IO is the bottleneck anyway. The scheme I mentioned reduces the bottlenecks to that single one. And it allows arbitrary scaling with minimal (if any) recoding, just by adding HW.
If you're going to get snotty and dismissive, why not recognize that the needs of the market, easily/cheaply scalable databases without complex planning in application design, are more important than what this team happens to think it can do better, and don't need a vendor white paper to make clear in a few sentences?
How about a database with the exact same query API (not just "but it's all SQL") as, say, Oracle or MS-SQL, or even Postgres, that allows any number of parallel query servers to work against a single datastore?
In other words, instead of yet another incompatible database, how about one that we could just switch to from an existing one, that is arbitrarily scalable against shared data. If you're going to get clever and act like you can solve hard problems, why not give people what we need, and not just what you think you can give us?
It's a stupid line of conversation, but the demonstrated lack of an author asserting copyright in a complaint about unauthorized duplication of goatse makes it less protected than the Simpsons video.
There are real mechanics in copyright conflicts. No copyright owner/controller says anything, the difference with public domain is moot.
Why would you pretend that, if the goatse copyright owner complained to YouTube?
You're talking like "copyright" is some arbitrary characteristic, like a color in the video's palette. Don't you understand the difference between offending some viewers and property? That the owner complaining has legal force?
And Microsoft is still a monopoly. If Iowa dealt with all organized criminals by just making them give back what they'd stolen when caught, every Iowan would have to join the gang to make a living.
There's a difference between the problems of showing a disgusting video that isn't protected by copyright, and a funny one that is protected by copyright.
The difference is the copyright.
And of course the remedy is different: deleting vs penalties for the unauthorized copies.
Meanwhile, most people with a clue have heard about Wikipedia, but not about these others. Wikipedia is now an established brand. That status, more than any functional superiority (or even competence) defines Wikipedia as the success. Its problems will be solved (or not), but it's got its audience.
Even if the competitors are superior, they will have to compete with Wikipedia's brand. Their superiority will have to be more easily communicated than Wikipedia's (eg. a better name, like "Google" vs "AltaVista") to actually beat them. It's a meme pool, and swimming counts more than smarts.
Wikipedia is no different from any other large Website: its success is defined by its scale of users, not its quality. As if you couldn't tell that by looking at Slashdot.
I wish there were a simple tool I could run that would analyze a LAMP install and migrate it to Postgres instead of MySQL.
I don't want to get into a holy war about the relative merits: we already use Postgres, we will not support two database systems, we are not switching from Postgres to MySQL. MySQL might be good for others, but not for us.
But we do get these LAMP apps that come bundled with MySQL. Usually they don't use any MySQL specific features that Postgres (and maybe moving some functions across the app/DB boundary) can't directly support. So I'd like to get a LAMP -> LAPP migrator that will automate the switch. Leaving optimizations for after the switch, to be performed by other (Postgres) tools or programmers/DBAs. The open source of these two DBs, and the open source of all these LAMP apps, should make migration between them accessible.
I'm sure there are lots of people like me. Where's the tool that makes the open source as good for migrating among these programs as creating them from scratch?
When you discredit yourself by talking pseudoscientific fiction as if it were facts on which to base politics then you should be ignored.
The books aren't bad, but anyone making decisions based on what's written in there is a fool who should themself be ignored.
Crichton's joining his famous voice against gene patents just makes it harder in the long run to fight it. It weakens the credibility, and attracts idiots who will believe anything a famous fool says who themselves become a difficult to defend flank in the battle.
If you actually listen to the music we're talking about over the past 100 years, you'll see that it has actually declined in quality steadily as corporate profits and cultural manipulation have been more reliable and widespread. Even though I like the music since the 1940s better than what came before, I can tell that the previous material was generally higher quality.
Even if you listen to the Stones' first recordings you can see that they created themselves, and rode the labels promo to make their own material. Brian Jones was no one's creation but his own.
That's mostly true. Except that Fabian and the girl groups were themselves real musicians, if only "modestly talented", who survived the evolutionary pool of "the streets" to get "discovered" (and then promoted, as you say). And then developed - they all were cultivated for years, especially if they had any success, even regional, especially live. And their success was based on their music, even if it was pablum supporting their "image" in teenybopper magazines. Not how photogenic they were on video, even counting "Top 40" TV like American Bandstand, which was just a turning point.
That changed some in the 1960s, as TV featured more music. But the total amount of TV "bandwidth" was too small to do more than influence the industry, and form a small ghetto of purely TV stars posing as musicians.
