If we thought we were seeing too many software/business patents, we're about to really be amazed.
Now we're patenting "features" of software--behaviors even. How about Undo? Oooh, that's worthy of a patent. Or double-click to select a word, triple-click to select a sentence?
Pick any feature of any software system, and it's now fair game for patent. This means of course, in the future you'll have to get a licensing agreement from FubarU.com, the patent holder of the "Undo" feature.
What I wonder though, is it just pure malice that drives these humans to patent things like this? It certainly can't be business sense, since Amazon can't conceivably get any more online retail business by others not being able to use this feature on their retail sites. And it can't just be for license fees, since those may or may not ever come to fruition.
What ever happened to the good old days of insurance fraud, embezzlement, and plain old theft? At least those perpetrators had balls.
Your lawyer friends would advise you to settle in an instant against These Guys if they brought suit against you.
In case you don't feel like fishing, here are some of the bigger names you'd be up against:
Warner Music Group
Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
The Atlantic Group
Univision Music Group
Buena Vista Music Group
Maverick Recording Company
RCA Music Group
Epic Records Group
Solar Records/J.Hines Co.
Universal Music Group
Columbia Records Group
EMI, Recorded Music N.A.
Arista Records Inc.
Elektra Entertainment Group
BMG Entertainment
Tommy Boy Music
Capitol Records
I'm sure they'll see they can't win, and back down:)
Consider spending months and months, and 100s of thousands of dollars to defend yourself.
Yes you could countersue, and you might get your court costs covered. But where do you get the money you need to fight with (not even considering you might never get it back, even if you win)?
The US justice system is a tool for people/companies with money. If you can't afford to fight a suit brought against you, then you have to settle (which despite not admitting wrongdoing, always makes you look guilty.)
Cheers to Apple for doing nearly the obvious (and that which record companies thus far have been unable to do, perhaps due to lack of vision (heads in asses and such)).
Now someone tell my why RIAA's members have been so busy chasing the negative side of internet music distribution instead of implementing something like this. In fact, it's likely that MP3.com might have arrived at something similar to this, had they not been on the wrong end of pointy lawyers.
There's no magic in this formula. The only really creative aspect is perhaps the user interface presented by Apple. There's no good reason the record companies couldn't have done this themselves, with good developers.
Of course, there's a negative side to this. Apple is (inadvertently?) furthering the status quo in the music industry. I think the music industry had been heading for a major shakeup, where artists were going to gain some control back over their works (not to mention some real compensation).
Don't take this as a personal attack, but here are some examples of why I think this writing is really not good.
People who know me know will know I'm a case person, that I'm a sucker for a nice looking aluminium case and with the Hush I'm blown away.
Obviously there are some extra words in the first clause. I'm sure that's just a mistake of having changed wording, accidentally leaving in some extra words. But beyond that, the structure of the sentence is confusing. At the least, it is a run-on sentence. The last clause, "with the Hush..." should follow a comma, or better yet, become its own sentence.
At the front it's very clean looking, nothing destroys the clean lines unless it's essential to the function.
Here you have another run-on. I think what you mean is "--" instead of ",". It's minor, but it's wrong, and it causes the reader to stumble (and try to guess your intention.)
They require a special tool to loosen them but that said, it's very easy to loosen them and Hush provides the correct tool with retail versions of the system for those needing/wanting to tinker or just look at the insides of the system.
Run-on upon run-on. Most of the text here should be broken down into simpler sentences. Go back to basics. There is plenty of room between the simplicity of "See Jack run.", and the clause-olympics you are attempting. Writing sentences as complicated as you're trying requires careful attention to rules of grammar. Above that, it requires care to make sure the reader gets the point the way you intend.
But, this is/., so I'm just being too picky:) Don't stop writing, just go for simplicity, elegance, and brevity.
This article suggests nothing earth-shaking. In fact, it's really just another distro, like what the author himself is complaining about.
There are two areas that most need fixing. Filesystem structure, configurability of apps, and other things aren't what need fixing most.
