Yep, certainly sounds like he took that into account. More than likely his boss was already in a very fragile mental state to begin with (single, only focus in life is work, overworked, exhausted)-not a good thing. Someone telling him "this is rediculous, and is in part due to bad planning" may have let to an irrational response. In a situation like this you really can't blame yourself unless you said "go jump off the roof", or something similar. His boss' mind was not functioning properly, and without prior experience you probably wouldn't be able to identify the danger signs until it is too late.
In the case of doctors and lawyers, especially in private practice, working 80-90 hours a week has a payback. Bear in mind, the more these guys work, the more hours (or patients) they can bill. The overtime actually pays off for them. Its insanity to work 80-90 hours a week when you're paid a salary, though-you're basically screwing yourself by doing two jobs worth of work for the company, and unless there is some kind of payback all you've done is burn up a little more of your limited time on this earth.
Since writing in for Colin Powell was a bit of a hastle, that's what my vote was for President. Everything else was a lot of splitting (state rep was a lib vote as well since there was no Democratic challenger).
Good lord, what a complete and utter mess. On one side we have a republican party that is becoming more socially controlling (or conservative) while it abandons the core fiscal conservativism that has been the cornerstone of its ideology for decades. On the other hand we have the Democrats, who were handed a golden opportunity on a silver platter by Bush, but they still managed to make a mess out of it.
I didn't vote for Bush, or Kerry. I didn't see how either one of them had proven he could do the job well. With Bush we know his track record-he's not the worst president ever (there are plenty of candidates for that, like Hoover, Polk, Buchannen), or the worst of the last 50 years (Nixon and LBJ are front runners for that in my opinion), but he's pretty bad at the job.
Look at what happened: a lot of people I know, aside from the died in the whole democrats, voted for Kerry not because they thought he would do a good job, but because he wasn't Bush. On the other hand, a lot of the folks I know who aren't died in the wool Republicans voted for Bush because they figure at least that way they know what they're getting, because they didn't like Kerry, or didn't think he could do any better at the job. I have met very very few people who really liked Kerry who weren't ardent Democrats.
Another problem I've always seen, and it has always made me very wary of the "liberal" point of view is the attitude-the belief that only idiots and the brain dead would vote the other way, that if everyone were smart they would vote the same way you do. That's all well and good, and the conservatives have much the same attitude, but they don't go around proclaiming that everyone who votes Democrat is a back woods hick with a first grade education and brain damage. Its bad marketing. All that calling the people who didn't agree with you idiots does is turn away folks who might, otherwise, agree with you-and in many cases it offends people who have come to their opinions based upon a good deal of insight and critical thinking.
Personally, I'm more socially liberal (and that also includes gun ownership-I believe that law abiding citizens should be able to own and bear arms for protection of themselves and their family in case of crime and tyrany, as well as the aquisition of food), but I'm fiscally conservative. I'd love to see the Democratic party reform itself as a party focused on fiscal conservatism, a government that keeps its nose out of your personal business, and the belief that people should be able to live their lives without being told how to live day to day by the government, or anyone else for that matter.
Hmm, kind of sounds like what I thought the republican party was growing up, without the religious overtones.
I always love the "the company intranet website must be your home page" policy. They did this at my last company, and it had three, simultanious, results: 1) Everyone who couldn't change their homepage because of permissions bitched about having the intranet site as their homepage because it was heavy with activex controls and bogged their system down for 30 seconds before they could even look at the company site, let alone get out on the internet (which was locked down heavily with a websense server that was beloved by all).
2) All of us in development promptly hacked up registry files to reset the homepage back to something that wasn't annoying and didn't take 30 seconds to load. We had actual work to do, damn it, and after a brief flurry of activity on the site in the first week, it was rarely updated more than once a quarter. Some company news section, huh?
3) IS began to bitch and complain about how so much internal bandwidth was being wasted on people going to the site and how they obviously must not be doing any real work if they're opening their browsers so much. Uh, all of our products were either browser based activex for the intranet products, or web based. Brilliant.
Or maybe you've just discovered that some sort of code isn't all that interesting to write. Maybe would much rather concentrate on getting your application written than writing the XML parser you need. It sounds to me like you're the type who ends up writing the end all be all libraries to write your application. That's all well and good if the libary is something you're interested in writing, but I've seen more than a few folks who wrote an impressive library to get some dinky little application written, burned out, and never got anything done. Personally, I'd much rather use something off the shelf so I can concentrate on getting the goal of the project done, then go back and write a new library later if the old one just isn't up to scratch. Better to ship something that works than never ship something because you burned out making some dinky part of it function.