Of course the 1980s changed everything. The record companies were not just a cartel, but owned by very large corporations, typically conglomerates, for synergy. They harnessed 24x7 MTV and a few others to market products with video content more than radio had ever achieved. And they controlled the content to make it safe, harnessing the social/political effects of the music for commerce, rather than the "revolution" (mostly dating preferences) of the previous 30-40 years.
Disco, Punk, AOR, Grunge and so many other "genres" were created as market segments by the corporations, largely structured by video TV viewership. The only real monkey wrench was rap, which was so cheap to make (trashcan turntables instead of even guitars) and distribute through a new medium of tape: boomboxes and walkmans. By the 1990s record corps had figured out rap audiences, too, so that's corporate and harmless.
But music is eternal. It's a fundamental way for people to express ourselves, to ourselves and to each other. It's a compulsion for many people to make, regardless of (and, owing to the defects underlying compulsive psychology, often despite) profitability, subsistence or any other rational constraint. Unfortunately, bad music is pretty persistent. But I hope that the decentralized distribution of networks means more people will hear more people like themselves (in at least some sympathetic way) doing it, and more people will be inspired to do it. Which is all that never changes in music, and where the good stuff comes from.
Their record sales plummeted because the music they're selling sucks. And because the music sold before is now available in much greater amounts, whether on "classic" (rock/R&B/80s/oldies) radio, much less destructible (than vinyl/tape) CDs, and even downloads that don't get lost as much.
The music biz used to be mainly in the business of finding artists coming from the mass of people, trying them out before "focus groups" (live audiences) who selected themselves from the cultural word of mouth, and cultivating them for a decade or more. The artists getting the most continuing investment were those most successful in either a live audience, or record sales even in a regionally highly varied market, feeding back with radio play. A natural coevolution of the artists and the audience, when mediated best by the music biz people engaged into both.
Now the biz thinks it's smarter than the market. Creating fake "artitst" who are really just spokesmodels in videos for a recorded product tied in with cobranded products like so much anime breakfast cereal. The model is to create as many products that can be most controlled as possible, within a narrow range of those styles best "understood" by the marketers, pushing more money than brains through the network of middleman connections, and maximizing the profit from anything that looks like it's "hitting". Meanwhile, these "smarter than the market" marketers are dumber than ever before, especially about music and the mass of people in the market, because the smarter ones have already fled the sinking ship a decade ago.
It's like the factory farms that breed mad cow. No wonder the music sounds like a soundtrack to the cows' death dance.
Yes. You're describing how Republicans use the Overton Window technique. They use the natural tendency of masses of people to usually favor a center somewhere between opposing extremes of ideas. When Republicans have seen their ideas at or beyond the limits of public acceptance, they have promoted even crazier ideas, just to drag the window towards the crazy ones, thereby towards theirs, even including theirs. And, owing to the limited size of the window, thereby excluding some previously acceptable in the other direction in the spectrum.
The way to fight the Overton Window is to force those promoting the real target for inclusion to also reject the newly proposed extreme that makes them look "moderate". That action neutralizes the movement towards the new, synthetic extreme, by making even its related ideas exclude it, isolating it for rejection. If they do not reject the new extreme, they must then be associated with it, and risk getting excluded with it.
It's clear that a corollary technique is to demonize those relatively (to the newly proposed extreme) moderate ideas opposed by the Overton workers. Excluding those ideas forces the window away from them, thereby towards the other end of the spectrum, where the idea targeted for acceptance finds itself closer to the center of the window. The black & white depiction under the False Dilemma fallacy is an extreme example of this overall technique.
"Taking the war to the enemy", or "offense", is not itself a bad strategy by any reckoning. What matters is the enemy. The less attached is the enemy to its home territory, either logistically, ideologically, or any other way, the less effective is that strategy against them. There's absolutely nothing keeping terrorists fighting us "over there" except that it serves their interests. Especially when "there" is Iraq, a country where the Qaeda that actually attacked us had even less access (and wanted it at least as much) as in the US, where they lived, trained and went in and out at will for years.
People who want "all those that were causing this mess gone by the quickest possible means", who wanted to kill hundreds of thousands or millions of Arabs, are completely demented. Though criminally misled by Bush/Cheney framing Saddam for Osama's attacks, they were led eagerly to that wrong belief, while many people saw right through the bait and switch. And those people wanting the war were also even crazier to think that attacking one of the most inherently unstable countries in the world by destroying its unifying tyranny (that the US had been instrumental in creating, even supplying its military with WMD against its own people) would create more stability was completely insane.
