Is there any chance that the IR could damage people's eyes? I mean, their eyes are dialated due to the darkness, and they're staring into it for 2 solid hours, and the sources are staying motionless...
There's a reason they tell you not to look at eclipses, and that's because there is sunlight that can damage your eyes can't be "seen" and as such you don't look away...
Ah yes, here it is - "Damage to the eyes comes predominantly from invisible infrared wavelengths, so the fact that you feel no discomfort while gazing at a partial eclipse does not guarantee that your eyes are safe"
The morning of 9/11, Bush made a photo-op appearance at a school. There is footage showing Bush sitting in shock with a stupid look on his face after he is notified of the attacks.
I'm sorry, what is he being accused of here? Being human? I remember 9/11, I had a stupid confused pained look on my face that entire day too.
But not once do they ever address the substance of Moore's claims.
Substance??? What substance?? Your four examples or "primary accusations", are utterly idiotic and nonsensical.
There is a very moving interview with a mother from Flint, Michigan... She talks about opportunities, Flint, America... then later she talks about her feelings following the death of her son in Iraq.
OMG SOMEONE DIED, QUICK CALL THE PRESS, WE HAD NO IDEA!!!
> But when the parent doesn't vaccinate his child, he is constantly hit with the accusation that he doesn't love his child. But in reality, he doesn't vaccinate his children because he does love them.
Parents have done lots of things because "they love their children". Yell at them. Beat them. Murder them.
The fact that "they loved them" has nothing to do with whether what they did or did not do is right or wrong, nor does it help us decide whether a given proposed action is an optimal solution to making the world a happier nicer place with the fewest bad things happening overall.
I'm sorry, both you and Michael Moore are idiots, and I'm glad you're not making decisions for us.
> A good analogy here would be a parent that educates himself on vaccines and learns that more children die from taking the vaccines than the diseases they were meant to prevent.
Was that before we spent 10 years giving the vacines and nearly eradicating the disease, or after? What will happen if we stop giving the vacine to *anyone* and the disease explodes again? Isn't it true that the only reason your child isn't at risk of getting it is because everyone else's children have been vacinated and thus aren't in a position to infect your child?
If it's so clear cut, then surely eventually the NIH/etc/etc will do the math and change.
Ooohhh, wait, it's all a *conspiracy*, isn't it.
Very few things are simple and straight forward, or black and white. If you try and treat the world that way, you'll end up in much more trouble than you can imagine.
I'm a WASP Canadian and I *love* those laws, I'm very proud of them. They're well written and have lots of focus. I don't think the KKK and Skinheads should be allowed to run around and publicly advocate things that will lead to violence against other people, and these laws are an *excellent* barrier to them doing just that. It doesn't prevent someone from holding a belief or communicating privately.
Public healthcare as a policy kicks ass. The only reason it's been strained in the past decade was due to attempts to reign in deficits and here-and-there where right-wing governments have cut it to the bone just to provide tax cuts.
If we can simply learn more of what the British have done lately (their system got into an abysmal state before they rescued it) we can put it much more back on track to being second to none.
You spend way way way too much on healthcare and only the upper 2/3 of your society has it, and even then it's not much better at all than the cheap Canadian healthcare.
Notice that in the quoted reference, the "method of determining weath" specifically excludes "durable goods like automobiles and house wares and social security benefits from his definition of marketable assets."
I have friends who make as much money as I do. I have a "wealth" of low 6 figures, while they have a wealth of near zero (according to that study). That's because they own tons of durable goods and spend all of their money on vacations and families and stereos and cars (aka durable goods) and have little liquid assets.
Does this mean I am 1000 times "wealthier" than they are?
No.
Does it mean I have more control over what society does with it's "sources of production"?
Hell no.
My co-workers and friends are clealry indicating to the market that they want more durable goods produced, while my money goes to other types of ventures indirectly.
I'd rather pay attention to the studies that *specifically pay attention* to "durable goods" and how much of society's resources one uses for personal pleasure and the like, *over a person's lifetime*. Because in the end both my friend and I (who have the exact same income) have been initially been handed the same share of society's resources. We're simply choosing to do different things with it.
There are people out there who are millionaires but who "use" (aka spend) less of society's resources on their own personal needs.
Anything worth paying attention to will take account of that. And calculating that is a) hard and b) does not lend itself to many people's agendas.
PS: I'm a *left wing* Canadian and yet a neo-con when it comes to global politics. I'm socialist yet I understand the benefit of the markets (minus monopolies and the like).
It's in the new Canadian $100 as well. It's not visible in the images at this page, but on the real bill they are used as background texture on both sides in various places. The space next to the black "100" on the front is where the watermark appears. All in all a very cool new bill.