We need fewer, better (how about, doesn't crash often, for starters) apps and tools. After using Linux for several years for servers, this weekend I actually tried to use it as a desktop OS. I had a big mess of files, source, and other docs (of my own making) that I had to try to get organized.
Gnome Nautilus crashed frequently. It paused for several seconds at a time periodically (top showed no activity, no load). It didn't redraw all the time as it should. It sometimes wouldn't allow an operation (such as deleting an empty folder), for no apparent reason.
KDE (konquerer) was moderately better, but it still crashed periodically.
There will forever be debates over KDE vs Gnome, but the fact is, we'd be better off with just one desktop that worked (dare I say, as good as Windows). Windows has its problems, but it is much more reliable as a desktop OS, in terms of application behavior.
And then we have desktop apps - word processors, spreadsheets, etc. How many email clients do we need? How many word processors? There needs to be some consolidation and some serious quality improvement. Then we can diverge into competing products. But right now, in general, we have a bunch of decent, but still-too-buggy apps.
Last, we need more complete, universally supported OS management tools. Whether it's linuxconf, webmin, etc., we need one or two solid tools for helping non-shell users manage their OS. Right now we have some nice individual tools, and some decent tool umbrellas, but it's still not clean and uniform.
I know you can't expect people working for free to do exactly what you want, but it would be nice if half of the creative energy spent was directed toward some of these goals, rather than yet-another-IM, or WM, or screensaver, etc. Let's get one to three of each type of app or tool, and one or two desktop managers, etc.
Who is the target audience for Windows 2003 server? Is it Windows 4.0 users? The Unix crowd?
The initial market will probably evolve into three categories.
Category No. 1 will be NT 4.0 users. There are a lot out there, and I think we offer an important step forward. It's not like a client, where everybody might want to upgrade at the same time, but I think we've set up a real wave there.
No. 2, there are people moving applications from expensive gear onto cheap gear. I think Windows Server 2003 is going to look good to a lot of that community. Those are high-performance computing applications, or applications running on Solaris or AIX.
And No. 3, people who want to put in new applications or people who want to support new working information-type scenarios--and people are always putting in new applications. They really are.
Conspicuously missing from his list is current Server 2000 users. I'm shocked at his openness and (accidental?) honesty on this issue.
MSFT shareholders should take note. MS doesn't expect many 2000 users to upgrade to 2003. Server 2003 isn't going to be a blockbuster seller.
And counting on NT4 server folks to upgrade is probably being too optimistic. Think of how many Code Red infected NT4 servers are still out there. That tells me the people running them don't care, or don't do enough with the servers to feel the need to upgrade.
Eh, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting no strings attached, I was suggesting that grants shouldn't be "you work and do everything to completion, then we pay you someday after you're done", but rather should be "we pay you some up front, or at regular intervals, etc."
Of course grants have a legal contract associated with them, but that's not what I meant when I said "contract". I was referring to different approaches toward projects/jobs. If there was no difference of approach, then there would be no such thing as a grant. There would be no differentiation between paid-for research work and development/implementation work that results in pay after the fact.
No, you're right, I haven't, at least not with government agencies. I'm more familiar with the oil business, where payments can be 180+ days after completion of work.
But I would be surprised to find out that a DARPA grant was the same as a contract. In either case though, you should have clear terms stating when and how much would be paid. That would help your planning, but you certainly shouldn't count on it and spend it in advance (especially in advance of the first payment).
We certainly should be improving the security of our systems in every practical way, but there will always be a weak link somewhere. Right now that weak link is people.
If you lock your systems down tight, you still have to worry about social attacks. Unless something is done, social engineering will always be one of the most effective, least difficult methods for gaining access.
One of the biggest needs of improvement is in employee education. Most people just do not understand why the password "Snoopy", or "office", or their name, their username, etc. is bad. They don't see why locking their desktop when they go to lunch is important. They're happy to tell you their username and password if you ask them (perhaps while throwing some confusing technical terms at them).
