to jail."
Now THAT practice will gain you the support of the populace. This isn't about exterminating the Iraqi people, or, maybe it is. At least by your "logic", it would be.
"I'm not a big fan of Bush (in fact I dispise him), but the war in Iraq was a long time coming."
Just like that final war with Cuba... or Soviet Russia... or East Germany... and so forth. It is possible to NOT invade a country that disagrees with you.
They were initially purchased to run Windows apps. When the Windows servers were upgraded, I grabbed these two and put Linux on them.
So, four sales for Windows (two initial servers and the two replacement servers) -and- No sales for Linux -but- Actual deployment is 2 servers for Windows and 2 for Linux.
(That isn't 50% of our servers. We have almost 20 Windows servers because the apps don't play well with each other.) I expect there are a lot more installations like mine out there. The sales percentages (particularly the $$$) will not tell you the real picture.
Gotta agree with you on that assessment. By his "logic", our "minute men" were...... "unlawful combatants".
And since we all know that "unlawful combatants" are, by definition, "evil" and "bad men" who commit "wrongdoing", well.........
Which is the problem when you try to "define" categories based upon what you want to think of as "good" and "evil" rather than on independant criteria.
If it was someone else invading Iraq, and it was happening 200 years ago, our government would have supported the Iraqi resistance against the foreign invaders.
Would you please point out where that phrase is in the Geneva Conventions?
"If somebody were captured in the United States during the planning or execution of an act against the US, its government, or its people, then that individual would be summarily executed as a spy."
Ooooh, incorrect. Here's what REALLY happens: http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/01/21/border. arrest.01/
"Again, no. The status of prisoners doesn't matter to anybody until the end of hostilities."
Actually, it does matter. It matters to a lot of people.
"Prisoners taken during war, whether civilian or lawful or unlawful combatants, are basically stuck in a big hole until the fighting's over."
Read the Geneva Conventions. They cover how POW's should be treated. And they do NOT kick in only AFTER the war is over.
"And if they operate behind enemy lines (i.e., inside an allied nation's borders) under cover, they're spies, and they have no legal protection at all, criminal or otherwise."
But the people we have in Camp X-Ray were picked up in Afghanistan. Not in the US. How could they be "behind enemy lines (i.e., inside an allied nation's borders)" when they were in Afghanistan?
As such, the Geneva Conventions cover them under the requirement to have a tribunal identify the status of prisoners as soon as possible.
Therefore, the "terrorists" we're holding would be transfered to the US legal system. They have very specific rights under the US legal system.
But the US government does NOT want them in the legal system because the US government DOES NOT TRUST THE US LEGAL SYSTEM. (isn't that funny)
Anyway, back to Camp X-Ray. If we WERE hold "terrorists", then we're doing EVERYTHING wrong. We're allowing them to talk to each other. That way they can concoct FALSE stories but they will be consistent across all the "terrorists" we talk to.
The FIRST step in interrogation is to isolate the prisoners. You do NOT want to give them a chance to work on their stories.
From the previous-previous post: "One might wish to consider that the Administration is utilizing Gitmo is because interrogating terrorists and not sending terrorists back home is a no brainer, and any responsible leader would do the same."
The Geneva Conventions also cover this. If the classification of a prisoner is in doubt, then a tribunal will be held to determine the status of that prisoner.
A terrorist would be subject to the US's legal system or the legal system of the country they were captured in or whatever country the US released them to.
The key factor being that the STATUS of each prisoner is quickly determined to everyone knows EXACTLY what rights that prisoner has.
As it stands right now, the US government wants to be able to be able to do ANYTHING (up to and including beating them to death) to them.
"They're enemy combatants, not criminal suspects."
If they're terrorists, then they're criminals. The same as any mobster.
"Maybe then you'll see that the fact that our Supreme Court is reviewing the situation and ruling in favor of granting more than the customary privileges to these POWs is a testament to this nation's generosity and commitment to humane behavior."
No. The "customary privileges" that a POW has include the right NOT to be tortured.
When you don't know the other person, then your base drives take over. Capitalism works the best in this case. The interactions are abstracted and defined in terms on money and property.
When you have a strong connection to the other person(s) (like in your family), then you treat them in a more Communistic (pure definition) manner.
Of course, specific individuals can vary from these.
"To inisist on the pristine meaning of the word Communism it to take the attitude of Humpty Dumpty - words mean what I want them to mean. Unfortunately, the world has changed the meaning of the word Communism, as many other words."
Nope. It's just that most people have not been educated correctly.
Just because someone calls themselves something is not a reason for anyone else to call them that.
