Mainly off of someone *elses* work (though I must say Redhat has contributed quite a bit) who doesn't get to see a dime (which basically illustrages the previous posters point). Are they funneling any cash back to the guy who contributed lines to the systat package who would like some cash too? I've been using Redhat for years and a fedora user, but one must be truthful in that the argument you give is pretty hollow.
Were they "hard questions" or were they loaded questions, two very, very different things, and it seems pretty obvious he wasn't all that interested in a real dialog with answers but more interested in doing the "neener neener, I got ya" child thing.
It is understood that the committee decision to allow UWB was based on a far from unanimous majority, with some Scandinavian countries and France opposing the proposal. UWB opponents are mostly established band users who claim that high densities of UWB usage will raise the interference level enough to affect their existing and future services. However, tests in the US have not found any plausible scenarios where such interference is a significant factor.
I believe there is some concern in Europe about interfering with GPS & GNSS equipment around airports. I believe a second GPS test in the US was done that showed it wasn't as bad as first thought, but I haven't read it.
From your tone, it's pretty obvious that believe that 100,000 is an unreasonable number. Why would you believe that the company who has the largest OS marketshare by an order of magnitude, has the largest OS name recognition would not have at least that number. 100,000 would seem on the very low-end of attacks, the thought of being able to infect the largest OS maker in the entire world has got to make a number of people salivate. Do you really think there are only a handful of people in the world interested in targetted attacks against MS infrastructure, is that why you are so passionate that the number seems out of line?
Additionally, I'm pretty sure you didn't read the article as it states specifically that they filter out 9 million spam messages, which coincidentally is a number larger than 100,000 per month (a factor of >2700 times). The data-heavy stuff was not in the article, it's from the submitter and I have no idea where he got it from.
I'm a unix admin, and could easily see through the BS you were posting, how you got modded up as insightful is a perfect example of your second sentence. "Toss out a post that moderators won't verify, along with just enough verbal imagery to impress non-tech savvy moderators and you're on your way to being modded up!". You either are complete moron, or brilliantly sneaky in intentionally creating a post that actually goes against itself but has enough dazling BS in it to fool people to fool them.
The $100 number isn't supposed to be anything even remotely close to reality, it being overly high was meant to try and show that even if Nintendo were to be able to make a very improbable $100 per $250 console, that they wouldn't be able to recoupe their development, R/D, etc costs within any short period of time.
Using that formula, then absolutely no console will make any money at all period. Because the $100 per console made per WII for the first year will not make up for it's development costs either. Unless you are thinking that the first WII, PS3, Xbox360 will be sold for multi-millions and the rest is pure profit it's got to be that way.
So when people say that MS & Nintendo are making a profit on each device at this time, it means that they aren't being sold for a loss. None of them have paid off their development costs, but they are in a position where they aren't subsidising the equipment anymore. The stuff you are talking about can't be calculated per console at this time, and actually you can't really count it until the end of the console's manufacturing lifetime to see if overall you made money per console or not.
I'm not sure why you are thinking it would be anyway else (but your last statement sure cements that you are thinking that it's different).
Either you have a really crappy HD input signal, you don't have your TV calibrated correctly (get a video essentials/avia DVD), something else is bad (cables, malfunctioning part, etc), or you have a smaller TV and you are not sitting close to it; because I've never known anybody to say that it's not really that different when seeing the actual difference. (most often it's because they have their TV calibrated to make 408i signals to look better, which unfortunately conversely makes their HD signals look bad)
I do get it, it won't output at 1080i for 720p content. Again why can't it do it? My cable box scales, the Xbox scales, heck even my audio receiver can scale, but why can't the graphics beast PS3 do it, why does it have this short comming?
And this changes the fact that I have a HDTV that takes 480i, 480p, 540p, & 1080i but not 720p how, it doesn't make my TV magically go away?