Some of the energy being spent (and there's a lot of energy people are putting into technical security measures) should be devoted to educating users on good security practices.
Maybe I missed it, but it didn't look like he reviewed several keyboards and mice; it just looked like one keyboard and one mouse.
I used the BAT for a few weeks. It was great for non-programming, but for programming it was very inefficient (having to hit a chord to say "now I'm going to shift, or ctrl, or alt", and then having to hit the chord for the actual key. Some situations even required three chords in series to generate one character.
But for writing, documenting, and emailing, it was really great. Mouse drivers would love it too, since it allows you to keep one hand on the mouse while your other hand does all the typing.
It's common in the light-speed internet news world for one news agency to use another agency's article as the source of a story (and sometimes, without doing any fact/validation checking).
It happens all the time. Journalistic practices have gone way downhill since the web. Many stories on the web are obviously not reviewed by an editor. Heck, some aren't even spell checked. We're talking about major news networks too, like CNN, Fox, etc. CNN is one of the worst. BBC appears to be one of the better ones.
Imagine if parking or moving vehicle violations were felonies. Suddenly we'd all be criminals.
Imagine if many of today's (ignored) misdemeanors were felonies. Who even pays attention to misdemeanors anyway?
What about crimes people get away with? They're not criminals, by definition, because they weren't caught or convicted.
So now, what if Kevin's crimes really should be misdemeanors? Or what if he hadn't been convicted? Heh, we all know OJ is no criminal.
Point is, it's not black or white like Christopher Painter um, paints it.
And Ira Winkler of HP asks, "what specialty skills do criminal hackers bring to the table that security experts without records don't already have?" How about, a proven track record? Or maybe actual on the job experience?
All that being said, if you're going to hire a cracker, you better know what you're doing. Amongst other risks, obviously your competitors/opponents can put a big spin on that news.
America executes idiots and children, and the rest of the world excoriates us for it. If you're black and poor, you get jail time for drugs; if you're white and rich, you go to a clinic. Do they have the right to invade the US for those crimes?
I suppose death by lethal injection for someone convicted by a jury is the same as death by torture, mutilation, acid bath, and/or fire for someone who publicly opposed Saddam.
Ok, let's assume for a moment that the US treats whites and blacks differently, and that blacks get jail time. Assuming that is true, then you bet we're wrong. But people justly or unjustly imprisoned in the US are not subjected to torture and worse (excluding perhaps what some prisoners do to other prisoners).
There's plenty wrong with how the US does things, but you've got to wonder why so many people from so many other countries want to come here. Did you know that in my part of north Texas, the immigration service receives 140,000 applications per quarter?
The US has had rough times, but for being one of the youngest countries, I would say we've learned quite well how to live with each other.
Our goal with Iraq is to help them form a democratic government of their own. We help them develop something remotely similar to what we've got. What we've got, despite the many, many problems, is still one of the most effective and balanced systems of government. It's no surprise, either, considering the founders of our country were intelligent, educated people who had the rest of the world as a model.
People who think we want to occupy and control Iraq are deluded. And people who think this is about oil are even more deluded. If this was about oil, we'd have gone to Venezuela and helped them work out their situation, since they're the biggest source of non-domestic oil we buy.
If I were in charge, we would not have gone to Iraq. I'd say, let Saddam build up a good base of power, and let him have his way with the rest of the Arab world. Then maybe he'll find his way to you. I'm sure he's not so bad to live with, as long as you lick his shoes, or rather his body double's shoes.
If you want to get technical, this is all unfinished business from 1990. Iraq invaded Kuwait, and that set everything in motion.
The reason Saddam has been "idle" when it comes to threatening neighbors is because he's been contained since Desert Storm. You can bet that if he had been allowed to annex Kuwait back then, he'd have picked up one or two more countries by now.
Maybe you've got a nuke in your basement. Maybe you don't. After we level your house then we'll know for sure.
Well now, if I had one 5 years ago, and bought the house next door and filled it with nuke building materials, and then every time you showed up to inspect my house, my wife jumped in the van and drove around the block, then I guess I would be clean, right? No nukes here!