I'm still recommending "The Tyranny of Words" by Stuart Chase. Words define how you think. When you start confusing the definitions of words, you lose the ability to understand the issues. Which is what many politicians want.
China is not "Communist Country". China is a "Totalitarian Socialist State".
Slashdot Mirror
"The Bush administration on Monday renewed its attack on the European Commission's decision against Microsoft, but insisted that US-European Union antitrust co-operation was as strong as ever."
It seems the US government IS looking to protect Microsoft.
It's even on /.
Just from the other day. Read it in reverse order. Keep hitting "parent".
Here
Windows can be made stable. But it takes very rigid control. The problem is that ANY change can break that stability. Even something as necessary as applying a patch for a known exploit.
Which is more important? Making a claim that you haven't rebooted your Windows box in the past 6 months or the claim that you're fully patched?
In order for him to have achieved his claimed "stability", he would have had to skip the service packs and hot fixes that Microsoft issues.
/. about worms and such. Look at how many of the Windows fans claim that it isn't Windows' fault that those machines were exploited, but that it is the admins' fault for not installing the patches that had been available for months prior. :D
So it isn't a matter of "sufficient proficiency" on his part. It seems to be a matter of finding a stable configuration, at that time, and then skipping further patching.
Now, look at the other stories on
Which was my point.
/. about worms and such. Look at how many of the Windows fans claim that it isn't Windows' fault that those machines were exploited, but that it is the admins' fault for not installing the patches that had been available for months prior. :) :D :)
In order for him to have achieved his claimed "stability", he would have had to skip the service packs and hot fixes that Microsoft issues.
So it isn't a matter of "sufficient proficiency" on his part. It seems to be a matter of finding a stable configuration, at that time, and then skipping further patching.
Now, look at the other stories on
And I don't mean "will instantly wipe your hard drive".
I mean ones that will randomly alter numbers in Excel spreadsheets and Access databases.
At the moment, viruses are just a really huge annoyance and a means for spammers to grab more zombies.
I think the copycat viruses are because it is far easier to copy what someone else has already proven than it is to do original work. I also believe that most virus writers aren't that great at writing code. But that's just my personal opinion. The majority of "viruses" I see via the email scanner are the old "click the attachment" types of trojans. Social engineering.
"Anyone sufficiently proficient with (name your OS) and knowledgable about what they're running should."
:)
:)
And how is "sufficiently proficient" defined?
"I know what software is running on my computer, I know what bugs my OS has (and how to workaround/deal with them), I know what issues may come up because of my hardware configuration."
Strange. Very strange. Because, what if a known bug (say a memory leak) causes you to have to reboot your machine?
Is this because Windows needs rebooting? (As many claim.)
-or-
Is it you working around a known bug? (Because you're so much more proficient than those others.)
Now, given that Microsoft has released more than a few service packs for their software, and that many bugs relating to memory leaks have been fixed in those service packs......
How is it that you managed that "reliability" prior to those service packs being released?
Not that such is not possible. But it is less a matter of "sufficient proficiency" than a matter of redefining what "stable" and "reboot" means.
I have, in the past, "discussed" this same issue with people who swore that they had not rebooted their Win95 machine for months. Win95 was just so stable that they never had to.
Of course, then Microsoft confirms that there was a bug that caused problems with Win95 after 49.5days of uptime.
At which point those same people who had said that they did not need to reboot their machines for months now said that of course they restarted their computers every day.
The difference is how someone looks at the situation. A Windows fan will see "reboot" in one fashion while a Debian fan (your's truly) will see reboot in a different fashion (type "uptime" and see when the last reboot was).
If your Windows boxes run for months at a time without rebooting, then you're not applying the critical patches and such that Microsoft releases. Which gets back to the service packs that fix memory leaks.
"It's not like it's terribly hard to keep Windows stable."
So, anyone who disagrees with that statement is admitting to being less technically proficient than trb001. And there is ALWAYS someone who will post that claim. Regardless of whether the OS is Win95, Win2000 or whatever.
Yet when the NEXT version of Microsoft's OS is released, EVERYONE claims how it is so much more stable and reliable than the last. Even Microsoft got into that with comparing NT and Windows2000 and showing that NT wouldn't stay up for more than a few days of heavy work (sorry, I couldn't find a citation for that yet).
I get dragged in to fix all kinds of Windows problems. From corrupt registries to tons of spyware, I've seen it and fixed it. It is a PAIN keeping Windows stable. Even installing the DCom patch on NT broke apps.
Here's a tip on how much everyone else in the world has to reboot. Call Microsoft tech support with any problem and see what the FIRST thing they tell you to do is.