Oh, and one other thing-a lot of business types discourage alternative solutions to problems because it bothers them. They would much rather have The One True Way, and work with that forever. Rather short sighted, really, but not too surprising. A lot of those types drive their company into the ground over time, though. Look at the failed companies in this industry, for example-the management settled on their idea of The One True Way, and killed the company in the process when something better came out and they chose to try and market it away rather than learn from it.
The US groups seemed to have one or two star programmers and the rest were guys just coding to get a pay cheque. They were also unable to look outside the box and unique solutions. The US education system is doing a rotten job of teaching kids to think for themselves. Forgive me if it looks like an insult but you guys in the US tend to stick to one way of doing things and not changing it ever.
I wonder how much of that is an environmental issue in the team? I've worked for a manager who would allow me to step outside of the box, take a chance, and solve a problem in a way that may not have been the most obvious, but solved it in a way that it remained solved. I've also worked for a hard edged control type who wanted things done his way, exactly, and if you proposed an opposite solution that might work better, you'd better have your resume ready, because you might be on the way out the door very quickly. The only people who stand out in a team like that just don't care if they get fired or not-not your average person, most of us have bills to pay, after all. I have to say I definitely prefer the manager who lets you explore an alternative solution-they're more confident in the team, and tend to understand that its far better to find out what works and what doesn't during development, rather than learn something doesn't work out in the field and go through an expensive redesign.
How about you make automatic weapons illegal? I don't need an AK-47 to defend myself. Funny how the same people who try to keep us in constant fear terrosism (Bush and his henchmen) are so liberal about guns...
Ah boy...first of all, the manufature and import of new automatic weapons to the US for civilian sale has been illegal since 1986. As a result, legal automatic weapons are very expensive now (at least $10k). On top of that, if I remember right only about 100 or 150 fully automatic AK-47s were ever imported into the US, and legal sales of these are running in the 25K+ range because of the scarcity. Ownership of an automatic weapon requires a federal license, including background check-its not a joke to get, and the federal government keeps an eye on you.
So, you can't legally make or import an automatic weapon in the US for civilian sale, and the limited (and dwindling due to loss/wear) supply of automatic arms legally available to civilians is priced so high now that its only available to dedicated collectors with a lot of cash to burn.
I would be more worried about the illegal importation and sale of automatic firearms if I were you.
Are you in a hurry to get it out? Running out of steam?
As a counter point to this: he probably wants to build the game, not the GUI. If he was focused on writing the best darned GL GUI out there, then he wouldn't have asked this question. Most game projects die because they get into writing horrid amounts of generic game code (sound mixers, UIs, cross platform IO, so on) that isn't specific to what they're doing. All that accomplishes is making it a much longer path to get to writing the game they want, and the project usually dies from boredom or lack of momentum. If you're paid to write that code, its one thing, but when its something you're doing in your own (generally limited) spare time, you really just want to write the game you want and not have to worry about all of the boring code until much later.
This is just as silly as all of the accusations that Kerry had a cheat sheet for the debate. Frankly, after listening to the debate a couple times, I've got to say that if Bush was cheating, he did a pretty piss poor job of it.
safeguarding the future of music
They're looking in the wrong place. They'd be better off helping us forget the dreck that is The Prodigy's latest album.
id has always had a healthy NIH (not invented here) syndrome that they learned from mess with the original Doom sound library they used. The thing never quite worked right, and caused no end of troubles. Even though SDL is open source, id has their own debugged code laying around that has been used for years that does the same thing-there really is no gain for them to throw out code they know and trust for someone else's work.
I've tried out SDL a few times, and although I've found it pretty workable, when you bring multithreading in it has troubles, especially if you don't want to render in your main thread.
It probably didn't help that he, and all of the Mercury 7 except for Glenn, was a smoker.
The stress also couldn't have helped much.
As it is, with some things like cancer, it doesn't matter how old you are, or how good your physical condition, it can still take you down. Good health helps, but something like the more common forms of pancreatic or stomach cancer can knock the best of us out for the count.
The most recent readings at the SEP seismograph stationed on the lava dome itself are totally saturated.
Somebody Else's Problem seismograph? What does it do, make the volcano disappear if it becomes too inconvenient?