If you really want to get to the nuts and bolts of it, "a modern TV" (to use your own words) will do all of the above, but the brand spankin new PS3 can't do 1080i. In Europe 720p & 1080i are so critical that TV's are required to support both of them and have been for years, but a less than one month old PS3 is unable to fullfill even that basic requirement. Why can't I have 1080i? I like more lines of resolution than I like smoothness of video on a large screen display. Why can't the PS3 perform something that my computer has been able to do for years now (via mythtv), and is part of the basic spec sheet.
Hahaha... it's hillarious how you are replying to yourself, can you get any more obvious? Please, try harder.
The last line is hillariously fanboyism, re-read it yourself. It's so obvious, I'm almost tempted to say that you were trying to be sarcastic, and really saying that the PS3 doesn't support one of the standard HDTV spec's when all new TV's support all the specs, but a brand spankin new PS3 doesn't. That's lovely irony there folks. Really, if the PS3 was older I'd understand it, but every *new* TV supports all of the HDTV specs, but the brand new cutting-edge PS3 fails to support things that a regular old, boring tech new TV does? That's pretty damn funny.
Hmmm... looks at my own 50" Toshiba 50HX70, does it do 720p??? Why no, no it does not. Is it a CRT based HDTV, no no it isn't (it's LCD rear-projection). Was the 50HX70 only sold ever sold in to the US and no other country, why no no it isn't. And I'm pretty sure all the adds say that it's a HDTV system with line doubling.
My rear-projection LCD flat screen display isn't actually sitting in my basement, but it's actually a figment of my imagination because the limitations are limited to only CRT based HDTV's, and a rear-projection tv never was never made that only did 480i/480p/540p/1080i, but not 720p. Because obviously if the TV does all those other resolutions, but not 720p could not be made. Would you like to tell me again what doesn't exist?
The only console I own was a gifted dreamcast so I'm pretty sure that a console fanboy moniker would apply to you not me (you sure seem to have a vested interest in proving that there are no non-720p TV's in the world), I'm more of a hometheater buff who's waiting for the digital TV technology gell a bit more (every new HDMI spec has required new hardware, they just finished 1.3 a couple of months ago) before I convince the S.O. that we should throw out a perfectly working 50" HD display, for 1080p display resolutions that no satelite or cable providers output today, and only could currently be used for something that there is a format war occuring. Unless I have money flowing out my ears, it would be completely idiotic to purchase a TV for that purpose at this time.
Maybe you should step back from the keyboard and ask yourself why you are trying so hard to convince me that my TV doesn't exist, and if you are not the fanboy here.
Umm.... I think you are mistaken by making such statements. You don't have front & rear projection units either, that DLP isn't available? And define old? What do you think is the average lifespan of a TV for consumers? The average consumer computer display lifetime is over 5-6 years, why do you think a 50"+ TV turn-over rate would be higher than that? Nobody's arguing that if you buy a TV today, you are going to get it, but you can't say that everybody in Europe replaced their TV's in the past 2-3 years. You can't just run from this thinking that the TV in people's homes are going to be replaced every couple of years, because that's not reality.
1080p TV's have only been into consumer level pricing for the past 6-8 months period. And a TV that 4 years old is shite? What kind of planet are you on where you buy a new 60" TV every couple of years? Look at your post and try and defend that statement, try and show that the average lifespan of a TV's is less than 4 years before they are thrown out. You don't actually believe what you wrote there do you?
Hey there mister anonymous coward (or should I say dannycim) http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=209458&cid=170 79316 Next time at least try to use some different words to make your childish game a little less obvious next time.
Oh... so your rebuttal is that because it's in the US it doesn't matter. Ok, you go with that then, all the people in the US don't matter at all, and Sony is stupid to even to want to sell in the US market. How stupid of Sony to think of anyplace other than Japan, because that's all that matters. Thanks for your intelligent rebuttal.