In Toronto most places won't take Canadian $100 or $50 dollar bills, and most places have been burned by bogus $20's as well. So these new bills are quite overdue. Hopefully it restores confidence in the higher denomination currencies.
selectively breeding organisms for thousands of years.
I'm not an extreme anti-anything nut, but your statement is as ignorant in reverse as the anti-anything nuts.
In the natural environment if something is lethal to other organisms, the other organism either adapts or dies. Furthermore the rate at which such modifications occur is limited. Finally the types of modifications possible in the natural world is limited by the systems themselves. This includes everything humans actively did before genetic technology appeared.
Human intervention with genetic technology changes all of that, and as such we need to methodically, systematically, and logically consider our actions. There is no one universal "rule" that can be applied, it will have to be on a case by case basis, as the number of potential ways of doing things is not small.
Although large numberss of your statements are correct in and of themselves, they can not be lent to any useful argument in respect to the things you are implying that they can be applied to.
Please fuck off and leave the thinking to the rest of us.
Note that I'm not making any comment one way or the other with regards to this guy or what he did or what he's accused of. I am in no position to make an informed opinion, considering the lack of solid information. That's why we have grand juries and trials, checks and balances, etc etc.
But I'll say this, the notes about the organization he belongs to and some of the things they advocate in their literature are those of extremists - who think that they are *so* right that they want to win at all costs using extra-judicial methods.
My friend puts his case with the side off on his window sill, tapes the curtain around it all, and leaves the window open in the depths of winter. -20 C ambient case temperature (uhh, that's -4 F).
> I, for one, am currently ashamed to be an American, which is something I have NEVER felt before.
Western societies and the related organizations need lots of oversight to keep them functioning as well as they are, and yes we can always do better. You do remember the "eternal vigilance" quotes from hundreds of years ago, no?
3. (U) Throughout the investigation, we observed many individual Soldiers and some subordinate units under the 800th MP Brigade that overcame significant obstacles, persevered in extremely poor conditions, and upheld the Army Values. We discovered numerous examples of Soldiers and Sailors taking the initiative in the absence of leadership and accomplishing their assigned tasks.
a. (U) The 744th MP Battalion, commanded by LTC Dennis McGlone, efficiently operated the HVD Detention Facility at Camp Cropper and met mission requirements with little to no guidance from the 800th MP Brigade. The unit was disciplined, proficient, and appeared to understand their basic tasks.
b. (U) The 530th MP Battalion, commanded by LTC Stephen J. Novotny, effectively maintained the MEK Detention Facility at Camp Ashraf. His Soldiers were proficient in their individual tasks and adapted well to this highly unique and non-doctrinal operation.
c. (U) The 165th MI Battalion excelled in providing perimeter security and force protection at Abu Ghraib (BCCF). LTC Robert P. Walters, Jr., demanded standards be enforced and worked endlessly to improve discipline throughout the FOB.
4. (U) The individual Soldiers and Sailors that we observed and believe should be favorably noted include:
a. (U) Master-at-Arms First Class William J. Kimbro, US Navy Dog Handler, knew his duties and refused to participate in improper interrogations despite significant pressure from the MI personnel at Abu Ghraib.
b. (U) SPC Joseph M. Darby, 372nd MP Company discovered evidence of abuse and turned it over to military law enforcement.
c. (U) 1LT David O. Sutton, 229th MP Company, took immediate action and stopped an abuse, then reported the incident to the chain of command.
If it's *that* big of a problem, why don't our banks simply cut off ALL financial transactions with Nigeria?
Yup, I tape a lot of LEDs "shut"
on
The Blues for LEDs
·
· Score: 2, Informative
My bed is only 8 inches off the ground so when I'm in bed at night my PC and all the stuff that go with it shine directly in my eyes. They're not blue LEDs, but they were still annoying as hell.
So I've used little bits of white electrical tape (match the case colors) to block them all out. Even the drive activity LED got covered over, at nights when it was going on-and-off it was exteremely annoying.
Now all I see are tiny dull green-yellow or orange spots, not a huge spotlight shining across the room. So I can still see the lights even during the daytime, but they are no longer the equivalent of little spotlights in the darkness.
Did the same thing to the LED on the speaker on the fridge in the kitchen, it was annoying at 2am when going for a glug of milk in the pitch black apartment to be blinded by the LED on it.
Here's a question - why do so few other people in the world use the BRAINS (you know, those huge amazing things that only we humans have) to SOLVE their problems instead of bitching about it all the time? Everyone always seems so supprised whenever I trot out some tiny little thing that I've done to solve a problem or make a job easy. It's not rocket science.
