Reread the post. He's saying they couldn't explain the reasons we are going to war. Not being able to explain why we shouldn't go to war is a related but separate issue. My point is, if the American people can't explain satisfactorily why we should be at war, then perhaps we shouldn't. I guess some people thought that was flamebait but it seems like a reasonable position to me. The Bush admin has not articulated a credible reason for a unilateral (and illegal) preventive war. I'm no pacifist but I do think you need reasons for a fullscale attack on another nation, and we haven't been given any reasons that make sense. "Saddam is evil" is not enough - there are many evil dictators in the world, many who pose an actual threat to us, some we are too chickenshit to take on (N Korea) and others we are allied with in spite of the numbers of people in their governments actively working to destroy us (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan). What's worse is the US government has been caught over and over again lying about the "evidence" that supports war. It's no wonder nobody in the rest of the world supports this war.
Frankly, now that it's on, I'm hoping the warhawks are right and the Iraqis will surrender peacefully after they're done pissing their pants. And then I'm hoping they will make good on their pledges to help create and sustain a democratic Iraq. But I don't trust any of these people as far as I can throw them. They have demonstrably lied to the American public over and over again, many in the current administration have been lying to us since Vietnam. A couple of them are convicted criminals who lied to Congress during Iran/Contra!
*Sigh* There may be a justification for a war against Iraq, but not for a war led by Bush & Co.
Exactly. There are plenty of people on both sides who don't know what they're talking about. My original point was that the burden of proof should be on those who support the war rather than the other way around.
You've got to be kidding. The entire world has been pleading with the US to present some evidence that this war is justified, and the US keeps coming up empty. You think we have secret info that we can't share with the world that would justify it? If it existed the Bush admin would have brought it out in order to get the UN mandate it sought. In the absence of real evidence, we are just supposed to assume there is secret evidence somewhere they won't tell us about?
Actually there are plenty of conservatives against this war. Clinton did have military attacks without UN approval, but in each case he at least pointed to the appearance of provocation. He also didn't send a quarter million troops on a mission that most of the world's people have been loudly rejecting (not just American democrats, but 70-90% of the populations of many countries, even in Europe). If you think it's just hippies and Democrats opposing the war, you're just not paying attention.
And if you ask me, the only mistake he made there was picking a country that held American oil interests.
That, and enough money and contacts to hire an American P.R. firm, whom they (the Kuwaitis) paid $11 million to lie to the American public and wildly distort the threats posed by Saddam Hussein in order to convince Americans that the "liberation" of Kuwait was worth fighting and dying for.
Actually Bush Sr. said Iraq had the "fourth largest army" which was not a total lie in sheer numbers but the numbers said nothing about their preparedness for war. As we saw, the 4th largest army neither could nor wanted to fight. That is not at all the situation we would face in North Korea, and the Bushies know this, that's why they're scared to take them on (even though NK has actually been belligerent recently, as opposed to Iraq, who has simply been annoying and noncooperative). The message to third world dictators everywhere: build nuclear weapons and be aggressive about it. If you're weak like Iraq, you're gonna get smashed. It's shameful that American leaders don't see this; they are making a more dangerous world.
Ahhh cool, got it. Nope; I'm in Los Angeles. "Commodore Sloat" was a figure from the wars for annexation of California. He was reincarnated as a cockroach, or so the story goes....
I'm saying he tried to appear to be a "centrist" candidate and he avoided leaning to the left in an attempt to appeal to Bush voters. I didn't say he was successful (you might note the words "he failed" twice in my post).
If by "hippies and socialists" you mean "Republicans" than you're right. He didn't try to appeal to the left in 2000; he tried (and failed) to appeal to people who otherwise were going to vote Bush. He failed. You'd know this if you remembered that all the democrats blamed Ralph Nader (who did appeal the "hippies and socialists") for Bush winning the election.
Here is some info about installing Debian on this machine. You need the old Mac utility "Boot Variables" to get things set up without access to OF. It's a pain but it looks like it has been done. Back in the day I had linuxppc running on a UMAX J700 but I don't think that is an APUS system so it wasn't as big a nightmare. This information will be helpful as well identifying quirks of your machine.
I use OS X exclusively these days but am contemplating installing linux so that I can run mac-on-linux and use OS 9 and OS X side by side without running Classic. Does anyone know whether this will be a waste of time? Does OS 9 mode under mol work as well as booting into OS 9? I never use classic mode under X because the apps I want to use in 9 won't run under Classic. Is linux a good solution for me here?
Is it just me or is this important to other people too? Do left handed people feel differently? One thing I can't stand about Windows and about most WMs I've used with X11 is having the damn icons default to sit on the left side of the desktop. It's even sillier when windows open to the upper left, immediately covering all icons the first time you open a window. Having these things on the right makes more sense to me. (Also I like having the hard drives listed there rather than the confusing "My Computer." Another windows UI peeve for me -- if that thing is my computer what the hell is all this other stuff on the desktop?)
Not only does OS X have reasonable keyboard navigation options in preferences as others have pointed out, but if you really want power-user keyboard navigation check out this utility launchbar. It pretty much does everything under the sun; I don't use it myself but I played with it and it's insane; for people who like to avoid the mouse at all costs this is the thing for you.
Worst part about open source is that it encourages derivative work. Show some creativity people.
Worst part about teaching is that it encourages derivative work. Show some creativity people. Keep your knowledge to yourself and don't let other people build on and improve it. If you show other people how you do things, you are stealing their creativity, since the time they spend learning your shit is time they should be spending making up their own shit. It's no different from you throwing a brick through a store window and stealing their creativity right off the shelves. Well except for the broken glass and stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
as far as I'm concerned, there is no use buying CDs at all unless I can clearly tell if it is crippled. I prefer vinyl anyway.
obviously, the graph was made with photoshop on the Mac. Had they used the preferred platform, it would have been more accurate.