Now we'll have to wait and see if the WMD claims pan out. If Saddam's history of lies and deception is any example, we're almost certain to find evidence.
The point is often raised that innocent cilivians would die if we were to go to war with Saddam.
War supporters concede that some innocent people will die. We believe the coalition forces have made very strong effort to avoid killing innocents.
But the oft-unanswered question is, "How many innocent people would die during the next 10, 20 or more years of Saddam's reign?"
*waiting*
Judging from the past 20 years, that figure would be in the thousands. But so far I've not heard or read any response to a simple question like that from the anti-war folks. More interestingly, I've never even seen acknowledgement from the anti-war crowd that life was really rotten for the Iraqis under Saddam's government.
Now to be OT on an OT topic, I recall watching CSPAN several years ago. Forgive my fuzzy memory about some of the details. There was a heated discussion about gun control. I forget the questions posed by the (most likely Republican) congressmember, but I recall the response given by Patti ? of Washington state to every single one of them: "Don't you want our children to grow up safe?" There was never any attempt to answer the direct questions posed to her.
This seems to be a fundamental attribute of liberals. Perhaps it's just that they get more emotional about issues, so much so that they become irrational. Of course, I'm not suggesting that conservatives aren't manipulative, devious, etc., but you can usually get them to answer a question.
I could go on and on about this, but I'm sure it would do no good:)
1) Iraq didn't attack us. 2) Iraq doesn't have WMD. 3) Are we also going to "free" Iran, Syria, Egypt, SA, etc?
1. True, but perhaps that's because they (the regime, not the general people) have been too busy raping and torturing critics (and their families) of the regime, torturing underperforming athletes, fighting Kurds, oppressing Shiites, warring with Iran, and invading Kuwait.
2. You're positive of this? How do you know? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Maybe now we'll find out. We certainly weren't going to find out while the UN conducted its searches.
3. In a way, you could say that we already have. What might happen to neighboring countries if Iraq develops itself as a productive, democratic society (with something resembling unrestricted media?)
I sometimes wonder if some of the vocal critics of this war are just utterly removed from reality. Or perhaps it's me, and I'm being snowed by a huge conspiracy of every American and British media organization (who must be very good at coordinating their "lies"?)
How do people ignore the long list of reports from exiled Iraqis and other sources about the horrid crimes the regime has committed against even its own people? Maybe you think it's their problem, and they should overthrow their own government without our help. It's probably pretty difficult to do that when you're not allowed to assemble to even plan such a futile action.
Here in the US we're free to assemble and to say negative things about our leaders. In many countries it's just not allowed. In many countries, former Iraq especially, even being suspected of saying negative things about the government could lead to death or worse.
I could go on, but from my experiences with people like you in the past, I know it would be pointless. I'd just hear some irrational, emotional response. Certainly I'd never get an answer to a simple, direct question.
Slashdot Mirror
Now we're patenting "features" of software--behaviors even. How about Undo? Oooh, that's worthy of a patent. Or double-click to select a word, triple-click to select a sentence?
Pick any feature of any software system, and it's now fair game for patent. This means of course, in the future you'll have to get a licensing agreement from FubarU.com, the patent holder of the "Undo" feature.
What I wonder though, is it just pure malice that drives these humans to patent things like this? It certainly can't be business sense, since Amazon can't conceivably get any more online retail business by others not being able to use this feature on their retail sites. And it can't just be for license fees, since those may or may not ever come to fruition.
What ever happened to the good old days of insurance fraud, embezzlement, and plain old theft? At least those perpetrators had balls.
In case you don't feel like fishing, here are some of the bigger names you'd be up against:
Warner Music Group
Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
The Atlantic Group
Univision Music Group
Buena Vista Music Group
Maverick Recording Company
RCA Music Group
Epic Records Group
Solar Records/J.Hines Co.
Universal Music Group
Columbia Records Group
EMI, Recorded Music N.A.
Arista Records Inc.