> If there were WMDs in Iraq, why didn't Hussein use them?
Actually there was a nice bit of investigative reporting a while back that noted that he actively tried to maintain the illusion of "possibly hiding" them by being obstenate to the UN inspectors *in order to* try and dissuade an invasion and maintain power. So it's no wonder the feds fooled themselves into thinking he had WMD, Hussein himself was trying to create that illusion.
But you don't hear about all these complicated things, all the press can do is scream about their latest "scoop" and shit, and all the other people can do is simply play partisan pollitics.
I'm Canadian, and I supported the invasion *KNOWING* that there was no reason wrt WMD to invade (he can't use them if we're watching like a hawk, and if he did have any left he had to bury it all due to inspections, etc etc).
AFAIAC there were lots of other good reasons to invade (and it's only the Iranian supported Shia morons that are going to screw the pooch for the Iraqi common folk - one of the "in the know" Iraqi bloggers has said that the Shia militia's are getting paid regularly in USD provided by Iran).
I'm not particularly happy wrt Haliburton, but look at it this way. Of the dozens of people who hold high positions of power, how many have involvement in US corporations? All of them. Therefore how likely is it (wrt statistical odds) that at least one of them will have some kind of interest in at least one company, in ANY 100 billion dollar endeavour that the USA undertakes?
I'd bet 100 pct. It doesn't mean that there's a conspiracy or that the contract was necessarily "rigged". Most US government contracts are pretty bad deals wrt the US taxpayer all of the time!!
What I do consider a near crime (certainly incompetent decision making and priorities) is that such a large fraction of the rebuilding money is going to Western companies instead of Iraqi companies. Saddam rebuilt Iraq after the first gulf war with Iraqi workers, how the hell is it of any advantage to spend the money on $150,000 western labour rather than $5,000 Iraqi labour? They've got lots of engineers and lots of industry that needs rebuilding. We're missing out on a huge "marshal plan" type opportunity here in a big way, and the repercussion is 50 plus pct Iraqi unemployment, which is creating a LOT of the problems we are seeing.
Oh I bet ya they're simply *giving* away the licenses, then claiming a $50 tax writeoff or something. Hence the "certificates of authenticity".
So how much tax has Microsoft the uber-rich corporation paid in the most recent fiscal year? Historically they never paid ANY tax, despite managing to accumulate how many billion dollars in cash reserves?
> In my parent's town (small town Kansas), stuff like this gets hunted down. In San Diego, you've pretty much got to get shot to get the local cops out
I was about to say something similar between big city Toronto and small Prairie towns.
It can't be incompetence. It's gotta be a difference of scale. In a town of 1-2000 people, it's feasable to hunt the perps down, even more so it's highly feasable to have any other citizen identify your own stolen goods. (The teller at the small-town bank recognized my Mom's stolen coins when the dumbass 14 year old girl brought them in to see how much they were worth.). None of that is possible in a big city.
In a big city, they have to resort to fingerprints (expensive, time consuming) and stolen property databases (more expenses, don't get convictions on the actual B+E as the property is recovered long after and they can't link it to one person..), inability to match camera pictures against perps (not until they day they get facial recognition systems going, either that or a cop who knows every face in a city of 2 million), and they've got higher crime rates in general including the more serious stuff (assault, etc) to deal with.
In a rural area with 5-6 small towns that have one burglary per week, the cops have the time to take a full report and spend time on it.
>>small screen TV (32") >>> I remember a time, not long ago that 32'' was considered big screen...
No kidding.
I have a very different interpretation: On their website (if you go through all the links) you see them repeatedly mention "size of current mobile screens". Think of the mobile DVD players and current "mobile LCD" screens.
That's right. 8-15 inches.
Interesting little company, 5 people - 1 "manager" and 4 engineers.
Here's my question. Why don't car-makers actually make some of these concept cars, at least by body design if not all the under-hood bells and whistles! Why are the only new-looking cards on our streets all these funky looking things like the "new beetle" and the "new mini" and the like.... Why isn't there anything like the Volta available (at a reasonable price, the $400,000 Italian cars don't count.)
I mean, right now there isn't *anything* on the road under $50,000 that' I'd die to get my hands on. But the Volta and Concept T would get people who otherwise wouldn't have a car to buy a car, just for their uber-looks.
No, he really is right. This is exactly how the cleaning people and rent-a-cops get the elavator to go to where they want it to when it's in "hold" mode.
