This has nothing to do with antivirus software. The driver was driving too fast. They don't have computers that run new software like this controlling the trains!
Freely readable white-balance information is the bedrock of our liberties. Those who would give up essential white balance information to obtain temporary control over copyright infringement deserve neither.
This doesn't cut piracy, and apple knows it, for the reasons the other posters spelled out above. They put this on DVD so they could send you one disc instead of 5. This has nothing to do with trying to cut piracy.
If Apple really wanted to cut piracy on Tiger, they would include a sticker on the disc that says "Don't steal Tiger."
Well, I'm not in that position, so fortunately you don't have to worry about whether I would or not. But I do think we should be considering this as one aspect of our current leaders' fitness to lead. This isn't just some minor issue; this was the greatest known threat to the US at the time. Instead Bush was focused, as another poster mentioned, on things like SDI. This was a failure of leadership. And it continues, IMHO, since we dropped focus on this threat and turned to Iraq.
This memo is not "one out of thousands". There are no thousands of al Qaedas. There are no thousand bin Ladens. This guy was well known to US intel and his organization had succeeded in pulling off huge spectacular terrorist incidents slaughtering hundreds for over 5 years by that point in time (closer to 10 years - al Qaeda's first attack was in Yemen, December 1992). The previous Admin had a counterterrorism group dedicated to addressing the bin Laden threat on a daily basis. And this is not something that just kept getting repeated over 8 years without any action -- we had successful terrorist attacks on US interests around the world, as well as unsuccessful attacks and attempted attacks here (including the WTC in '93, and LAX in 2000). This is not "one incident out of thousands." This is a known threat that should have been investigated. Why was there nobody assigned to get bin Laden, or to track down known al Qaeda members, during the year 2001 until september? Why didn't the issue even rate a meeting until august?
And, for the record, I'm not bitching, just trying to set the record straight. Mistakes of the past can't be undone, but that doesn't mean we should cover them up.
Al Qaeda succeeded in attacking the WTC in 1993. They may not have had the damage or spectacle they achieved on 911, but they succeeded enough to have the government's attention. They succeeded dramatically in Kenya and Tanzania, with simultaneous explosions in different countries 400 miles apart. Both at US embassies. The Cole was 2 years later; also another huge success from al Qaeda's perspective. This group should have been taken very seriously.
I think there is some dispute about the relationship with Sudan at the time, but your overall point is correct; we did not take OBL seriously enough before 911, and it is true of the Clinton Admin as well as Bush. BUT the Bush admin completely ignored the issue -- at least the Clinton admin addressed it, and made it a priority. So, yes, there is an element in which this is about hindsight primarily, but by 2001, we really should have been doing a hell of a lot more than we did.
I got that beat with my Hayes 1200 baud modem. No way I'm letting that go cheap. Hell yah man that thing used to scream!!! Downloading ascii pr0n one line at a time!
What was missed was that bin Laden was a threat worth paying attention to. They should have been scouting him out, pressuring Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Yemen to help us get him and his network, cutting off his finances, capturing the people associated with him in the US -- some of the hijackers were on terrorist watch lists -- etc. We didn't have to know specifics to do these sorts of things. The point was bin Laden was totally ignored.
Actually, he did take the threat a lot more seriously than the Bush Administration. Richard Clarke confirms that. But he wasn't the one looking at the memo in question here, so it's really not relevant.
I know, and I would have joined the people opposing such strikes. Sometimes governments have to make tough calls, and even decisions that make people upset at them (like Clinton's attacks on bin Laden's training camps during his impeachment hearings, which I opposed at the time, and now support in hindsight). I'm not sure preemptive strikes would have been a good idea at the time but if they could have prevented 9/11? Anyway I named a lot of other options that should have been tried first. But I think military attacks on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan needed to happen eventually.
So Tufte was right. The slides probably had a graph like the one he has for the Gettysburg Address, with "Number of Towers to be Destroyed by Airplanes" on one dimension and "2" on the other.
Those things have nothing to do with stopping terrorism really. They knew who bin Laden was at that point and they knew the people he associated with. Several of the hijackers were on watch lists. They also knew where bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan were, and they knew quite a bit about his economic network. They knew where his family members and associates were in the U.S. No they should not have shut down all commercial businesses or put us under martial law. They should have used the intelligence they had about the people they knew were involved and made arrests, conducted interviews, shut down economic channels, put pressure on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for support in unraveling the network, found out what Mossad knew about people they were following in the U.S., used that intelligence to make more arrests, etc. Perhaps even ordered preemptive military strikes on bin Laden's training camps. Maybe they wouldn't have stopped 9-11 but they certainly could then have said they did everything they could to prevent it. This memo certainly should have triggered some action.