Pretty much right on. I know a lot of people who are voting for Kerry because they don't like Bush, and don't think he's done a good enough job to stay in office. I haven't talked to a lot of people who are not ardent Democrats who think Kerry is a great alternative. His biggest asset is not being Bush. I seriously doubt he has what it takes to be a good President, but he may go about things with a little more diplomacy than Bush has-or he could do what Nixon did and expand the war in the hopes of getting it "under control". I fear it may be a vain hope that he can get the spending situation back under control in Washington, which is another major failure of the current administration. Whether he would be able to achieve what some people believe he will is an entirely different matter.
Consider, for example, those doctored photos showing John Kerry and Jane Fonda on the same stage. When people with a bit of photo experience pointed out the evidence that they were forgeries, the media just chuckled and went off on the next goose chase. No agonized re-examinations, no discussions of ethics. Just "Oops" and a quick change of subject.
Probably a couple reasons why this didn't result in a bigger flap: not so close to the election, the President wasn't the one pictured (oh, how classic would that have been?!), and it didn't involve a huge investigative piece from the vaunted CBS News organisation. All of those are factors, to one degree or another.
In fact, there is no evidence to support that Bush was not AWOL. In this case, since the military should have been keeping meticulous records, it is a reasonable conclusion that Bush was AWOL in lieu of any credible evidence to suggest that he did in fact show up for his duty at wartime.
I don't mean to do something as horrendously logical as try to bring some sanity into this discussion on/., but may as well throw away my time on it. OK, you say that because we don't have evidence to prove that Bush was not AWOL, therefore he was. Right. However, do we have any credible (key word here) evidence to show that Bush was AWOL? No? No written records, noone coming forward and saying they were sent to arrest Bush for going AWOL? Nothing like that? Then how can you reasonably be certain that he wasn't AWOL? That he was, in fact, fulfilling his obligation? Without evidence to prove either case, as you have claimed, we can not make a conclusion here-the lack of evidence does not prove guilt, and choosing a scenario due to the lack of evidence because it may seem convenient to you is unwise.
Who really cares if someone forged, misrepresented or just misunderstood the nature of this document?
Oh boy. I'm no fan of Bush (I voted for him in 2000, and I'm not voting for him this time around), but just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean you can conveniently ignore the fact that these documents were forged. Even if they are talking about something that really did happen in the early seventies, they are forgeries, and therefore nothing more than mean spirited fiction. They are not evidence, and no amount of good intentions on anyone's part can change that, no more than some of the more fanciful stories about Clinton that have been proven false are somehow correct because they were "morally justified".
You can't apply one standard to the group you agree with, and then apply another standard to those you don't. That's just hypocrisy.
... Christians cannot challenge what is written in the Bible, even if it is obviously false.
There are plenty of examples of that. Way back when I was the church going type (instead of an agnostic), the minister would regularly have discussions about the contradictions in the Bible. Open discussion was encouraged. Not every Christian is a Bible tells all fundamentalist. Most of them readily acknowledge that most of it is parables and stories that were collected over the years. Whether there truly is a God, and Christ was his son, is a personal belief.
One of the major problems is that we don't have enough people who are willing to pursue basic research, or who are intellectually up to the task.
Would that this were true. In reality, there are a lot of us who would love to get into research of one form or another, but there are almost no companies left in the US who want to spend money on something so frivolous as future technology that could make them billions. Accademia would be an alternative, but its highly competitive because of the small number of slots open.
Anyway, my other current fave was this neat little flash movie which looks into the Pentagon Crash, suggesting that it was a drone aircraft and not a passenger jet which hit the government complex.
Dude, that was one hell of a drone aircraft, shaped like a passenger jet-and the government obviously must have gone and murdered the people on board. Oh, and the people in PA. And the ones on the planes in New York.
For crying out loud, I've talked to two people I know pretty well who saw the plane that hit the Pentagon. One saw it go right over head in Washington right before it hit, and the other was on the highway right next to the Pentagon when it went over her head and in. Silly conspiracy theories are all well and good, but find one without so much evidence to contradict it, OK?
An aside on this: the military recruits color blind individuals very heavily. As it turns out, they make excellent snipers because they are not easily fooled by camo. The same problem was probably an advantage in some circumstances on the serengetti thousands of years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, certainly sounds like he took that into account. More than likely his boss was already in a very fragile mental state to begin with (single, only focus in life is work, overworked, exhausted)-not a good thing. Someone telling him "this is rediculous, and is in part due to bad planning" may have let to an irrational response. In a situation like this you really can't blame yourself unless you said "go jump off the roof", or something similar. His boss' mind was not functioning properly, and without prior experience you probably wouldn't be able to identify the danger signs until it is too late.