"It's very interesting that many of the complaints people have about Microsoft Products are actually addressed in later releases, but if the customer never upgrades to that new release they'll never see the changes."
Which, in essence, means that you have to PAY for bug fixes.
This has been a very profitable practice for Microsoft. That way they can keep selling you the same product(Win95) over(Win98) and over(Win2000) and over(WinXP).
I wouldn't have that big of a problem with the practice except for one major "bug". As was mentioned in the article, moving your apps from one version to another is damn painful.
So, people don't pay for the bug fixes (or feature packs) because applying them is too painful.
That's why I like Debian so much. I don't have that problem with Debian (and it is very stable and reliable).
#1. Buy the pills (in the article, they're already saying that they do that) and pay with a CHECK.
#2. Find the bank that accepted the check.
#3. Call the local field office and have them meet with the bank manager.
#4. Local agent picks up the name, address and social security number of the person who has the account that deposited that check.
#5. Profit?
I'm the one running the spam filter (SpamAssassin) at work. Overall, it has been VERY popular with everyone else. They don't receive the most obnoxious sex spams any more.
On the other hand, there are a few false positives that reduce the overall savings in your post. I auto-delete anything about 10 and flag anything above 5.
But the end users still have to look through the flagged stuff to see if there are any false positives. Then they drop them into the false positive folder. The users also have to identify all the missed spam and drop that into the spam folder.
It's still work for them so the costs aren't as clear as in your post. But the non-tangible benefits are also important.
I think we're at the point of dimishing returns on simple scanning processes. I think we need to look at actively seeding the spammer's lists with false names and tuning the spam filters with those.
He admits he plagiarised. From the article:
"But they have taken all my money for three years and pulled me up the day before I finished. If they had pulled me up with my first essay at the beginning and warned me of the problems and consequences, it would be fair enough."
He's complaining that he spent 3 years and lots of money submitting stolen papers and that the University should have made him understand EARLIER that submitting stolen papers would REALLY get him kicked out of the program.
His case is that no one at the university REALLY explained to him that stealing papers was not acceptable and what the ACTUAL consequences would be. Or at least that they didn't do it early enough to satisfy him.
Whether he wins or loses that case, you have to ask yourself, would you want to HIRE him to work for you?
"It's not an easy situation, perhaps you believe that Saddam Hussain was a just and kind leader who was no threat at all, I think that it is pretty obvious that he wasn't."
I don't think ANYONE believes that Saddam was a "just and kind leader".
I also believe that ANYONE who believes Saddam was a threat to the US is living in a fantasy.
"The morning of Sept 11, we had no troops in hostile teritories, no prisoners being held illegally, and no delared wars with any country."
Well, we had people in Saudi Arabia and that is what pissed off Osama. We also had a history of supporting some "bad" people in places like Iraq and Honduras.
"I know that the war in Iraq is more of a distraction in the "war on terror", but *hopefully* we can pull a stable democracy out of this mess. It's going to be hard, I believe that the arabs can't see the forest for the trees."
Ummm, we invaded Afghanistan FIRST. If we haven't been able to establish a democracy THERE, why would we be able to do so in Iraq?
"Troops should shoot insurgants 'on the spot' as spies (as the Geneva conventional allows), rather than send them to jail."
Now THAT practice will gain you the support of the populace. This isn't about exterminating the Iraqi people, or, maybe it is. At least by your "logic", it would be.
"I'm not a big fan of Bush (in fact I dispise him), but the war in Iraq was a long time coming."
Just like that final war with Cuba...
or Soviet Russia...
or East Germany...
and so forth. It is possible to NOT invade a country that disagrees with you.
They were initially purchased to run Windows apps. When the Windows servers were upgraded, I grabbed these two and put Linux on them.
So, four sales for Windows (two initial servers and the two replacement servers)
-and-
No sales for Linux
-but-
Actual deployment is 2 servers for Windows and 2 for Linux.
(That isn't 50% of our servers. We have almost 20 Windows servers because the apps don't play well with each other.) I expect there are a lot more installations like mine out there. The sales percentages (particularly the $$$) will not tell you the real picture.
Gotta agree with you on that assessment. By his "logic", our "minute men" were ...... "unlawful combatants".
.........
And since we all know that "unlawful combatants" are, by definition, "evil" and "bad men" who commit "wrongdoing", well
Which is the problem when you try to "define" categories based upon what you want to think of as "good" and "evil" rather than on independant criteria.
If it was someone else invading Iraq, and it was happening 200 years ago, our government would have supported the Iraqi resistance against the foreign invaders.