Elektra Entertainment Group
BMG Entertainment
Tommy Boy Music
Capitol Records
I'm sure they'll see they can't win, and back down :)
Consider spending months and months, and 100s of thousands of dollars to defend yourself.
Yes you could countersue, and you might get your court costs covered. But where do you get the money you need to fight with (not even considering you might never get it back, even if you win)?
The US justice system is a tool for people/companies with money. If you can't afford to fight a suit brought against you, then you have to settle (which despite not admitting wrongdoing, always makes you look guilty.)
Cheers to Apple for doing nearly the obvious (and that which record companies thus far have been unable to do, perhaps due to lack of vision (heads in asses and such)).
Now someone tell my why RIAA's members have been so busy chasing the negative side of internet music distribution instead of implementing something like this. In fact, it's likely that MP3.com might have arrived at something similar to this, had they not been on the wrong end of pointy lawyers.
There's no magic in this formula. The only really creative aspect is perhaps the user interface presented by Apple. There's no good reason the record companies couldn't have done this themselves, with good developers.
Of course, there's a negative side to this. Apple is (inadvertently?) furthering the status quo in the music industry. I think the music industry had been heading for a major shakeup, where artists were going to gain some control back over their works (not to mention some real compensation).
So, *cheers* and *jeers* I guess :)
God will roast their stomachs in hell...
Obviously there are some extra words in the first clause. I'm sure that's just a mistake of having changed wording, accidentally leaving in some extra words. But beyond that, the structure of the sentence is confusing. At the least, it is a run-on sentence. The last clause, "with the Hush..." should follow a comma, or better yet, become its own sentence.
Here you have another run-on. I think what you mean is "--" instead of ",". It's minor, but it's wrong, and it causes the reader to stumble (and try to guess your intention.)
Run-on upon run-on. Most of the text here should be broken down into simpler sentences. Go back to basics. There is plenty of room between the simplicity of "See Jack run.", and the clause-olympics you are attempting. Writing sentences as complicated as you're trying requires careful attention to rules of grammar. Above that, it requires care to make sure the reader gets the point the way you intend.
But, this is /., so I'm just being too picky :) Don't stop writing, just go for simplicity, elegance, and brevity.
Do people really not know how to write anymore? Do people even bother to read over what they wrote, before they present it?
There are two areas that most need fixing. Filesystem structure, configurability of apps, and other things aren't what need fixing most.
We need fewer, better (how about, doesn't crash often, for starters) apps and tools. After using Linux for several years for servers, this weekend I actually tried to use it as a desktop OS. I had a big mess of files, source, and other docs (of my own making) that I had to try to get organized.
Gnome Nautilus crashed frequently. It paused for several seconds at a time periodically (top showed no activity, no load). It didn't redraw all the time as it should. It sometimes wouldn't allow an operation (such as deleting an empty folder), for no apparent reason.
KDE (konquerer) was moderately better, but it still crashed periodically.
There will forever be debates over KDE vs Gnome, but the fact is, we'd be better off with just one desktop that worked (dare I say, as good as Windows). Windows has its problems, but it is much more reliable as a desktop OS, in terms of application behavior.
And then we have desktop apps - word processors, spreadsheets, etc. How many email clients do we need? How many word processors? There needs to be some consolidation and some serious quality improvement. Then we can diverge into competing products. But right now, in general, we have a bunch of decent, but still-too-buggy apps.
Last, we need more complete, universally supported OS management tools. Whether it's linuxconf, webmin, etc., we need one or two solid tools for helping non-shell users manage their OS. Right now we have some nice individual tools, and some decent tool umbrellas, but it's still not clean and uniform.
I know you can't expect people working for free to do exactly what you want, but it would be nice if half of the creative energy spent was directed toward some of these goals, rather than yet-another-IM, or WM, or screensaver, etc. Let's get one to three of each type of app or tool, and one or two desktop managers, etc.
Because the summary is poorly written (*shock, surprise*).
You can't buy the heli shown on the first link because it's a prototype, but the following two links point to commercially-available small helis.