Slashdot Mirror
Is 5048 the expected release date?
I can't wait to see the looks on those little Eichmanns' faces when they hear this crunchy groove!
It will record your screams as your computer crashes.
Won't the smoke escape through all the tiny holes?
They're going to need a Mac to do that.
Dude! You're getting a cell!
You're just saying that because you can't do it yourself.
Lightweight.
This has nothing to do with antivirus software. The driver was driving too fast. They don't have computers that run new software like this controlling the trains!
Freely readable white-balance information is the bedrock of our liberties. Those who would give up essential white balance information to obtain temporary control over copyright infringement deserve neither.
yes but you don't really expect to see a speed difference between the version of Tiger shipped early and the one shipped two weeks later, now, do you?
Yes, perhaps it would be as effective as the "Don't steal music" sticker :)
If Apple really wanted to cut piracy on Tiger, they would include a sticker on the disc that says "Don't steal Tiger."
The new edition will be much snappier.
Well, I'm not in that position, so fortunately you don't have to worry about whether I would or not. But I do think we should be considering this as one aspect of our current leaders' fitness to lead. This isn't just some minor issue; this was the greatest known threat to the US at the time. Instead Bush was focused, as another poster mentioned, on things like SDI. This was a failure of leadership. And it continues, IMHO, since we dropped focus on this threat and turned to Iraq.
And, for the record, I'm not bitching, just trying to set the record straight. Mistakes of the past can't be undone, but that doesn't mean we should cover them up.
Al Qaeda succeeded in attacking the WTC in 1993. They may not have had the damage or spectacle they achieved on 911, but they succeeded enough to have the government's attention. They succeeded dramatically in Kenya and Tanzania, with simultaneous explosions in different countries 400 miles apart. Both at US embassies. The Cole was 2 years later; also another huge success from al Qaeda's perspective. This group should have been taken very seriously.
I think there is some dispute about the relationship with Sudan at the time, but your overall point is correct; we did not take OBL seriously enough before 911, and it is true of the Clinton Admin as well as Bush. BUT the Bush admin completely ignored the issue -- at least the Clinton admin addressed it, and made it a priority. So, yes, there is an element in which this is about hindsight primarily, but by 2001, we really should have been doing a hell of a lot more than we did.
I got that beat with my Hayes 1200 baud modem. No way I'm letting that go cheap. Hell yah man that thing used to scream!!! Downloading ascii pr0n one line at a time!
No, no; a lot of other bands are being copied too, not just Ludacris.
What was missed was that bin Laden was a threat worth paying attention to. They should have been scouting him out, pressuring Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Yemen to help us get him and his network, cutting off his finances, capturing the people associated with him in the US -- some of the hijackers were on terrorist watch lists -- etc. We didn't have to know specifics to do these sorts of things. The point was bin Laden was totally ignored.
Actually, he did take the threat a lot more seriously than the Bush Administration. Richard Clarke confirms that. But he wasn't the one looking at the memo in question here, so it's really not relevant.
See this post for my answer.
I know, and I would have joined the people opposing such strikes. Sometimes governments have to make tough calls, and even decisions that make people upset at them (like Clinton's attacks on bin Laden's training camps during his impeachment hearings, which I opposed at the time, and now support in hindsight). I'm not sure preemptive strikes would have been a good idea at the time but if they could have prevented 9/11? Anyway I named a lot of other options that should have been tried first. But I think military attacks on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan needed to happen eventually.
So Tufte was right. The slides probably had a graph like the one he has for the Gettysburg Address, with "Number of Towers to be Destroyed by Airplanes" on one dimension and "2" on the other.
Those things have nothing to do with stopping terrorism really. They knew who bin Laden was at that point and they knew the people he associated with. Several of the hijackers were on watch lists. They also knew where bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan were, and they knew quite a bit about his economic network. They knew where his family members and associates were in the U.S. No they should not have shut down all commercial businesses or put us under martial law. They should have used the intelligence they had about the people they knew were involved and made arrests, conducted interviews, shut down economic channels, put pressure on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for support in unraveling the network, found out what Mossad knew about people they were following in the U.S., used that intelligence to make more arrests, etc. Perhaps even ordered preemptive military strikes on bin Laden's training camps. Maybe they wouldn't have stopped 9-11 but they certainly could then have said they did everything they could to prevent it. This memo certainly should have triggered some action.