No, many Americans have always wanted war all the time, because Americans have had to fight it "here" only a couple of times: the Revolution and the Civil War. The sacrifices Americans make, even when substantial as in WWII, are always much less than any other country has ever suffered in war, and almost always (except for WWII) limited to classes of Americans from which most Americans can exclude ourselves. That's why we've been running wars fairly continuously since we won independence. And after winning the Cold War, without any significant competition to keep us in check, and having been devastatingly attacked by an apparently puny enemy, many Americans wanted blood. Not just as revenge for the attack, but because they felt we could get away with killing a country now that we'd worked so hard to get the Soviet enemy out of our way. At the top of that bloodthirsty heap was Bush/Cheney, ravenous for Iraqi blood for all kinds of corporate/military reasons (mainly centered on oil). So when they defined "there" as Iraq instead of Afghanistan, their voters (and many others) stampeded after them.
So now, by abusing its meaning, and redefining "there" to suit an arbitrary agenda undermining our security both by distracting from the real target and by creating an even bigger problem in the new target, Bush has actually created inhibitions to the otherwise worthy strategy of "fighting them there rather than here".
How can you possibly not know whether "the entire Mideast conflict thing" is positive or negative? What more do you need to see to realize that it's abominably negative?
I easily dismiss with simple logic the bullshit warmonger claims of an Anonymous Coward who delivered only vulgar, obnoxious insults and assertions, and my post is the "Troll". Right, That's the precise military strategy of provocation and blame the people fighting back to attack them that got us into this Iraq War. TrollMods apparently love it so much that it's their entire way to deal with other people now. A losing strategy.
Anonymous Coward calls me a douchebag, and my reply is "Flamebait". No wonder these retarded fascists are getting their asses kicked in every war they start in America's name.
You are beating the strawman that exactly 18 is suddenly responsible. I have said no such thing. To the contrary, I have maintained that parents decide when in the gradual process their children are responsible. But until that deadline manageable by the law, as a margin of error, the parents decide.
I'm done arguing down all the strawmen in this thread. Goodbye.
Anonymous Chucky Krauthammer Coward, you're among the most insane of the gibbering fools who sent us to war. I ran into your buttbuddy Kristol around Christmas last year, and opened his eyes to the adventures awaiting him in war crimes trials. So imagine my pleasure getting the chance now to be the first in your little bubble to tell you that Bush is hated by Americans. 58% want his presidency over immediately, which is well over 15% more than voted against him just a couple of years ago. We spell that "impeached" in America. I don't know what you nazis like to call it in your delusions, but when you notice he's gone, you'll at least know why.
Fuck you stupid warmonger bitch. You aren't even brave enough to use a Slashdot ID, and you're some tough warrior? Maybe you did fly a USAF plane in Saudi (Arabia, illiterate Coward) and got fired on. Provoke what? Your mission (if it did even exist) was to keep them bottled up. You're saying we invaded Iraq because they shot at you over Saudi Arabia? That's a new one, I thought it was WMD, or Niger uranium, or spreading democracy, or some other bullshit lie you fucked up fascists spout like a flaming oil wellhead.
Just shut the fuck up. You assholes have been fucking up the whole world for at least 3 years. Just put down the gun, step away from the ledge, and let the adults clean up the bed you and your triggerhappy Republicans have shit.
I haven't forgotten, and they're of course a huge crime. I'm just talking about the direct lunacy that the Iraq War is better for Americans than no Iraq War. Of course Americans unleashing (and doing) the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, along tribal/sect lines, is a victory Osama could never have expected to achieve on his own.
If a responsible president had spent our Iraq War effort in Afghanistan - and Pakistan, and probably Saudi Arabia, and a few other real "terrorist harbors" - with the enthusiastic cooperation of the rest of the world that was with us on 9/11/2001, probably we would have by now converted the jihad that Osama peaked into an overall foreign policy problem about as "hot" as is, say, neonazism. Instead we're fanning flames at least as perilous as the fascist and Communist threats we faced in the 20th Century. And taking the rest of the world along with us.
Slashdot Mirror
IO is the bottleneck anyway. The scheme I mentioned reduces the bottlenecks to that single one. And it allows arbitrary scaling with minimal (if any) recoding, just by adding HW.