In my apartment building in the "moving elevator" there are actually front and back "door close" buttons and "door open" buttons that you actually have to press and hold down until the doors, close/open, simply pressing them once won't do - *when the elevator is in "hold mode"*. When the elevator is *not* in "hold mode", when it does not have the key in it, it behaves just like a regular elevator - and doors close on their own without specific command and the elevator automatically goes to the next requested floor.
I'm guessing that for elevators that don't have such open/close buttons or whose open/close buttons don't have that extra functionality, holding down a different-floor button does exactly the same thing.
So - what you are doing does not qualify for a hack.
Although it certainly is a bit of mischief.
Meta-moderators, please SLAY whomever moderated down the AC, the AC was entirely factually correct.
Uhhh, how many American/Canadian/British/French/etc/etc/etc citizens just so happen to *live* somewhere else when they're 20/25 years old? You do know some countries (Israel and I'm guessing Italy) have compulsory service (unsure of the specif age/time requirements).
You wouldn't *believe* the stories a friend at work told us about his interactions with the Italian embassy over some trivial matters - the machismo and stupidity of it all. I forget what it was all about, something along the lines of "if your parent was Italian, you can get an Italian passport", but of course there was this *idiotic* Italian beuarocracy at the Italian embassy which made it all a strange nightmare, until he brought in a relative who could "pull rank" and stuff.
Sorry I don't remember details, he told us this around a campfire on a company canoe trip.
> The Crusader is stupid because it fires relatively slow rounds that can be interdicted in flight. Hellfire equipped UAVs on station can provide better artillery support.
Whoa there.
On the one hand you've got the enemy shooting down artilery rounds that you describe as "slow moving" I presume relative to other types of fast moving tank rounds, but for some reason your UAVs flying at 100-200 mph firing slow moving missiles are going to do so much better?
I'm not defending the Crusader or Comanche per se (wrt the latter clearly an A-10 might be a better idea), but just picking apart this one statement of yours.
Hmmm, I wonder if anyone who bitches about anything less than an M1 battle tank's ability to survive modern weapons, realizes that you can't do that with anything less than a 50+ tons machine.
M113, LAV III, Bradley, whatever, you can't just wish away the vulnerability of anything lighter than 40 tons to some pretty basic weaponry. Who in their right mind would bitch about "mines". Mines can be 50-200 lbs of explosives, nothing is going to survive that short of the M1.
Does anyone get what I'm trying to say?
I can't believe there really are people who would rather sit in a 16 ton LAV III and be shot at instead of a 33 ton Bradley.
Yeah it costs more money and is harder to trapsort. Choose, dead men and women, or money.
This is all very interesting, I'll have to hunt that movie down.
I was under the impression that the Bradley was so heavy because it was given tons of armour to protect the troops super well in a highly dangerous combat environment.
And personally considering all the roadside bombs and RPG's that they are encountering, I bet they are making good use of the ones they have!!
I remember infra-red night-time video from the first gulf war where a pair of Apache's hit two American Bradleys in a FF incident. Casualties? One dead, a number wounded. If those had been lightweight LAVs, event the modern ones, there would have been a lot more dead GIs.
You just can't compare the safety provided by a 33 ton Bradley to a 10-15 ton LAV (Light Armoured Vehicle).
> Thank you for reducing my sexuality to exploitation. Makes me feel warm and > fuzzy to know my romantic pursuits are simply degrading to the other party.
Whether you like it or not, Western women can barely (if at all) tell the 5-15 percent of us who are wonderful nice human beings apart from the 85-95 percent of us who are assholes hunting tail 24/7.
Yes, it *should* piss you off. But it's not 100 percent western-womankind's fault, as far as it often is in fact impossible to tell many of the 85+ percent assholes apart from the 15 percent honourable until it's too late. It's not like some slick guy hunting tail is going to up and tell a girl to her face that he's hunting tail and he's going to screw her over someday somehow. (Hence why women get burned so often.)
It's largely the fault of the 85+ percent assholes. And you can't make the problem go away by ignoring it.
You're either part of the solution, or part of the problem. And I'm talking to everyone, especially womankind!!
Slashdot Mirror
Is there any chance that the IR could damage people's eyes? I mean, their eyes are dialated due to the darkness, and they're staring into it for 2 solid hours, and the sources are staying motionless...
There's a reason they tell you not to look at eclipses, and that's because there is sunlight that can damage your eyes can't be "seen" and as such you don't look away...
Ah yes, here it is - "Damage to the eyes comes predominantly from invisible infrared wavelengths, so the fact that you feel no discomfort while gazing at a partial eclipse does not guarantee that your eyes are safe"
The morning of 9/11, Bush made a photo-op appearance at a school. There is footage showing Bush sitting in shock with a stupid look on his face after he is notified of the attacks.