Conspicuously missing from his list is current Server 2000 users. I'm shocked at his openness and (accidental?) honesty on this issue.
MSFT shareholders should take note. MS doesn't expect many 2000 users to upgrade to 2003. Server 2003 isn't going to be a blockbuster seller.
And counting on NT4 server folks to upgrade is probably being too optimistic. Think of how many Code Red infected NT4 servers are still out there. That tells me the people running them don't care, or don't do enough with the servers to feel the need to upgrade.
Eh, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting no strings attached, I was suggesting that grants shouldn't be "you work and do everything to completion, then we pay you someday after you're done", but rather should be "we pay you some up front, or at regular intervals, etc."
Of course grants have a legal contract associated with them, but that's not what I meant when I said "contract". I was referring to different approaches toward projects/jobs. If there was no difference of approach, then there would be no such thing as a grant. There would be no differentiation between paid-for research work and development/implementation work that results in pay after the fact.
But I would be surprised to find out that a DARPA grant was the same as a contract. In either case though, you should have clear terms stating when and how much would be paid. That would help your planning, but you certainly shouldn't count on it and spend it in advance (especially in advance of the first payment).
Maybe they shouldn't have spent money that wasn't in their hands yet...
It's ok to complain about the cancellation of funding, and it's even ok to be mad at DARPA, but it's not ok to blame them for your expenses.
If you spent money before they paid you, you were foolish.
If you lock your systems down tight, you still have to worry about social attacks. Unless something is done, social engineering will always be one of the most effective, least difficult methods for gaining access.
One of the biggest needs of improvement is in employee education. Most people just do not understand why the password "Snoopy", or "office", or their name, their username, etc. is bad. They don't see why locking their desktop when they go to lunch is important. They're happy to tell you their username and password if you ask them (perhaps while throwing some confusing technical terms at them).
Some of the energy being spent (and there's a lot of energy people are putting into technical security measures) should be devoted to educating users on good security practices.
Maybe I missed it, but it didn't look like he reviewed several keyboards and mice; it just looked like one keyboard and one mouse.
I used the BAT for a few weeks. It was great for non-programming, but for programming it was very inefficient (having to hit a chord to say "now I'm going to shift, or ctrl, or alt", and then having to hit the chord for the actual key. Some situations even required three chords in series to generate one character.
But for writing, documenting, and emailing, it was really great. Mouse drivers would love it too, since it allows you to keep one hand on the mouse while your other hand does all the typing.
You can't make me read an article! I'm a journalist... my source made no mention of her repairing databases.
That's exactly what I would be telling the world to get them interested in my database...
Not Internet Explorer
Download Now!
It's common in the light-speed internet news world for one news agency to use another agency's article as the source of a story (and sometimes, without doing any fact/validation checking).
It happens all the time. Journalistic practices have gone way downhill since the web. Many stories on the web are obviously not reviewed by an editor. Heck, some aren't even spell checked. We're talking about major news networks too, like CNN, Fox, etc. CNN is one of the worst. BBC appears to be one of the better ones.
Imagine if many of today's (ignored) misdemeanors were felonies. Who even pays attention to misdemeanors anyway?
What about crimes people get away with? They're not criminals, by definition, because they weren't caught or convicted.
So now, what if Kevin's crimes really should be misdemeanors? Or what if he hadn't been convicted? Heh, we all know OJ is no criminal.
Point is, it's not black or white like Christopher Painter um, paints it.
And Ira Winkler of HP asks, "what specialty skills do criminal hackers bring to the table that security experts without records don't already have?" How about, a proven track record? Or maybe actual on the job experience?
All that being said, if you're going to hire a cracker, you better know what you're doing. Amongst other risks, obviously your competitors/opponents can put a big spin on that news.
Ok, let's assume for a moment that the US treats whites and blacks differently, and that blacks get jail time. Assuming that is true, then you bet we're wrong. But people justly or unjustly imprisoned in the US are not subjected to torture and worse (excluding perhaps what some prisoners do to other prisoners).