If you're going to get snotty and dismissive, why not recognize that the needs of the market, easily/cheaply scalable databases without complex planning in application design, are more important than what this team happens to think it can do better, and don't need a vendor white paper to make clear in a few sentences?
How about a database with the exact same query API (not just "but it's all SQL") as, say, Oracle or MS-SQL, or even Postgres, that allows any number of parallel query servers to work against a single datastore?
In other words, instead of yet another incompatible database, how about one that we could just switch to from an existing one, that is arbitrarily scalable against shared data. If you're going to get clever and act like you can solve hard problems, why not give people what we need, and not just what you think you can give us?
It's a stupid line of conversation, but the demonstrated lack of an author asserting copyright in a complaint about unauthorized duplication of goatse makes it less protected than the Simpsons video.
There are real mechanics in copyright conflicts. No copyright owner/controller says anything, the difference with public domain is moot.
Why would you pretend that, if the goatse copyright owner complained to YouTube?
You're talking like "copyright" is some arbitrary characteristic, like a color in the video's palette. Don't you understand the difference between offending some viewers and property? That the owner complaining has legal force?
And Microsoft is still a monopoly. If Iowa dealt with all organized criminals by just making them give back what they'd stolen when caught, every Iowan would have to join the gang to make a living.
There's a difference between the problems of showing a disgusting video that isn't protected by copyright, and a funny one that is protected by copyright.
The difference is the copyright.
And of course the remedy is different: deleting vs penalties for the unauthorized copies.
The question "why not create a perfect reliable encyclopedia that no one uses" is a corollary that might shed more light on the dynamics here.
Meanwhile, most people with a clue have heard about Wikipedia, but not about these others. Wikipedia is now an established brand. That status, more than any functional superiority (or even competence) defines Wikipedia as the success. Its problems will be solved (or not), but it's got its audience.
Even if the competitors are superior, they will have to compete with Wikipedia's brand. Their superiority will have to be more easily communicated than Wikipedia's (eg. a better name, like "Google" vs "AltaVista") to actually beat them. It's a meme pool, and swimming counts more than smarts.
Wikipedia is no different from any other large Website: its success is defined by its scale of users, not its quality. As if you couldn't tell that by looking at Slashdot.
The only "hibernate" package I find is for notebook sleep mode. Where is it?
I wish there were a simple tool I could run that would analyze a LAMP install and migrate it to Postgres instead of MySQL.
I don't want to get into a holy war about the relative merits: we already use Postgres, we will not support two database systems, we are not switching from Postgres to MySQL. MySQL might be good for others, but not for us.
But we do get these LAMP apps that come bundled with MySQL. Usually they don't use any MySQL specific features that Postgres (and maybe moving some functions across the app/DB boundary) can't directly support. So I'd like to get a LAMP -> LAPP migrator that will automate the switch. Leaving optimizations for after the switch, to be performed by other (Postgres) tools or programmers/DBAs. The open source of these two DBs, and the open source of all these LAMP apps, should make migration between them accessible.
I'm sure there are lots of people like me. Where's the tool that makes the open source as good for migrating among these programs as creating them from scratch?
When you discredit yourself by talking pseudoscientific fiction as if it were facts on which to base politics then you should be ignored.
The books aren't bad, but anyone making decisions based on what's written in there is a fool who should themself be ignored.
Crichton's joining his famous voice against gene patents just makes it harder in the long run to fight it. It weakens the credibility, and attracts idiots who will believe anything a famous fool says who themselves become a difficult to defend flank in the battle.
The RIAA is a cartel. Cartels are anticapitalistic, like monopolies.
If you actually listen to the music we're talking about over the past 100 years, you'll see that it has actually declined in quality steadily as corporate profits and cultural manipulation have been more reliable and widespread. Even though I like the music since the 1940s better than what came before, I can tell that the previous material was generally higher quality.
Even if you listen to the Stones' first recordings you can see that they created themselves, and rode the labels promo to make their own material. Brian Jones was no one's creation but his own.
That's mostly true. Except that Fabian and the girl groups were themselves real musicians, if only "modestly talented", who survived the evolutionary pool of "the streets" to get "discovered" (and then promoted, as you say). And then developed - they all were cultivated for years, especially if they had any success, even regional, especially live. And their success was based on their music, even if it was pablum supporting their "image" in teenybopper magazines. Not how photogenic they were on video, even counting "Top 40" TV like American Bandstand, which was just a turning point.
That changed some in the 1960s, as TV featured more music. But the total amount of TV "bandwidth" was too small to do more than influence the industry, and form a small ghetto of purely TV stars posing as musicians.