In the case of doctors and lawyers, especially in private practice, working 80-90 hours a week has a payback. Bear in mind, the more these guys work, the more hours (or patients) they can bill. The overtime actually pays off for them. Its insanity to work 80-90 hours a week when you're paid a salary, though-you're basically screwing yourself by doing two jobs worth of work for the company, and unless there is some kind of payback all you've done is burn up a little more of your limited time on this earth.
Since writing in for Colin Powell was a bit of a hastle, that's what my vote was for President. Everything else was a lot of splitting (state rep was a lib vote as well since there was no Democratic challenger).
Good lord, what a complete and utter mess. On one side we have a republican party that is becoming more socially controlling (or conservative) while it abandons the core fiscal conservativism that has been the cornerstone of its ideology for decades. On the other hand we have the Democrats, who were handed a golden opportunity on a silver platter by Bush, but they still managed to make a mess out of it.
I didn't vote for Bush, or Kerry. I didn't see how either one of them had proven he could do the job well. With Bush we know his track record-he's not the worst president ever (there are plenty of candidates for that, like Hoover, Polk, Buchannen), or the worst of the last 50 years (Nixon and LBJ are front runners for that in my opinion), but he's pretty bad at the job.
Look at what happened: a lot of people I know, aside from the died in the whole democrats, voted for Kerry not because they thought he would do a good job, but because he wasn't Bush. On the other hand, a lot of the folks I know who aren't died in the wool Republicans voted for Bush because they figure at least that way they know what they're getting, because they didn't like Kerry, or didn't think he could do any better at the job. I have met very very few people who really liked Kerry who weren't ardent Democrats.
Another problem I've always seen, and it has always made me very wary of the "liberal" point of view is the attitude-the belief that only idiots and the brain dead would vote the other way, that if everyone were smart they would vote the same way you do. That's all well and good, and the conservatives have much the same attitude, but they don't go around proclaiming that everyone who votes Democrat is a back woods hick with a first grade education and brain damage. Its bad marketing. All that calling the people who didn't agree with you idiots does is turn away folks who might, otherwise, agree with you-and in many cases it offends people who have come to their opinions based upon a good deal of insight and critical thinking.
Personally, I'm more socially liberal (and that also includes gun ownership-I believe that law abiding citizens should be able to own and bear arms for protection of themselves and their family in case of crime and tyrany, as well as the aquisition of food), but I'm fiscally conservative. I'd love to see the Democratic party reform itself as a party focused on fiscal conservatism, a government that keeps its nose out of your personal business, and the belief that people should be able to live their lives without being told how to live day to day by the government, or anyone else for that matter.
Hmm, kind of sounds like what I thought the republican party was growing up, without the religious overtones.
I always love the "the company intranet website must be your home page" policy. They did this at my last company, and it had three, simultanious, results:
1) Everyone who couldn't change their homepage because of permissions bitched about having the intranet site as their homepage because it was heavy with activex controls and bogged their system down for 30 seconds before they could even look at the company site, let alone get out on the internet (which was locked down heavily with a websense server that was beloved by all).
2) All of us in development promptly hacked up registry files to reset the homepage back to something that wasn't annoying and didn't take 30 seconds to load. We had actual work to do, damn it, and after a brief flurry of activity on the site in the first week, it was rarely updated more than once a quarter. Some company news section, huh?
3) IS began to bitch and complain about how so much internal bandwidth was being wasted on people going to the site and how they obviously must not be doing any real work if they're opening their browsers so much. Uh, all of our products were either browser based activex for the intranet products, or web based. Brilliant.
It worked well.
Or maybe you've just discovered that some sort of code isn't all that interesting to write. Maybe would much rather concentrate on getting your application written than writing the XML parser you need. It sounds to me like you're the type who ends up writing the end all be all libraries to write your application. That's all well and good if the libary is something you're interested in writing, but I've seen more than a few folks who wrote an impressive library to get some dinky little application written, burned out, and never got anything done. Personally, I'd much rather use something off the shelf so I can concentrate on getting the goal of the project done, then go back and write a new library later if the old one just isn't up to scratch. Better to ship something that works than never ship something because you burned out making some dinky part of it function.