I'm sorry, what is he being accused of here? Being human? I remember 9/11, I had a stupid confused pained look on my face that entire day too.
But not once do they ever address the substance of Moore's claims.
Substance??? What substance?? Your four examples or "primary accusations", are utterly idiotic and nonsensical.
There is a very moving interview with a mother from Flint, Michigan... She talks about opportunities, Flint, America... then later she talks about her feelings following the death of her son in Iraq.
OMG SOMEONE DIED, QUICK CALL THE PRESS, WE HAD NO IDEA!!!
> But when the parent doesn't vaccinate his child, he is constantly hit with the accusation that he doesn't love his child. But in reality, he doesn't vaccinate his children because he does love them.
Parents have done lots of things because "they love their children". Yell at them. Beat them. Murder them.
The fact that "they loved them" has nothing to do with whether what they did or did not do is right or wrong, nor does it help us decide whether a given proposed action is an optimal solution to making the world a happier nicer place with the fewest bad things happening overall.
I'm sorry, both you and Michael Moore are idiots, and I'm glad you're not making decisions for us.
> A good analogy here would be a parent that educates himself on vaccines and learns that more children die from taking the vaccines than the diseases they were meant to prevent.
Was that before we spent 10 years giving the vacines and nearly eradicating the disease, or after? What will happen if we stop giving the vacine to *anyone* and the disease explodes again? Isn't it true that the only reason your child isn't at risk of getting it is because everyone else's children have been vacinated and thus aren't in a position to infect your child?
If it's so clear cut, then surely eventually the NIH/etc/etc will do the math and change.
Ooohhh, wait, it's all a *conspiracy*, isn't it.
Very few things are simple and straight forward, or black and white. If you try and treat the world that way, you'll end up in much more trouble than you can imagine.
I'm a WASP Canadian and I *love* those laws, I'm very proud of them. They're well written and have lots of focus. I don't think the KKK and Skinheads should be allowed to run around and publicly advocate things that will lead to violence against other people, and these laws are an *excellent* barrier to them doing just that. It doesn't prevent someone from holding a belief or communicating privately.
Public healthcare as a policy kicks ass. The only reason it's been strained in the past decade was due to attempts to reign in deficits and here-and-there where right-wing governments have cut it to the bone just to provide tax cuts.
If we can simply learn more of what the British have done lately (their system got into an abysmal state before they rescued it) we can put it much more back on track to being second to none.
You spend way way way too much on healthcare and only the upper 2/3 of your society has it, and even then it's not much better at all than the cheap Canadian healthcare.
> They SHOULD have been fighting space battles the way God intended them to be fought: With Nuclear Warheads!
Didn't Spock once describe this historically, in TOS referring to back before anyone had phasers and photon-torpedoes?
And didn't some lesser-developed planet once launch nuke tipped missiles at them once?
Very true.
Notice that in the quoted reference, the "method of determining weath" specifically excludes "durable goods like automobiles and house wares and social security benefits from his definition of marketable
assets."
I have friends who make as much money as I do. I have a "wealth" of low 6 figures, while they have a wealth of near zero (according to that study). That's because they own tons of durable goods and spend all of their money on vacations and families and stereos and cars (aka durable goods) and have little liquid assets.
Does this mean I am 1000 times "wealthier" than they are?
No.
Does it mean I have more control over what society does with it's "sources of production"?
Hell no.
My co-workers and friends are clealry indicating to the market that they want more durable goods produced, while my money goes to other types of ventures indirectly.
I'd rather pay attention to the studies that *specifically pay attention* to "durable goods" and how much of society's resources one uses for personal pleasure and the like, *over a person's lifetime*. Because in the end both my friend and I (who have the exact same income) have been initially been handed the same share of society's resources. We're simply choosing to do different things with it.
There are people out there who are millionaires but who "use" (aka spend) less of society's resources on their own personal needs.
Anything worth paying attention to will take account of that. And calculating that is a) hard and b) does not lend itself to many people's agendas.
PS: I'm a *left wing* Canadian and yet a neo-con when it comes to global politics. I'm socialist yet I understand the benefit of the markets (minus monopolies and the like).
It's in the new Canadian $100 as well. It's not visible in the images at this page, but on the real bill they are used as background texture on both sides in various places. The space next to the black "100" on the front is where the watermark appears. All in all a very cool new bill.
In Toronto most places won't take Canadian $100 or $50 dollar bills, and most places have been burned by bogus $20's as well. So these new bills are quite overdue. Hopefully it restores confidence in the higher denomination currencies.
selectively breeding organisms for thousands of years.