Of course the 1980s changed everything. The record companies were not just a cartel, but owned by very large corporations, typically conglomerates, for synergy. They harnessed 24x7 MTV and a few others to market products with video content more than radio had ever achieved. And they controlled the content to make it safe, harnessing the social/political effects of the music for commerce, rather than the "revolution" (mostly dating preferences) of the previous 30-40 years.
Disco, Punk, AOR, Grunge and so many other "genres" were created as market segments by the corporations, largely structured by video TV viewership. The only real monkey wrench was rap, which was so cheap to make (trashcan turntables instead of even guitars) and distribute through a new medium of tape: boomboxes and walkmans. By the 1990s record corps had figured out rap audiences, too, so that's corporate and harmless.
But music is eternal. It's a fundamental way for people to express ourselves, to ourselves and to each other. It's a compulsion for many people to make, regardless of (and, owing to the defects underlying compulsive psychology, often despite) profitability, subsistence or any other rational constraint. Unfortunately, bad music is pretty persistent. But I hope that the decentralized distribution of networks means more people will hear more people like themselves (in at least some sympathetic way) doing it, and more people will be inspired to do it. Which is all that never changes in music, and where the good stuff comes from.
Their record sales plummeted because the music they're selling sucks. And because the music sold before is now available in much greater amounts, whether on "classic" (rock/R&B/80s/oldies) radio, much less destructible (than vinyl/tape) CDs, and even downloads that don't get lost as much.
The music biz used to be mainly in the business of finding artists coming from the mass of people, trying them out before "focus groups" (live audiences) who selected themselves from the cultural word of mouth, and cultivating them for a decade or more. The artists getting the most continuing investment were those most successful in either a live audience, or record sales even in a regionally highly varied market, feeding back with radio play. A natural coevolution of the artists and the audience, when mediated best by the music biz people engaged into both.
Now the biz thinks it's smarter than the market. Creating fake "artitst" who are really just spokesmodels in videos for a recorded product tied in with cobranded products like so much anime breakfast cereal. The model is to create as many products that can be most controlled as possible, within a narrow range of those styles best "understood" by the marketers, pushing more money than brains through the network of middleman connections, and maximizing the profit from anything that looks like it's "hitting". Meanwhile, these "smarter than the market" marketers are dumber than ever before, especially about music and the mass of people in the market, because the smarter ones have already fled the sinking ship a decade ago.
It's like the factory farms that breed mad cow. No wonder the music sounds like a soundtrack to the cows' death dance.
Yes. You're describing how Republicans use the Overton Window technique. They use the natural tendency of masses of people to usually favor a center somewhere between opposing extremes of ideas. When Republicans have seen their ideas at or beyond the limits of public acceptance, they have promoted even crazier ideas, just to drag the window towards the crazy ones, thereby towards theirs, even including theirs. And, owing to the limited size of the window, thereby excluding some previously acceptable in the other direction in the spectrum.
The way to fight the Overton Window is to force those promoting the real target for inclusion to also reject the newly proposed extreme that makes them look "moderate". That action neutralizes the movement towards the new, synthetic extreme, by making even its related ideas exclude it, isolating it for rejection. If they do not reject the new extreme, they must then be associated with it, and risk getting excluded with it.
It's clear that a corollary technique is to demonize those relatively (to the newly proposed extreme) moderate ideas opposed by the Overton workers. Excluding those ideas forces the window away from them, thereby towards the other end of the spectrum, where the idea targeted for acceptance finds itself closer to the center of the window. The black & white depiction under the False Dilemma fallacy is an extreme example of this overall technique.
"Taking the war to the enemy", or "offense", is not itself a bad strategy by any reckoning. What matters is the enemy. The less attached is the enemy to its home territory, either logistically, ideologically, or any other way, the less effective is that strategy against them. There's absolutely nothing keeping terrorists fighting us "over there" except that it serves their interests. Especially when "there" is Iraq, a country where the Qaeda that actually attacked us had even less access (and wanted it at least as much) as in the US, where they lived, trained and went in and out at will for years.
People who want "all those that were causing this mess gone by the quickest possible means", who wanted to kill hundreds of thousands or millions of Arabs, are completely demented. Though criminally misled by Bush/Cheney framing Saddam for Osama's attacks, they were led eagerly to that wrong belief, while many people saw right through the bait and switch. And those people wanting the war were also even crazier to think that attacking one of the most inherently unstable countries in the world by destroying its unifying tyranny (that the US had been instrumental in creating, even supplying its military with WMD against its own people) would create more stability was completely insane.