So you are cool with paying hundreds of dollars more to only downcovert to the same video resolution as the WII / standard DVD? Only in the past 6-8 months has 1080p come into the price range of most consumers, so the amount of HD TV's in consumers hands that support 1080p are most likely limited to a single digit percentages at this time, so I'd saying any "moderately decent HDTV" will support either of those modes fine is completely insane. The number of TV's that don't do 720p that are in consumers hands today are a much larger percentage than the number of TV's that will accept a 1080p input, so it is a very large concern to a very large number of people.
Up conversion of 720p to 1080i is much better than down conversion to 480p, which I think *you* don't get. Additionally if your display device can't accept the native resolution than you are upconverting or downcoverting. Of those two options which would you prefer? I'd rather have a scaler go upwards and have software try to interpolate for the pixels that aren't there, rather than reducing the pixels to the same output as DVD. This alone makes the 360 *signicantly* better than the PS3 and makes you clueless. If my output is going to be the same 480p resolution as a DVD, than what's the point of BluRay and how can a PS3 be better than a 360 under this requirement, it can't? I'm sure if you really worked as much with the "video standards" as you say you do, you'd have realised this.
Can you tell me what changed in Iraq's WMD capactiy from 1998, when Clinton was saying that Sadam had WMD and we needed to bomb him compared to 2003 when Bush was saying that Sadam had WMD and we needed to bomb him? Me thinks you are forgetting context as well... or did a magical unicorn swoop down and pick up all the WMD right after Clinton bombed them and forget to tell anyone. Their program was the same in 98 and in 03. Your first sentence tries to say that they had them in 1998, *they didn't* there is the same amount of evidence that they were there in 98 as they were in 03.
Additionally do a search (pick your favorite search engine) and see if there are any Democrats doing any fear mongering this year about North Korea or Iran's WMD programs?
I also find it rather interesting that a person makes a dig at 45% of the population and gets modded upto 5 and I merely post quotes of leaders from the party containing 45% of the rest of the population doing the exact same thing and I'm modded down as flamebait.... I wonder if people are just a wee bit touchy when someone questions their thinking that their guys can "do no wrong".
What it really comes down to is an intelligence break down, that isn't specific to leadership. People being mad at either Clinton or Bush is truely stupid, it's the people that have been doing the intelligence gathering for both parties for years that were wrong and need to have the outrage against their failure.
I'm confused as to when exactly the following people joined the Republican party (cut and paste job, but makes the appropriate point)
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Rob
Every single organization seems to follow this exact same path. Lean and mean at first, to fast and nimble second, to large but feature, to slow and bloated. The next step after this tends to be, jump at any and all projects to see if anything will stick progressing slowly down a spiral with a large change either acquisition by another company or dramatic slashing of middle-management workers and projects to focus on their core. Unfortunately I have yet to see a large organization that doesn't seem to go down something similar to this path.
Read what you posted and then read the last paragraph of my post and compare and contrast: scare of getting caught with our pants down to terrorist vs scare of getting caught with our pants down against global warming.
Re:Nothing inconvenient about the results
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It is refutable that we must act now with legislation. It is refutable that the Kyoto treaty does anything for the environment. It is refutable to say that humans can stop the general warming trend.
It is very refutable to say that we must pass things that look good on paper, allow politicians to pat themselves on the back to get re-elected. It is irrefutable that Kyoto would force millions of people into unemployment, it is refutable to say that Kyoto is even marginally good legislation. It is irrefutable that we really don't have enough information, to make any informed decision.
Also running around scaring people to force unvetted political legislature on the guise that it will help, is about as helpful as saying the terrorists are everywhere and if we don't allow every phone call, email, fax and postal letter in the US to be monitored to we are going to have a successful nuclear attack against us.
I'm pretty sure he's talking about your pesonal folders off their server on your PC, over 2GB and it was known for possibly corrupting and taking all your mail but the 250MB on the server.