At least it isn't titled 1969-12-31.
OK, she was no Saddam Hussein, but she was no saint either, and she kept the company of dictators like Saddam.
These guys have invented a perpetual motion machine and they're only bragging about how hot it can get? Man, we need to have a chat with Marketing....
Frankly, now that it's on, I'm hoping the warhawks are right and the Iraqis will surrender peacefully after they're done pissing their pants. And then I'm hoping they will make good on their pledges to help create and sustain a democratic Iraq. But I don't trust any of these people as far as I can throw them. They have demonstrably lied to the American public over and over again, many in the current administration have been lying to us since Vietnam. A couple of them are convicted criminals who lied to Congress during Iran/Contra!
*Sigh* There may be a justification for a war against Iraq, but not for a war led by Bush & Co.
Exactly. There are plenty of people on both sides who don't know what they're talking about. My original point was that the burden of proof should be on those who support the war rather than the other way around.
You've got to be kidding. The entire world has been pleading with the US to present some evidence that this war is justified, and the US keeps coming up empty. You think we have secret info that we can't share with the world that would justify it? If it existed the Bush admin would have brought it out in order to get the UN mandate it sought. In the absence of real evidence, we are just supposed to assume there is secret evidence somewhere they won't tell us about?
Actually there are plenty of conservatives against this war. Clinton did have military attacks without UN approval, but in each case he at least pointed to the appearance of provocation. He also didn't send a quarter million troops on a mission that most of the world's people have been loudly rejecting (not just American democrats, but 70-90% of the populations of many countries, even in Europe). If you think it's just hippies and Democrats opposing the war, you're just not paying attention.
Perhaps, if we can't explain why we're at war, we shouldn't be at war?
That, and enough money and contacts to hire an American P.R. firm, whom they (the Kuwaitis) paid $11 million to lie to the American public and wildly distort the threats posed by Saddam Hussein in order to convince Americans that the "liberation" of Kuwait was worth fighting and dying for.
Actually Bush Sr. said Iraq had the "fourth largest army" which was not a total lie in sheer numbers but the numbers said nothing about their preparedness for war. As we saw, the 4th largest army neither could nor wanted to fight. That is not at all the situation we would face in North Korea, and the Bushies know this, that's why they're scared to take them on (even though NK has actually been belligerent recently, as opposed to Iraq, who has simply been annoying and noncooperative). The message to third world dictators everywhere: build nuclear weapons and be aggressive about it. If you're weak like Iraq, you're gonna get smashed. It's shameful that American leaders don't see this; they are making a more dangerous world.
Ahhh cool, got it. Nope; I'm in Los Angeles. "Commodore Sloat" was a figure from the wars for annexation of California. He was reincarnated as a cockroach, or so the story goes....
what about my nickname makes you think I'm from Vanderbilt?
Technically speaking, the troops are supposed to be there supporting us.
I'm saying he tried to appear to be a "centrist" candidate and he avoided leaning to the left in an attempt to appeal to Bush voters. I didn't say he was successful (you might note the words "he failed" twice in my post).
If by "hippies and socialists" you mean "Republicans" than you're right. He didn't try to appeal to the left in 2000; he tried (and failed) to appeal to people who otherwise were going to vote Bush. He failed. You'd know this if you remembered that all the democrats blamed Ralph Nader (who did appeal the "hippies and socialists") for Bush winning the election.
Here is some info about installing Debian on this machine. You need the old Mac utility "Boot Variables" to get things set up without access to OF. It's a pain but it looks like it has been done. Back in the day I had linuxppc running on a UMAX J700 but I don't think that is an APUS system so it wasn't as big a nightmare. This information will be helpful as well identifying quirks of your machine.
I use OS X exclusively these days but am contemplating installing linux so that I can run mac-on-linux and use OS 9 and OS X side by side without running Classic. Does anyone know whether this will be a waste of time? Does OS 9 mode under mol work as well as booting into OS 9? I never use classic mode under X because the apps I want to use in 9 won't run under Classic. Is linux a good solution for me here?
Dude, it's from the head of a German Autoclub. The head! Not some secretary or anything.
If he can't afford 200 bucks, why does he want to watch stocks go up and down?
Is it just me or is this important to other people too? Do left handed people feel differently? One thing I can't stand about Windows and about most WMs I've used with X11 is having the damn icons default to sit on the left side of the desktop. It's even sillier when windows open to the upper left, immediately covering all icons the first time you open a window. Having these things on the right makes more sense to me. (Also I like having the hard drives listed there rather than the confusing "My Computer." Another windows UI peeve for me -- if that thing is my computer what the hell is all this other stuff on the desktop?)
Ha - I bite my thumb at you!! I plugged in another keyboard instead of the mouse! I have a 108-button mouse!!! Beat that, sparky!
Not only does OS X have reasonable keyboard navigation options in preferences as others have pointed out, but if you really want power-user keyboard navigation check out this utility launchbar. It pretty much does everything under the sun; I don't use it myself but I played with it and it's insane; for people who like to avoid the mouse at all costs this is the thing for you.
Worst part about teaching is that it encourages derivative work. Show some creativity people. Keep your knowledge to yourself and don't let other people build on and improve it. If you show other people how you do things, you are stealing their creativity, since the time they spend learning your shit is time they should be spending making up their own shit. It's no different from you throwing a brick through a store window and stealing their creativity right off the shelves. Well except for the broken glass and stuff.