Iraq's ratio of civilian to miltary fatalities is currently running at about 33 to 1
... implies that the US army manages to kill 33 civilians for each soldier/resistance fighter/terrorist that it kills. You should therefore divide the civilian casualty figures by 33 to get the number of "legitimate" kills, not multiply.
Basically, for all their "smart" weapons, the military have become much, much less efficient at killing soldiers. That is because instead of lining up all the combatants in a field where they can battle it out (almost 100% of the dead being soldiers), politicians now think it is ok to bomb cities in the hope that there might be some enemy soldiers among the rubble and slaughtered innocents.
Which is exactly why nutjobs like that (and countries that sympathize with or support them) need to be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons, by force if necessary.
Unfortunately, it is a bit late to stop the US from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Makes you wonder - what would happen if in the next war, a whole bunch of what looks like "Coca Cola" delivery trucks pull up in major cities of the enemies of america, and then the Pres gets on TV and says that if the enemy country doesn't aquesce to demands of oil and abandonment of nuclear weapons programmes, those trucks will blow up at say 1000lbs of TNT each
There would be more enemies of America. How do you think Americans would feel if other people destroyed their cities?
Besides, you would need more than good luck if you think that the governments of Cuba, N.Korea or any other supposed "enemies" would allow the US government to just start shipping lorries around their cities. As well as maintaining the flow of tax to the government, customs officials at borders are there to make sure that nothing nasty gets into the country.
Concerning the Palestinians: If the terrorists actually wanted to have a country, they would not blow themselves up, but they would get themselves together, elect a government and have talks.
The only way that the Palestinians got the limited autonomy that they now have is through the terrorist/freedom fighting (delete as applicable) actions of the PLO.
Meanwhile the Israeli settlers are continuing to encroach into the land that supposedly belongs to the Palestinians and build walls through their territory.
There are no innocent parties in that mess, but the problem will not be solved until the fighting stops. A military victory is not possible for either side.
The Palestinians have got pretty much nothing to lose. The only way that things will be resolved is if Israel decides to stop fighting and starts sincere negotiations with the Palestinian leadership. Whether they are in the right or not is irrelevant. Peace cannot be obtained through helicopter gunships and bulldozers.
You can remove all traces of Konqueror, not just the lanucher but all the HTML rendering and stuff, without breaking KDE? Can you have KDE without any web browser components?
I don't use KDE so I can't answer that for certain, but I would be very surprised if you couldn't. It is certainly possible to remove all traces of a web browser from the alternative desktop environment: GNOME.
Then again, why would you even want to run KDE or GNOME on a server? You can have a fully functional, graphical GNU/Linux machine without running those extra desktop applications.
Of course, for a server, there is probably no need to run any graphical stuff at all. It is perfectly possible (and common) to have a GNU/Linux server without installing X11 - all configuration can be performed via the command line, or remotely if you prefer a graphical configuration interface.
Internet Explorer has never been, isn't now and never will be integrated into the kernel. It does not run in kernel mode. The only thing that IE is integrated in is the shell environment
Fair enough - I'll modify my question then. If IE should never be used on production servers, why is IE so heavily integrated into the shell environment in which the server runs?
BTW, to say that the integration of IE in Windows is somehow equivalent to the integration of Konquerer in KDE is rather ridiculous. It is trivial to entirely replace one browser with another on a GNU/Linux system. Eradicating all traces of IE on MS Windows machines is nowhere near as simple.
I'd love to see a lecture series where they'd take a one-hour lecture from someone who knows what they're talking about, like Feynman or Knuth, and expand it with well-shot illustrations, commentary, and explanations for those who aren't in the field. A continuous channel full of such things would hold my interest, and my anticipation, like nothing they've got anywhere right now.
I don't know about a continuous channel, but you can get a few hours per year from the Royal Institution's Christmas lectures which are shown on British TV (and available to buy). Alternatively, if you don't mind the lecturers being somewhat unfashionable, the BBC shows Open University courses overnight.
weren't Newton's ideas debunked by Einstein's theory of relativity?
As an engineer, I frequently use Newton's laws of motion. I can't say that I have ever had the need to consider bodies travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light in my work.
When he said that he was referring almost exclusively to Gallileo who formulated the laws of motion in a slightly different fasion many years before Newton did.
I have also read that Newton's phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants" was a veiled insult to Robert Hooke, who was apparently not the tallest of people.
Why are/.ers so anti-Diebold and 'paperless' voting.... I just find this bastion of Ludditism surprising here.
/.ers tend to be technologically literate and therefore understand the large potential for fraud and/or incompetence to render elections pointless if there is no paper trail to audit the election.
BTW, Ludditism isn't really an appropriate description. The Luddites wrecked machines to protect their jobs./.ers tend to be against non-paper trail voting because it is Very Bad For Democracy. Big difference.