Slashdot Mirror
Mainly off of someone *elses* work (though I must say Redhat has contributed quite a bit) who doesn't get to see a dime (which basically illustrages the previous posters point). Are they funneling any cash back to the guy who contributed lines to the systat package who would like some cash too? I've been using Redhat for years and a fedora user, but one must be truthful in that the argument you give is pretty hollow.
Were they "hard questions" or were they loaded questions, two very, very different things, and it seems pretty obvious he wasn't all that interested in a real dialog with answers but more interested in doing the "neener neener, I got ya" child thing.
FTA:
It is understood that the committee decision to allow UWB was based on a far from unanimous majority, with some Scandinavian countries and France opposing the proposal. UWB opponents are mostly established band users who claim that high densities of UWB usage will raise the interference level enough to affect their existing and future services. However, tests in the US have not found any plausible scenarios where such interference is a significant factor.
I believe there is some concern in Europe about interfering with GPS & GNSS equipment around airports. I believe a second GPS test in the US was done that showed it wasn't as bad as first thought, but I haven't read it.
I think you meant "5 quid" instead of "5 qui"
So you weren't going for the brilliantly sneaky and were instead going for the moron one then. Nice to know
From your tone, it's pretty obvious that believe that 100,000 is an unreasonable number. Why would you believe that the company who has the largest OS marketshare by an order of magnitude, has the largest OS name recognition would not have at least that number. 100,000 would seem on the very low-end of attacks, the thought of being able to infect the largest OS maker in the entire world has got to make a number of people salivate. Do you really think there are only a handful of people in the world interested in targetted attacks against MS infrastructure, is that why you are so passionate that the number seems out of line?
Additionally, I'm pretty sure you didn't read the article as it states specifically that they filter out 9 million spam messages, which coincidentally is a number larger than 100,000 per month (a factor of >2700 times). The data-heavy stuff was not in the article, it's from the submitter and I have no idea where he got it from.
I'm a unix admin, and could easily see through the BS you were posting, how you got modded up as insightful is a perfect example of your second sentence. "Toss out a post that moderators won't verify, along with just enough verbal imagery to impress non-tech savvy moderators and you're on your way to being modded up!". You either are complete moron, or brilliantly sneaky in intentionally creating a post that actually goes against itself but has enough dazling BS in it to fool people to fool them.
The $100 number isn't supposed to be anything even remotely close to reality, it being overly high was meant to try and show that even if Nintendo were to be able to make a very improbable $100 per $250 console, that they wouldn't be able to recoupe their development, R/D, etc costs within any short period of time.
Using that formula, then absolutely no console will make any money at all period. Because the $100 per console made per WII for the first year will not make up for it's development costs either. Unless you are thinking that the first WII, PS3, Xbox360 will be sold for multi-millions and the rest is pure profit it's got to be that way.
So when people say that MS & Nintendo are making a profit on each device at this time, it means that they aren't being sold for a loss. None of them have paid off their development costs, but they are in a position where they aren't subsidising the equipment anymore. The stuff you are talking about can't be calculated per console at this time, and actually you can't really count it until the end of the console's manufacturing lifetime to see if overall you made money per console or not.
I'm not sure why you are thinking it would be anyway else (but your last statement sure cements that you are thinking that it's different).
Either you have a really crappy HD input signal, you don't have your TV calibrated correctly (get a video essentials/avia DVD), something else is bad (cables, malfunctioning part, etc), or you have a smaller TV and you are not sitting close to it; because I've never known anybody to say that it's not really that different when seeing the actual difference. (most often it's because they have their TV calibrated to make 408i signals to look better, which unfortunately conversely makes their HD signals look bad)
I do get it, it won't output at 1080i for 720p content. Again why can't it do it? My cable box scales, the Xbox scales, heck even my audio receiver can scale, but why can't the graphics beast PS3 do it, why does it have this short comming?
And this changes the fact that I have a HDTV that takes 480i, 480p, 540p, & 1080i but not 720p how, it doesn't make my TV magically go away?