I'm not an extreme anti-anything nut, but your statement is as ignorant in reverse as the anti-anything nuts.
In the natural environment if something is lethal to other organisms, the other organism either adapts or dies. Furthermore the rate at which such modifications occur is limited. Finally the types of modifications possible in the natural world is limited by the systems themselves. This includes everything humans actively did before genetic technology appeared.
Human intervention with genetic technology changes all of that, and as such we need to methodically, systematically, and logically consider our actions. There is no one universal "rule" that can be applied, it will have to be on a case by case basis, as the number of potential ways of doing things is not small.
Although large numberss of your statements are correct in and of themselves, they can not be lent to any useful argument in respect to the things you are implying that they can be applied to.
Please fuck off and leave the thinking to the rest of us.
Note that I'm not making any comment one way or the other with regards to this guy or what he did or what he's accused of. I am in no position to make an informed opinion, considering the lack of solid information. That's why we have grand juries and trials, checks and balances, etc etc.
But I'll say this, the notes about the organization he belongs to and some of the things they advocate in their literature are those of extremists - who think that they are *so* right that they want to win at all costs using extra-judicial methods.
Do *not* laugh.
My friend puts his case with the side off on his window sill, tapes the curtain around it all, and leaves the window open in the depths of winter. -20 C ambient case temperature (uhh, that's -4 F).
> I, for one, am currently ashamed to be an American, which is something I have NEVER felt before.
n t.txt
Western societies and the related organizations need lots of oversight to keep them functioning as well as they are, and yes we can always do better. You do remember the "eternal vigilance" quotes from hundreds of years ago, no?
Here, see, even us Canadians do bad shit some times:
http://www.dnd.ca/somalia/vol0/indexe.htm
But it doesn't mean that all Canadian Airborne troops were bad people:
http://www.commando.org/somalia.php?page=deployme
What I'd really like to point out here is a certain section of the U.S. Army report on Iraqi prisoner abuse titled "OTHER FINDINGS/OBSERVATIONS". And I quote:
3. (U) Throughout the investigation, we observed many individual Soldiers and some subordinate units under the 800th MP Brigade that overcame significant obstacles, persevered in extremely poor conditions, and upheld the Army Values. We discovered numerous examples of Soldiers and Sailors taking the initiative in the absence of leadership and accomplishing their assigned tasks.
a. (U) The 744th MP Battalion, commanded by LTC Dennis McGlone, efficiently operated the HVD Detention Facility at Camp Cropper and met mission requirements with little to no guidance from the 800th MP Brigade. The unit was disciplined, proficient, and appeared to understand their basic tasks.
b. (U) The 530th MP Battalion, commanded by LTC Stephen J. Novotny, effectively maintained the MEK Detention Facility at Camp Ashraf. His Soldiers were proficient in their individual tasks and adapted well to this highly unique and non-doctrinal operation.
c. (U) The 165th MI Battalion excelled in providing perimeter security and force protection at Abu Ghraib (BCCF). LTC Robert P. Walters, Jr., demanded standards be enforced and worked endlessly to improve discipline throughout the FOB.
4. (U) The individual Soldiers and Sailors that we observed and believe should be favorably noted include:
a. (U) Master-at-Arms First Class William J. Kimbro, US Navy Dog Handler, knew his duties and refused to participate in improper interrogations despite significant pressure from the MI personnel at Abu Ghraib.
b. (U) SPC Joseph M. Darby, 372nd MP Company discovered evidence of abuse and turned it over to military law enforcement.
c. (U) 1LT David O. Sutton, 229th MP Company, took immediate action and stopped an abuse, then reported the incident to the chain of command.
If it's *that* big of a problem, why don't our banks simply cut off ALL financial transactions with Nigeria?
My bed is only 8 inches off the ground so when I'm in bed at night my PC and all the stuff that go with it shine directly in my eyes. They're not blue LEDs, but they were still annoying as hell.
So I've used little bits of white electrical tape (match the case colors) to block them all out. Even the drive activity LED got covered over, at nights when it was going on-and-off it was exteremely annoying.
Now all I see are tiny dull green-yellow or orange spots, not a huge spotlight shining across the room. So I can still see the lights even during the daytime, but they are no longer the equivalent of little spotlights in the darkness.
Did the same thing to the LED on the speaker on the fridge in the kitchen, it was annoying at 2am when going for a glug of milk in the pitch black apartment to be blinded by the LED on it.