Oh, and one other thing-a lot of business types discourage alternative solutions to problems because it bothers them. They would much rather have The One True Way, and work with that forever. Rather short sighted, really, but not too surprising. A lot of those types drive their company into the ground over time, though. Look at the failed companies in this industry, for example-the management settled on their idea of The One True Way, and killed the company in the process when something better came out and they chose to try and market it away rather than learn from it.
The US groups seemed to have one or two star programmers and the rest were guys just coding to get a pay cheque. They were also unable to look outside the box and unique solutions. The US education system is doing a rotten job of teaching kids to think for themselves. Forgive me if it looks like an insult but you guys in the US tend to stick to one way of doing things and not changing it ever.
I wonder how much of that is an environmental issue in the team? I've worked for a manager who would allow me to step outside of the box, take a chance, and solve a problem in a way that may not have been the most obvious, but solved it in a way that it remained solved. I've also worked for a hard edged control type who wanted things done his way, exactly, and if you proposed an opposite solution that might work better, you'd better have your resume ready, because you might be on the way out the door very quickly. The only people who stand out in a team like that just don't care if they get fired or not-not your average person, most of us have bills to pay, after all. I have to say I definitely prefer the manager who lets you explore an alternative solution-they're more confident in the team, and tend to understand that its far better to find out what works and what doesn't during development, rather than learn something doesn't work out in the field and go through an expensive redesign.
How about you make automatic weapons illegal? I don't need an AK-47 to defend myself. Funny how the same people who try to keep us in constant fear terrosism (Bush and his henchmen) are so liberal about guns...
Ah boy...first of all, the manufature and import of new automatic weapons to the US for civilian sale has been illegal since 1986. As a result, legal automatic weapons are very expensive now (at least $10k). On top of that, if I remember right only about 100 or 150 fully automatic AK-47s were ever imported into the US, and legal sales of these are running in the 25K+ range because of the scarcity. Ownership of an automatic weapon requires a federal license, including background check-its not a joke to get, and the federal government keeps an eye on you.
So, you can't legally make or import an automatic weapon in the US for civilian sale, and the limited (and dwindling due to loss/wear) supply of automatic arms legally available to civilians is priced so high now that its only available to dedicated collectors with a lot of cash to burn.
I would be more worried about the illegal importation and sale of automatic firearms if I were you.
Are you in a hurry to get it out? Running out of steam?
As a counter point to this: he probably wants to build the game, not the GUI. If he was focused on writing the best darned GL GUI out there, then he wouldn't have asked this question. Most game projects die because they get into writing horrid amounts of generic game code (sound mixers, UIs, cross platform IO, so on) that isn't specific to what they're doing. All that accomplishes is making it a much longer path to get to writing the game they want, and the project usually dies from boredom or lack of momentum. If you're paid to write that code, its one thing, but when its something you're doing in your own (generally limited) spare time, you really just want to write the game you want and not have to worry about all of the boring code until much later.
This is just as silly as all of the accusations that Kerry had a cheat sheet for the debate. Frankly, after listening to the debate a couple times, I've got to say that if Bush was cheating, he did a pretty piss poor job of it.
It will be a beautiful day for them when I download a linux distro and am forced to pay them money for copyright infringment.
And so SCO's lawyers cackle with glee.
safeguarding the future of music
They're looking in the wrong place. They'd be better off helping us forget the dreck that is The Prodigy's latest album.
id has always had a healthy NIH (not invented here) syndrome that they learned from mess with the original Doom sound library they used. The thing never quite worked right, and caused no end of troubles. Even though SDL is open source, id has their own debugged code laying around that has been used for years that does the same thing-there really is no gain for them to throw out code they know and trust for someone else's work.
I've tried out SDL a few times, and although I've found it pretty workable, when you bring multithreading in it has troubles, especially if you don't want to render in your main thread.
It probably didn't help that he, and all of the Mercury 7 except for Glenn, was a smoker.
The stress also couldn't have helped much.
As it is, with some things like cancer, it doesn't matter how old you are, or how good your physical condition, it can still take you down. Good health helps, but something like the more common forms of pancreatic or stomach cancer can knock the best of us out for the count.
The most recent readings at the SEP seismograph stationed on the lava dome itself are totally saturated.
Somebody Else's Problem seismograph? What does it do, make the volcano disappear if it becomes too inconvenient?