Although this sounds silly and simplistic, maybe corporations should sit on juries in cases where corporations are being sued by corporations. Wouldn't that be a better jury of peers?
Oh, I like that idea. A lot. If the board of companies had to spend time doing jury duty whenever companies slugged it out in court, they would probably be a lot less inclined to launch pointless lawsuits. Of course, in battles between corporations and individuals, it would be important to keep a jury of the individual's peers (i.e. non-corporate individuals) to ensure that they get the benefit.
If everyone in the cabin is armed and sealed off from the cockpit - they can do what they will to each other but not take the plane.... unless the pilots open the door because they know that their families are being held hostage. A quick message to the pilot just before they board and all bets are off.
Yes, I'm sure that people would be less likely to shut up and sit down now. However, I'm not at all convinced that locking the pilots in the cabin will really help very much. Drivers of armoured vehicles carrying money are well protected inside their vehicles, but robbers still manage to force them to get out by holding polaroids of their family held at gunpoint to the windscreen:o(
It is not clear what provision of the treaty would prohibit this. It does prohibit weapons of mass destruction in space. But metal rods fired into satellites would not seem to fit this description.
You seem to have misunderstood part of the article:
including giant metal rods that would be sent crashing earthward from above the skies
Giant metal rods dropped onto cities from orbit most certainly are weapons of mass destruction. Kinetic energy weapons. It is believed by many people that such a role was one of the primary requirements for the space shuttle.
In all fairness here, would 20 guys with boxcutters be able to do that today?
Undoubtedly. The extra "security" that has been implemented is mainly for show. An anecdote always helps to demonstrate the point. About a year after the attack on the WTC, my girlfriend and I were flying out of DFW. She forgot that their were sharp things in her pencil case and put it in her hand luggage. At the security gate the guard opened it and confiscated a pair of scissors. She also took out a very sharp scalpel (used for art), looked at, and put it back without a word!
if minerals or other materials in space become a sought-after commodity, will the US use their "space superiority" to strong-arm their dominance over those resources... ?
If oil or other mineral on land are sought-after commodities, will the US use their "air, sea and land superiority" to strong-arm there dominance over those resources? Good question.
(If English had the same distinction as German, I would say können, and not dürfen.)
I have only just started learning German, but I think that the distinction you are looking for does exist in English: "can" (is able) versus "may" (is permitted).
Actually, our current specification for President is quite immigrant friendly. Remember, this was put into place because, as it is in the UK's house of Lords, your title, or seat, is handed down from father to son.
Regardless of what you do, you can never be elected to this house.
I would certainly never be an apologist for the House of Lords, it is undemocratic and should be replaced by a democratically elected chamber. However, your characterisation of it is no longer accurate. The Lords is now populated primarily by Life Peers. These are people who have been appointed non-heriditary peerages by elected politicians. Many are appointed for services to political parties, but there are also many eminent members who have been appointed for their contribution to society: scientists, industrialists, etc.
The honour does not pass to their children. Also, as far as I am aware, there is no restriction on who can be appointed (although there was talk recently of them preventing convicted criminals from sitting in the Lords).
The Lords is a chamber of cronyism, but it is not quite as bad as you imply.
Are we talking about the same country? In the US, the patent examiners are required to have an applicable degree before their considered for the job.
Having a degree and being at the top of the field are not the same thing. The degree may be a necessary prerequisite in most cases, but it is not sufficient. To really be an expert at something, you have to practise it. Most degrees just get you to the stage where you have enough background to really start learning.
Except the English didn't have a true democracy until shortly after the American civil war (it was 1867, iirc). They had a monarch with almost absolute power, and a Parliment. But it wasn't until 1867 that they got a rid of the monarch.
Hmm, maybe someone should tell the Queen that she was abolished in 1867 - I don't think she knows.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, for all their "smart" weapons, the military have become much, much less efficient at killing soldiers. That is because instead of lining up all the combatants in a field where they can battle it out (almost 100% of the dead being soldiers), politicians now think it is ok to bomb cities in the hope that there might be some enemy soldiers among the rubble and slaughtered innocents.
Unfortunately, it is a bit late to stop the US from obtaining nuclear weapons.
There would be more enemies of America. How do you think Americans would feel if other people destroyed their cities? Besides, you would need more than good luck if you think that the governments of Cuba, N.Korea or any other supposed "enemies" would allow the US government to just start shipping lorries around their cities. As well as maintaining the flow of tax to the government, customs officials at borders are there to make sure that nothing nasty gets into the country.
The only way that the Palestinians got the limited autonomy that they now have is through the terrorist/freedom fighting (delete as applicable) actions of the PLO. Meanwhile the Israeli settlers are continuing to encroach into the land that supposedly belongs to the Palestinians and build walls through their territory.