Here's a question - why do so few other people in the world use the BRAINS (you know, those huge amazing things that only we humans have) to SOLVE their problems instead of bitching about it all the time? Everyone always seems so supprised whenever I trot out some tiny little thing that I've done to solve a problem or make a job easy. It's not rocket science.
> If there were WMDs in Iraq, why didn't Hussein use them?
Actually there was a nice bit of investigative reporting a while back that noted that he actively tried to maintain the illusion of "possibly hiding" them by being obstenate to the UN inspectors *in order to* try and dissuade an invasion and maintain power. So it's no wonder the feds fooled themselves into thinking he had WMD, Hussein himself was trying to create that illusion.
But you don't hear about all these complicated things, all the press can do is scream about their latest "scoop" and shit, and all the other people can do is simply play partisan pollitics.
I'm Canadian, and I supported the invasion *KNOWING* that there was no reason wrt WMD to invade (he can't use them if we're watching like a hawk, and if he did have any left he had to bury it all due to inspections, etc etc).
AFAIAC there were lots of other good reasons to invade (and it's only the Iranian supported Shia morons that are going to screw the pooch for the Iraqi common folk - one of the "in the know" Iraqi bloggers has said that the Shia militia's are getting paid regularly in USD provided by Iran).
I'm not particularly happy wrt Haliburton, but look at it this way. Of the dozens of people who hold high positions of power, how many have involvement in US corporations? All of them. Therefore how likely is it (wrt statistical odds) that at least one of them will have some kind of interest in at least one company, in ANY 100 billion dollar endeavour that the USA undertakes?
I'd bet 100 pct. It doesn't mean that there's a conspiracy or that the contract was necessarily "rigged". Most US government contracts are pretty bad deals wrt the US taxpayer all of the time!!
What I do consider a near crime (certainly incompetent decision making and priorities) is that such a large fraction of the rebuilding money is going to Western companies instead of Iraqi companies. Saddam rebuilt Iraq after the first gulf war with Iraqi workers, how the hell is it of any advantage to spend the money on $150,000 western labour rather than $5,000 Iraqi labour? They've got lots of engineers and lots of industry that needs rebuilding. We're missing out on a huge "marshal plan" type opportunity here in a big way, and the repercussion is 50 plus pct Iraqi unemployment, which is creating a LOT of the problems we are seeing.
Oh I bet ya they're simply *giving* away the licenses, then claiming a $50 tax writeoff or something. Hence the "certificates of authenticity".
So how much tax has Microsoft the uber-rich corporation paid in the most recent fiscal year? Historically they never paid ANY tax, despite managing to accumulate how many billion dollars in cash reserves?
I take my statement about incompetence back. I just read this post
Now that's lazy incompetence.
> In my parent's town (small town Kansas), stuff like this gets hunted down. In San Diego, you've pretty much got to get shot to get the local cops out
I was about to say something similar between big city Toronto and small Prairie towns.
It can't be incompetence. It's gotta be a difference of scale. In a town of 1-2000 people, it's feasable to hunt the perps down, even more so it's highly feasable to have any other citizen identify your own stolen goods. (The teller at the small-town bank recognized my Mom's stolen coins when the dumbass 14 year old girl brought them in to see how much they were worth.). None of that is possible in a big city.
In a big city, they have to resort to fingerprints (expensive, time consuming) and stolen property databases (more expenses, don't get convictions on the actual B+E as the property is recovered long after and they can't link it to one person..), inability to match camera pictures against perps (not until they day they get facial recognition systems going, either that or a cop who knows every face in a city of 2 million), and they've got higher crime rates in general including the more serious stuff (assault, etc) to deal with.
In a rural area with 5-6 small towns that have one burglary per week, the cops have the time to take a full report and spend time on it.
You bastard!
I never did read the last half of the third book, and am waiting for the movie to come out on DVD. You could have thrown in a spoiler warning
I'd use a winking smiley, but I'm as peeved as I am shagrinned
>>small screen TV (32")
>>> I remember a time, not long ago that 32'' was considered big screen...
No kidding.
I have a very different interpretation: On their website (if you go through all the links) you see them repeatedly mention "size of current mobile screens". Think of the mobile DVD players and current "mobile LCD" screens.
That's right. 8-15 inches.
Interesting little company, 5 people - 1 "manager" and 4 engineers.
Wow!, *love* that Volta!
I'm also impressed by the looks of these:
Volkswagon Concept T
Acura HSC
Saturn Curve
Italdesign Visconti
Holden SST
Here's my question. Why don't car-makers actually make some of these concept cars, at least by body design if not all the under-hood bells and whistles! Why are the only new-looking cards on our streets all these funky looking things like the "new beetle" and the "new mini" and the like.... Why isn't there anything like the Volta available (at a reasonable price, the $400,000 Italian cars don't count.)