Would you please point out where that phrase is in the Geneva Conventions?
. arrest.01/
:D
"If somebody were captured in the United States during the planning or execution of an act against the US, its government, or its people, then that individual would be summarily executed as a spy."
Ooooh, incorrect. Here's what REALLY happens:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/01/21/border
"Again, no. The status of prisoners doesn't matter to anybody until the end of hostilities."
Actually, it does matter. It matters to a lot of people.
"Prisoners taken during war, whether civilian or lawful or unlawful combatants, are basically stuck in a big hole until the fighting's over."
Read the Geneva Conventions. They cover how POW's should be treated. And they do NOT kick in only AFTER the war is over.
"And if they operate behind enemy lines (i.e., inside an allied nation's borders) under cover, they're spies, and they have no legal protection at all, criminal or otherwise."
But the people we have in Camp X-Ray were picked up in Afghanistan. Not in the US. How could they be "behind enemy lines (i.e., inside an allied nation's borders)" when they were in Afghanistan?
Hmmmmm?
Terrorists are criminals. Just like any mobster.
As such, the Geneva Conventions cover them under the requirement to have a tribunal identify the status of prisoners as soon as possible.
Therefore, the "terrorists" we're holding would be transfered to the US legal system. They have very specific rights under the US legal system.
But the US government does NOT want them in the legal system because the US government DOES NOT TRUST THE US LEGAL SYSTEM. (isn't that funny)
Anyway, back to Camp X-Ray. If we WERE hold "terrorists", then we're doing EVERYTHING wrong. We're allowing them to talk to each other. That way they can concoct FALSE stories but they will be consistent across all the "terrorists" we talk to.
The FIRST step in interrogation is to isolate the prisoners. You do NOT want to give them a chance to work on their stories.
From the previous-previous post:
"One might wish to consider that the Administration is utilizing Gitmo is because interrogating terrorists and not sending terrorists back home is a no brainer, and any responsible leader would do the same."
The Geneva Conventions also cover this. If the classification of a prisoner is in doubt, then a tribunal will be held to determine the status of that prisoner.
A terrorist would be subject to the US's legal system or the legal system of the country they were captured in or whatever country the US released them to.
The key factor being that the STATUS of each prisoner is quickly determined to everyone knows EXACTLY what rights that prisoner has.
As it stands right now, the US government wants to be able to be able to do ANYTHING (up to and including beating them to death) to them.
"They're enemy combatants, not criminal suspects."
If they're terrorists, then they're criminals. The same as any mobster.
"Maybe then you'll see that the fact that our Supreme Court is reviewing the situation and ruling in favor of granting more than the customary privileges to these POWs is a testament to this nation's generosity and commitment to humane behavior."
No. The "customary privileges" that a POW has include the right NOT to be tortured.
Which is why I keep pointing out that "Communism" is not the correct phrase. The correct phrase is "Totalitarian Socialist State".
It is possible to have a Capitalist economic model AND a Totalitarian Socialist political model.
People use "Communism" to mean both the economic model and the political mode.
When you don't know the other person, then your base drives take over. Capitalism works the best in this case. The interactions are abstracted and defined in terms on money and property.
When you have a strong connection to the other person(s) (like in your family), then you treat them in a more Communistic (pure definition) manner.
Of course, specific individuals can vary from these.
"To inisist on the pristine meaning of the word Communism it to take the attitude of Humpty Dumpty - words mean what I want them to mean. Unfortunately, the world has changed the meaning of the word Communism, as many other words."
Nope. It's just that most people have not been educated correctly.
Just because someone calls themselves something is not a reason for anyone else to call them that.
I'm still recommending "The Tyranny of Words" by Stuart Chase. Words define how you think. When you start confusing the definitions of words, you lose the ability to understand the issues. Which is what many politicians want.
China is not "Communist Country".
China is a "Totalitarian Socialist State".
From that one story you have hosts of other authors refering to "butterfly effects" and "quantum butterflys".
That's not a simple accomplishment given the length of the story. But then, I like a lot of his stuff.
Nice chatting with you two fanatics.
Again:
What evidence will you accept that will convince you that Saddam was NOT producing and stockpiling new "WMD's"?
You have two more chances.
Again:
"What evidence will you accept that will convince you that Saddam was NOT producing and stockpiling new "WMD's"?"
I gave him THREE chances to persuade me he wasn't a fanatic.
He failed each time. Why should I hold a discussion with a fanatic?
Now I will grant you the same three chances.
What evidence will you accept that will convince you that Saddam was NOT producing and stockpiling new "WMD's"?