Pretty much right on. I know a lot of people who are voting for Kerry because they don't like Bush, and don't think he's done a good enough job to stay in office. I haven't talked to a lot of people who are not ardent Democrats who think Kerry is a great alternative. His biggest asset is not being Bush. I seriously doubt he has what it takes to be a good President, but he may go about things with a little more diplomacy than Bush has-or he could do what Nixon did and expand the war in the hopes of getting it "under control". I fear it may be a vain hope that he can get the spending situation back under control in Washington, which is another major failure of the current administration. Whether he would be able to achieve what some people believe he will is an entirely different matter.
Consider, for example, those doctored photos showing John Kerry and Jane Fonda on the same stage. When people with a bit of photo experience pointed out the evidence that they were forgeries, the media just chuckled and went off on the next goose chase. No agonized re-examinations, no discussions of ethics. Just "Oops" and a quick change of subject.
Probably a couple reasons why this didn't result in a bigger flap: not so close to the election, the President wasn't the one pictured (oh, how classic would that have been?!), and it didn't involve a huge investigative piece from the vaunted CBS News organisation. All of those are factors, to one degree or another.
In fact, there is no evidence to support that Bush was not AWOL. In this case, since the military should have been keeping meticulous records, it is a reasonable conclusion that Bush was AWOL in lieu of any credible evidence to suggest that he did in fact show up for his duty at wartime. /., but may as well throw away my time on it. OK, you say that because we don't have evidence to prove that Bush was not AWOL, therefore he was. Right. However, do we have any credible (key word here) evidence to show that Bush was AWOL? No? No written records, noone coming forward and saying they were sent to arrest Bush for going AWOL? Nothing like that? Then how can you reasonably be certain that he wasn't AWOL? That he was, in fact, fulfilling his obligation? Without evidence to prove either case, as you have claimed, we can not make a conclusion here-the lack of evidence does not prove guilt, and choosing a scenario due to the lack of evidence because it may seem convenient to you is unwise.
I don't mean to do something as horrendously logical as try to bring some sanity into this discussion on
Who really cares if someone forged, misrepresented or just misunderstood the nature of this document?
Oh boy. I'm no fan of Bush (I voted for him in 2000, and I'm not voting for him this time around), but just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean you can conveniently ignore the fact that these documents were forged. Even if they are talking about something that really did happen in the early seventies, they are forgeries, and therefore nothing more than mean spirited fiction. They are not evidence, and no amount of good intentions on anyone's part can change that, no more than some of the more fanciful stories about Clinton that have been proven false are somehow correct because they were "morally justified".
You can't apply one standard to the group you agree with, and then apply another standard to those you don't. That's just hypocrisy.
... Christians cannot challenge what is written in the Bible, even if it is obviously false.
There are plenty of examples of that. Way back when I was the church going type (instead of an agnostic), the minister would regularly have discussions about the contradictions in the Bible. Open discussion was encouraged. Not every Christian is a Bible tells all fundamentalist. Most of them readily acknowledge that most of it is parables and stories that were collected over the years. Whether there truly is a God, and Christ was his son, is a personal belief.
One of the major problems is that we don't have enough people who are willing to pursue basic research, or who are intellectually up to the task.
Would that this were true. In reality, there are a lot of us who would love to get into research of one form or another, but there are almost no companies left in the US who want to spend money on something so frivolous as future technology that could make them billions. Accademia would be an alternative, but its highly competitive because of the small number of slots open.
Anyway, my other current fave was this neat little flash movie which looks into the Pentagon Crash, suggesting that it was a drone aircraft and not a passenger jet which hit the government complex.
Dude, that was one hell of a drone aircraft, shaped like a passenger jet-and the government obviously must have gone and murdered the people on board. Oh, and the people in PA. And the ones on the planes in New York.
For crying out loud, I've talked to two people I know pretty well who saw the plane that hit the Pentagon. One saw it go right over head in Washington right before it hit, and the other was on the highway right next to the Pentagon when it went over her head and in. Silly conspiracy theories are all well and good, but find one without so much evidence to contradict it, OK?
Huh, interesting. I was told about this by an army sniper who was color blind...of course, there could have been a high BS factor.
An aside on this: the military recruits color blind individuals very heavily. As it turns out, they make excellent snipers because they are not easily fooled by camo. The same problem was probably an advantage in some circumstances on the serengetti thousands of years ago.