No, many Americans have always wanted war all the time, because Americans have had to fight it "here" only a couple of times: the Revolution and the Civil War. The sacrifices Americans make, even when substantial as in WWII, are always much less than any other country has ever suffered in war, and almost always (except for WWII) limited to classes of Americans from which most Americans can exclude ourselves. That's why we've been running wars fairly continuously since we won independence. And after winning the Cold War, without any significant competition to keep us in check, and having been devastatingly attacked by an apparently puny enemy, many Americans wanted blood. Not just as revenge for the attack, but because they felt we could get away with killing a country now that we'd worked so hard to get the Soviet enemy out of our way. At the top of that bloodthirsty heap was Bush/Cheney, ravenous for Iraqi blood for all kinds of corporate/military reasons (mainly centered on oil). So when they defined "there" as Iraq instead of Afghanistan, their voters (and many others) stampeded after them.
So now, by abusing its meaning, and redefining "there" to suit an arbitrary agenda undermining our security both by distracting from the real target and by creating an even bigger problem in the new target, Bush has actually created inhibitions to the otherwise worthy strategy of "fighting them there rather than here".
How can you possibly not know whether "the entire Mideast conflict thing" is positive or negative? What more do you need to see to realize that it's abominably negative?
Moderation -1
100% Troll
I easily dismiss with simple logic the bullshit warmonger claims of an Anonymous Coward who delivered only vulgar, obnoxious insults and assertions, and my post is the "Troll". Right, That's the precise military strategy of provocation and blame the people fighting back to attack them that got us into this Iraq War. TrollMods apparently love it so much that it's their entire way to deal with other people now. A losing strategy.
Moderation -1
100% Flamebait
Anonymous Coward calls me a douchebag, and my reply is "Flamebait". No wonder these retarded fascists are getting their asses kicked in every war they start in America's name.
Impeach Pedro.
You are beating the strawman that exactly 18 is suddenly responsible. I have said no such thing. To the contrary, I have maintained that parents decide when in the gradual process their children are responsible. But until that deadline manageable by the law, as a margin of error, the parents decide.
I'm done arguing down all the strawmen in this thread. Goodbye.
Fuck you, fascist. Your age of evil Bush bullshit is rapidly drawing to a close. Anonymous Dick Cheney Coward.
That and a boot in your ass is all the reply you'll get from me.
Anonymous Chucky Krauthammer Coward, you're among the most insane of the gibbering fools who sent us to war. I ran into your buttbuddy Kristol around Christmas last year, and opened his eyes to the adventures awaiting him in war crimes trials. So imagine my pleasure getting the chance now to be the first in your little bubble to tell you that Bush is hated by Americans. 58% want his presidency over immediately, which is well over 15% more than voted against him just a couple of years ago. We spell that "impeached" in America. I don't know what you nazis like to call it in your delusions, but when you notice he's gone, you'll at least know why.
Fuck you stupid warmonger bitch. You aren't even brave enough to use a Slashdot ID, and you're some tough warrior? Maybe you did fly a USAF plane in Saudi (Arabia, illiterate Coward) and got fired on. Provoke what? Your mission (if it did even exist) was to keep them bottled up. You're saying we invaded Iraq because they shot at you over Saudi Arabia? That's a new one, I thought it was WMD, or Niger uranium, or spreading democracy, or some other bullshit lie you fucked up fascists spout like a flaming oil wellhead.
Just shut the fuck up. You assholes have been fucking up the whole world for at least 3 years. Just put down the gun, step away from the ledge, and let the adults clean up the bed you and your triggerhappy Republicans have shit.
You're dismissed, killbot.
I haven't forgotten, and they're of course a huge crime. I'm just talking about the direct lunacy that the Iraq War is better for Americans than no Iraq War. Of course Americans unleashing (and doing) the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, along tribal/sect lines, is a victory Osama could never have expected to achieve on his own.
If a responsible president had spent our Iraq War effort in Afghanistan - and Pakistan, and probably Saudi Arabia, and a few other real "terrorist harbors" - with the enthusiastic cooperation of the rest of the world that was with us on 9/11/2001, probably we would have by now converted the jihad that Osama peaked into an overall foreign policy problem about as "hot" as is, say, neonazism. Instead we're fanning flames at least as perilous as the fascist and Communist threats we faced in the 20th Century. And taking the rest of the world along with us.