I mean, right now there isn't *anything* on the road under $50,000 that' I'd die to get my hands on. But the Volta and Concept T would get people who otherwise wouldn't have a car to buy a car, just for their uber-looks.
No, he really is right. This is exactly how the cleaning people and rent-a-cops get the elavator to go to where they want it to when it's in "hold" mode.
In my apartment building in the "moving elevator" there are actually front and back "door close" buttons and "door open" buttons that you actually have to press and hold down until the doors, close/open, simply pressing them once won't do - *when the elevator is in "hold mode"*. When the elevator is *not* in "hold mode", when it does not have the key in it, it behaves just like a regular elevator - and doors close on their own without specific command and the elevator automatically goes to the next requested floor.
I'm guessing that for elevators that don't have such open/close buttons or whose open/close buttons don't have that extra functionality, holding down a different-floor button does exactly the same thing.
So - what you are doing does not qualify for a hack.
Although it certainly is a bit of mischief.
Meta-moderators, please SLAY whomever moderated down the AC, the AC was entirely factually correct.
Uhhh, how many American/Canadian/British/French/etc/etc/etc citizens just so happen to *live* somewhere else when they're 20/25 years old? You do know some countries (Israel and I'm guessing Italy) have compulsory service (unsure of the specif age/time requirements).
You wouldn't *believe* the stories a friend at work told us about his interactions with the Italian embassy over some trivial matters - the machismo and stupidity of it all. I forget what it was all about, something along the lines of "if your parent was Italian, you can get an Italian passport", but of course there was this *idiotic* Italian beuarocracy at the Italian embassy which made it all a strange nightmare, until he brought in a relative who could "pull rank" and stuff.
Sorry I don't remember details, he told us this around a campfire on a company canoe trip.
> The Crusader is stupid because it fires relatively slow rounds that can be interdicted in flight. Hellfire equipped UAVs on station can provide better artillery support.
Whoa there.
On the one hand you've got the enemy shooting down artilery rounds that you describe as "slow moving" I presume relative to other types of fast moving tank rounds, but for some reason your UAVs flying at 100-200 mph firing slow moving missiles are going to do so much better?
I'm not defending the Crusader or Comanche per se (wrt the latter clearly an A-10 might be a better idea), but just picking apart this one statement of yours.
Hmmm, I wonder if anyone who bitches about anything less than an M1 battle tank's ability to survive modern weapons, realizes that you can't do that with anything less than a 50+ tons machine.
M113, LAV III, Bradley, whatever, you can't just wish away the vulnerability of anything lighter than 40 tons to some pretty basic weaponry. Who in their right mind would bitch about "mines". Mines can be 50-200 lbs of explosives, nothing is going to survive that short of the M1.
Does anyone get what I'm trying to say?
I can't believe there really are people who would rather sit in a 16 ton LAV III and be shot at instead of a 33 ton Bradley.
Yeah it costs more money and is harder to trapsort. Choose, dead men and women, or money.
This is all very interesting, I'll have to hunt that movie down.
I was under the impression that the Bradley was so heavy because it was given tons of armour to protect the troops super well in a highly dangerous combat environment.
And personally considering all the roadside bombs and RPG's that they are encountering, I bet they are making good use of the ones they have!!
I remember infra-red night-time video from the first gulf war where a pair of Apache's hit two American Bradleys in a FF incident. Casualties? One dead, a number wounded. If those had been lightweight LAVs, event the modern ones, there would have been a lot more dead GIs.
You just can't compare the safety provided by a 33 ton Bradley to a 10-15 ton LAV (Light Armoured Vehicle).
> Thank you for reducing my sexuality to exploitation. Makes me feel warm and
> fuzzy to know my romantic pursuits are simply degrading to the other party.
Whether you like it or not, Western women can barely (if at all) tell the 5-15 percent of us who are wonderful nice human beings apart from the 85-95 percent of us who are assholes hunting tail 24/7.
Yes, it *should* piss you off. But it's not 100 percent western-womankind's fault, as far as it often is in fact impossible to tell many of the 85+ percent assholes apart from the 15 percent honourable until it's too late. It's not like some slick guy hunting tail is going to up and tell a girl to her face that he's hunting tail and he's going to screw her over someday somehow. (Hence why women get burned so often.)
It's largely the fault of the 85+ percent assholes. And you can't make the problem go away by ignoring it.
You're either part of the solution, or part of the problem. And I'm talking to everyone, especially womankind!!