If you really want to get to the nuts and bolts of it, "a modern TV" (to use your own words) will do all of the above, but the brand spankin new PS3 can't do 1080i. In Europe 720p & 1080i are so critical that TV's are required to support both of them and have been for years, but a less than one month old PS3 is unable to fullfill even that basic requirement. Why can't I have 1080i? I like more lines of resolution than I like smoothness of video on a large screen display. Why can't the PS3 perform something that my computer has been able to do for years now (via mythtv), and is part of the basic spec sheet.
Hahaha... it's hillarious how you are replying to yourself, can you get any more obvious? Please, try harder.
The last line is hillariously fanboyism, re-read it yourself. It's so obvious, I'm almost tempted to say that you were trying to be sarcastic, and really saying that the PS3 doesn't support one of the standard HDTV spec's when all new TV's support all the specs, but a brand spankin new PS3 doesn't. That's lovely irony there folks. Really, if the PS3 was older I'd understand it, but every *new* TV supports all of the HDTV specs, but the brand new cutting-edge PS3 fails to support things that a regular old, boring tech new TV does? That's pretty damn funny.
Hmmm... looks at my own 50" Toshiba 50HX70, does it do 720p??? Why no, no it does not. Is it a CRT based HDTV, no no it isn't (it's LCD rear-projection). Was the 50HX70 only sold ever sold in to the US and no other country, why no no it isn't. And I'm pretty sure all the adds say that it's a HDTV system with line doubling.
My rear-projection LCD flat screen display isn't actually sitting in my basement, but it's actually a figment of my imagination because the limitations are limited to only CRT based HDTV's, and a rear-projection tv never was never made that only did 480i/480p/540p/1080i, but not 720p. Because obviously if the TV does all those other resolutions, but not 720p could not be made. Would you like to tell me again what doesn't exist?
The only console I own was a gifted dreamcast so I'm pretty sure that a console fanboy moniker would apply to you not me (you sure seem to have a vested interest in proving that there are no non-720p TV's in the world), I'm more of a hometheater buff who's waiting for the digital TV technology gell a bit more (every new HDMI spec has required new hardware, they just finished 1.3 a couple of months ago) before I convince the S.O. that we should throw out a perfectly working 50" HD display, for 1080p display resolutions that no satelite or cable providers output today, and only could currently be used for something that there is a format war occuring. Unless I have money flowing out my ears, it would be completely idiotic to purchase a TV for that purpose at this time.
Maybe you should step back from the keyboard and ask yourself why you are trying so hard to convince me that my TV doesn't exist, and if you are not the fanboy here.
Umm.... I think you are mistaken by making such statements. You don't have front & rear projection units either, that DLP isn't available? And define old? What do you think is the average lifespan of a TV for consumers? The average consumer computer display lifetime is over 5-6 years, why do you think a 50"+ TV turn-over rate would be higher than that? Nobody's arguing that if you buy a TV today, you are going to get it, but you can't say that everybody in Europe replaced their TV's in the past 2-3 years. You can't just run from this thinking that the TV in people's homes are going to be replaced every couple of years, because that's not reality.
1080p TV's have only been into consumer level pricing for the past 6-8 months period. And a TV that 4 years old is shite? What kind of planet are you on where you buy a new 60" TV every couple of years? Look at your post and try and defend that statement, try and show that the average lifespan of a TV's is less than 4 years before they are thrown out. You don't actually believe what you wrote there do you?
0 79316 Next time at least try to use some different words to make your childish game a little less obvious next time.
Hey there mister anonymous coward (or should I say dannycim) http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=209458&cid=17
Oh... so your rebuttal is that because it's in the US it doesn't matter. Ok, you go with that then, all the people in the US don't matter at all, and Sony is stupid to even to want to sell in the US market. How stupid of Sony to think of anyplace other than Japan, because that's all that matters. Thanks for your intelligent rebuttal.