There's plenty wrong with how the US does things, but you've got to wonder why so many people from so many other countries want to come here. Did you know that in my part of north Texas, the immigration service receives 140,000 applications per quarter?
The US has had rough times, but for being one of the youngest countries, I would say we've learned quite well how to live with each other.
Our goal with Iraq is to help them form a democratic government of their own. We help them develop something remotely similar to what we've got. What we've got, despite the many, many problems, is still one of the most effective and balanced systems of government. It's no surprise, either, considering the founders of our country were intelligent, educated people who had the rest of the world as a model.
People who think we want to occupy and control Iraq are deluded. And people who think this is about oil are even more deluded. If this was about oil, we'd have gone to Venezuela and helped them work out their situation, since they're the biggest source of non-domestic oil we buy.
If I were in charge, we would not have gone to Iraq. I'd say, let Saddam build up a good base of power, and let him have his way with the rest of the Arab world. Then maybe he'll find his way to you. I'm sure he's not so bad to live with, as long as you lick his shoes, or rather his body double's shoes.
The reason Saddam has been "idle" when it comes to threatening neighbors is because he's been contained since Desert Storm. You can bet that if he had been allowed to annex Kuwait back then, he'd have picked up one or two more countries by now.
Well now, if I had one 5 years ago, and bought the house next door and filled it with nuke building materials, and then every time you showed up to inspect my house, my wife jumped in the van and drove around the block, then I guess I would be clean, right? No nukes here!Now we'll have to wait and see if the WMD claims pan out. If Saddam's history of lies and deception is any example, we're almost certain to find evidence.
The point is often raised that innocent cilivians would die if we were to go to war with Saddam.
:)
War supporters concede that some innocent people will die. We believe the coalition forces have made very strong effort to avoid killing innocents.
But the oft-unanswered question is, "How many innocent people would die during the next 10, 20 or more years of Saddam's reign?"
*waiting*
Judging from the past 20 years, that figure would be in the thousands. But so far I've not heard or read any response to a simple question like that from the anti-war folks. More interestingly, I've never even seen acknowledgement from the anti-war crowd that life was really rotten for the Iraqis under Saddam's government.
Now to be OT on an OT topic, I recall watching CSPAN several years ago. Forgive my fuzzy memory about some of the details. There was a heated discussion about gun control. I forget the questions posed by the (most likely Republican) congressmember, but I recall the response given by Patti ? of Washington state to every single one of them: "Don't you want our children to grow up safe?" There was never any attempt to answer the direct questions posed to her.
This seems to be a fundamental attribute of liberals. Perhaps it's just that they get more emotional about issues, so much so that they become irrational. Of course, I'm not suggesting that conservatives aren't manipulative, devious, etc., but you can usually get them to answer a question.
I could go on and on about this, but I'm sure it would do no good
2. You're positive of this? How do you know? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Maybe now we'll find out. We certainly weren't going to find out while the UN conducted its searches.
3. In a way, you could say that we already have. What might happen to neighboring countries if Iraq develops itself as a productive, democratic society (with something resembling unrestricted media?)
I sometimes wonder if some of the vocal critics of this war are just utterly removed from reality. Or perhaps it's me, and I'm being snowed by a huge conspiracy of every American and British media organization (who must be very good at coordinating their "lies"?)
How do people ignore the long list of reports from exiled Iraqis and other sources about the horrid crimes the regime has committed against even its own people? Maybe you think it's their problem, and they should overthrow their own government without our help. It's probably pretty difficult to do that when you're not allowed to assemble to even plan such a futile action.
Here in the US we're free to assemble and to say negative things about our leaders. In many countries it's just not allowed. In many countries, former Iraq especially, even being suspected of saying negative things about the government could lead to death or worse.
I could go on, but from my experiences with people like you in the past, I know it would be pointless. I'd just hear some irrational, emotional response. Certainly I'd never get an answer to a simple, direct question.
You might think 9 megapixel is overkill, but I find the visual quality more than adequate.