There are no innocent parties in that mess, but the problem will not be solved until the fighting stops. A military victory is not possible for either side. The Palestinians have got pretty much nothing to lose. The only way that things will be resolved is if Israel decides to stop fighting and starts sincere negotiations with the Palestinian leadership. Whether they are in the right or not is irrelevant. Peace cannot be obtained through helicopter gunships and bulldozers.
The residents of Fallujah would probably be very pleased to hear that and are no doubt awaiting the implementation of "acceptable conventions".
I don't use KDE so I can't answer that for certain, but I would be very surprised if you couldn't. It is certainly possible to remove all traces of a web browser from the alternative desktop environment: GNOME.
Then again, why would you even want to run KDE or GNOME on a server? You can have a fully functional, graphical GNU/Linux machine without running those extra desktop applications.
Of course, for a server, there is probably no need to run any graphical stuff at all. It is perfectly possible (and common) to have a GNU/Linux server without installing X11 - all configuration can be performed via the command line, or remotely if you prefer a graphical configuration interface.
Fair enough - I'll modify my question then. If IE should never be used on production servers, why is IE so heavily integrated into the shell environment in which the server runs?
BTW, to say that the integration of IE in Windows is somehow equivalent to the integration of Konquerer in KDE is rather ridiculous. It is trivial to entirely replace one browser with another on a GNU/Linux system. Eradicating all traces of IE on MS Windows machines is nowhere near as simple.
So why is IE integrated into the kernel that the server is running on top of?
I don't know about a continuous channel, but you can get a few hours per year from the Royal Institution's Christmas lectures which are shown on British TV (and available to buy). Alternatively, if you don't mind the lecturers being somewhat unfashionable, the BBC shows Open University courses overnight.
As an engineer, I frequently use Newton's laws of motion. I can't say that I have ever had the need to consider bodies travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light in my work.
Perhaps it was the fact that he didn't have access to /. that allowed him the time to make all those great discoveries.
I have also read that Newton's phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants" was a veiled insult to Robert Hooke, who was apparently not the tallest of people.
That's precisely why you should stick it to the monitor - nobody will find it because they will be busy looking under the keyboard! Cunning, eh?
Are you sure that the State University is not public property?
BTW, Ludditism isn't really an appropriate description. The Luddites wrecked machines to protect their jobs. /.ers tend to be against non-paper trail voting because it is Very Bad For Democracy. Big difference.
Oh, I like that idea. A lot. If the board of companies had to spend time doing jury duty whenever companies slugged it out in court, they would probably be a lot less inclined to launch pointless lawsuits. Of course, in battles between corporations and individuals, it would be important to keep a jury of the individual's peers (i.e. non-corporate individuals) to ensure that they get the benefit.
If everyone in the cabin is armed and sealed off from the cockpit - they can do what they will to each other but not take the plane. ... unless the pilots open the door because they know that their families are being held hostage. A quick message to the pilot just before they board and all bets are off.
Yes, I'm sure that people would be less likely to shut up and sit down now. However, I'm not at all convinced that locking the pilots in the cabin will really help very much. Drivers of armoured vehicles carrying money are well protected inside their vehicles, but robbers still manage to force them to get out by holding polaroids of their family held at gunpoint to the windscreen :o(
You seem to have misunderstood part of the article:
Giant metal rods dropped onto cities from orbit most certainly are weapons of mass destruction. Kinetic energy weapons. It is believed by many people that such a role was one of the primary requirements for the space shuttle.
Undoubtedly. The extra "security" that has been implemented is mainly for show. An anecdote always helps to demonstrate the point. About a year after the attack on the WTC, my girlfriend and I were flying out of DFW. She forgot that their were sharp things in her pencil case and put it in her hand luggage. At the security gate the guard opened it and confiscated a pair of scissors. She also took out a very sharp scalpel (used for art), looked at, and put it back without a word!
If oil or other mineral on land are sought-after commodities, will the US use their "air, sea and land superiority" to strong-arm there dominance over those resources? Good question.
I have only just started learning German, but I think that the distinction you are looking for does exist in English: "can" (is able) versus "may" (is permitted).
I would certainly never be an apologist for the House of Lords, it is undemocratic and should be replaced by a democratically elected chamber. However, your characterisation of it is no longer accurate. The Lords is now populated primarily by Life Peers. These are people who have been appointed non-heriditary peerages by elected politicians. Many are appointed for services to political parties, but there are also many eminent members who have been appointed for their contribution to society: scientists, industrialists, etc. The honour does not pass to their children. Also, as far as I am aware, there is no restriction on who can be appointed (although there was talk recently of them preventing convicted criminals from sitting in the Lords).
The Lords is a chamber of cronyism, but it is not quite as bad as you imply.
Having a degree and being at the top of the field are not the same thing. The degree may be a necessary prerequisite in most cases, but it is not sufficient. To really be an expert at something, you have to practise it. Most degrees just get you to the stage where you have enough background to really start learning.
Hmm, maybe someone should tell the Queen that she was abolished in 1867 - I don't think she knows.