So you are cool with paying hundreds of dollars more to only downcovert to the same video resolution as the WII / standard DVD? Only in the past 6-8 months has 1080p come into the price range of most consumers, so the amount of HD TV's in consumers hands that support 1080p are most likely limited to a single digit percentages at this time, so I'd saying any "moderately decent HDTV" will support either of those modes fine is completely insane. The number of TV's that don't do 720p that are in consumers hands today are a much larger percentage than the number of TV's that will accept a 1080p input, so it is a very large concern to a very large number of people.
Up conversion of 720p to 1080i is much better than down conversion to 480p, which I think *you* don't get. Additionally if your display device can't accept the native resolution than you are upconverting or downcoverting. Of those two options which would you prefer? I'd rather have a scaler go upwards and have software try to interpolate for the pixels that aren't there, rather than reducing the pixels to the same output as DVD. This alone makes the 360 *signicantly* better than the PS3 and makes you clueless. If my output is going to be the same 480p resolution as a DVD, than what's the point of BluRay and how can a PS3 be better than a 360 under this requirement, it can't? I'm sure if you really worked as much with the "video standards" as you say you do, you'd have realised this.
Can you tell me what changed in Iraq's WMD capactiy from 1998, when Clinton was saying that Sadam had WMD and we needed to bomb him compared to 2003 when Bush was saying that Sadam had WMD and we needed to bomb him? Me thinks you are forgetting context as well... or did a magical unicorn swoop down and pick up all the WMD right after Clinton bombed them and forget to tell anyone. Their program was the same in 98 and in 03. Your first sentence tries to say that they had them in 1998, *they didn't* there is the same amount of evidence that they were there in 98 as they were in 03.
Additionally do a search (pick your favorite search engine) and see if there are any Democrats doing any fear mongering this year about North Korea or Iran's WMD programs?
I also find it rather interesting that a person makes a dig at 45% of the population and gets modded upto 5 and I merely post quotes of leaders from the party containing 45% of the rest of the population doing the exact same thing and I'm modded down as flamebait.... I wonder if people are just a wee bit touchy when someone questions their thinking that their guys can "do no wrong".
What it really comes down to is an intelligence break down, that isn't specific to leadership. People being mad at either Clinton or Bush is truely stupid, it's the people that have been doing the intelligence gathering for both parties for years that were wrong and need to have the outrage against their failure.
I'm confused as to when exactly the following people joined the Republican party (cut and paste job, but makes the appropriate point)
... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Rob
Every single organization seems to follow this exact same path. Lean and mean at first, to fast and nimble second, to large but feature, to slow and bloated. The next step after this tends to be, jump at any and all projects to see if anything will stick progressing slowly down a spiral with a large change either acquisition by another company or dramatic slashing of middle-management workers and projects to focus on their core. Unfortunately I have yet to see a large organization that doesn't seem to go down something similar to this path.
Read what you posted and then read the last paragraph of my post and compare and contrast: scare of getting caught with our pants down to terrorist vs scare of getting caught with our pants down against global warming.
It is refutable that we must act now with legislation. It is refutable that the Kyoto treaty does anything for the environment. It is refutable to say that humans can stop the general warming trend.
It is very refutable to say that we must pass things that look good on paper, allow politicians to pat themselves on the back to get re-elected. It is irrefutable that Kyoto would force millions of people into unemployment, it is refutable to say that Kyoto is even marginally good legislation. It is irrefutable that we really don't have enough information, to make any informed decision.
Also running around scaring people to force unvetted political legislature on the guise that it will help, is about as helpful as saying the terrorists are everywhere and if we don't allow every phone call, email, fax and postal letter in the US to be monitored to we are going to have a successful nuclear attack against us.
If you run a website that allows users to post random information, you have to have the knowledge of the ramifications.
I'm pretty sure he's talking about your pesonal folders off their server on your PC, over 2GB and it was known for possibly corrupting and taking all your mail but the 250MB on the server.