Both of those reasons sound plausible. I'm thinking only of Philippine Air and most of their fleet are old 747-400 wide bodies (currently being replaced by the poison gas streaming out of the air vents[1] Airbus 3(3|4)0-300). Maybe it's strictly a Philippine regulation, too. Come to think of it, last month I flew on a brand new plane brought into service a few days before (so said the newspapers) and the same restriction was enforced.
[1] That's what it looks like. Reminds me of old Batman and Robin - can this be the final flight for our intrepid passengers??? Tune in tommorow, same bat time, same bat channel...
C only has the data types supported by the hardware, so it is not a high-level language. That's not the distinguishing feature of a "high-level language". A high level language is one which often requires translation of the source into hidden subroutine calls to implement some of the features (and I'm not referring to simple stuff like double word arithmetic).
C is not a high-level language because it is sugar-coated assembly.
Administrative abuse is a problem at Wikipedia like it is at any site that has volunteer administrators How many of those other sites are trying to be neutral reference sites? Do you understand why this may give some of us concerns over the whole site?
I don't trust anyone to form an opinion for me, so I did my own testing. Based on a random search of topics where I can personally verify the accuracy of the data, I give Wikipedia low marks. If they dumped 95% of the site, the world might even be a better place, but in my opinion, it's just not worth the effort to figure out where the good data is.
Very poor from El Reg. There may be a story right there, but anyone familiar with Wikipedia who's capable of reading between the lines is going to give a big "WTF" and assume El Reg is making up controversy where none exists. Of the information I can personally verify on random searches into Wikipedia, I give it low marks in terms of accuracy. I'm much more inclined to think that El Reg might have a point here. At any rate, I trust their label a lot more than I trust Wikipedia.
I know reading TFA isn't fashionable, but I hate it when TFA is a privacy-disabled site. Grumble, grumble.
Maybe because the aircraft and the associated internal network is designed for it at the start. Think, think, how can I see TFA without a real login...
Since LiveTV's proprietary network Oh good! That's the same as the Diebold voting machines proprietary software making their vote count secure, right?
... uses a spectrum licensed from the Federal Communications Commission that was once reserved for seat-back phones, it does not interfere with cellphone service on the ground. But the hand-off process does create the potential for the airborne equivalent of a dropped call -- a problem that occurred during the test on Wednesday.
It is also one of the reasons JetBlue is not charging passengers to log on.
"Why charge for something that doesn't work very well yet?" Oopsy! There go your chances for ever working at Microsoft.
I do see that they're only talking about US-domestic routes and I avoid those like the plague. Never mind. My cell here in gitmo is a lot more comfortable, but here comes the nice man who is going to take me swimming, got to go!
We've been told that notebook computers with wireless internet and cellphones interfere with the avionics and are dangerous and must be kept off the entire flight. Now internet access from planes is O.K. What has changed?
Just asking.
-sb (dreading the horribly long flight across the Pacific he faces to go home for Christmas)
But that may not be a bad thing to bring people in before it's truly ready. We've been told that cellphones and notebooks with wireless internet access may have deadly interference with the airplane's avionics and communications systems. What has changed? Inquiring minds want to know!
I did that around a time you were complaining about the treatment you got on the Ubuntu help lists and the posts you made were linked. I only `foed' you when you continued to complain after many people here attempted to explain just how much help you actually got and how little assistance you gave those who were trying to help you. I'm a developer of (usually, but not always) Open Source and dang it, we're volunteer engineers not mind readers.
You brought back memories of the time (when I was not being paid to work on XEmacs) of a guy who had a problem with a Solaris XEmacs and insisted on repeatedly emailing me coredump files[1] even though I asked him not to and didn't answer the questions I asked that might have helped me figure out what the problem actually was. I had limited bandwidth and his useless coredumps were severely impacting my work.
So yes, it was over your Ubuntu[2] issues. Otherwise, you seem like a reasonable person.
[1] Coredumps only work locally. There is a slim chance that they can be debugged remotely, but that chance is 0 if you do not have access to a machine with an identical configuration, which I didn't.
[2] I'm not an Ubuntu person, though I have nothing against it personally. I despise apt (and apt-based Linux distros) for all the pain and suffering it has caused me in the past. I like rpm and can work well with it, so sue me.
Is that [using a botnet] okay if it is for political use? Political speech is (in theory, but see below) protected by the 1st amendment as versus advertising (where have all the TV cigarette commercials gone?)
There are now so many restrictions on campaign contributions, etc. that I am sure that a botnet would violate something. For starters, the spam model requires an involuntary donation on the part of the recipient, and in the case of the botnet the involuntary bot. Campaign contributions must not be solicited from non-citizens and if only machine in the botnet is not owned by a US citizen, oops! The involuntary aspect of the donation wouldn't bother the Bush/Clinton/Gores, but would bother a Ron Paul, who I don't believe is accepting matching Federal funds (at least I hope he still isn't). If a particular individual involved in the spamming had already contributed the maximum allowed amount, that would also constitute a violation. Karoshi, if involved, would be most difficult to pin down to a one-time spamming, but probably wouldn't be a technical violation of US campaign finance laws.
I'd say overall, it's a gray, unexplored area and most candidates would be fine with it. The technicalities it might break are places most candidates don't want to go.
My own opinion? He is not directly[1] responsible for this. It's too coercive and unlibertarian-ish. Dr. Paul has made his views on taxation quite clear and refuses to collect his congressional salary. I voted for Dr. Paul the first time he ran for President and if I'm allowed to vote for him again, I will.
[1] It's possible that a misguided individual did it on his behalf, but remember the lesson of the California 23rd congressional district in 1998. The Tom Bordanaro campaign was sunk by 3rd party massively spammed and disgustingly graphic anti-partial birth abortion ads. His opponent, Lois Capps the abortionist, still has that seat.
The crime is putting people at unacceptable risk. "Unacceptable risk" is just too nebulous to define reasonably. You have either committed a crime or you haven't.
The United States is supposed to be a nation of laws not men, and interpretations just invite misunderstanding (or misunderestimating as the case may be).
By your argument, it should be perfectly legal to run around firing a gun in random directions until you happen to hit someone. Yes, "endangering other people" is a subjective term--that's why we have lawmakers who (in theory) create rules that exlpicitly state what the community considers acceptable. True and I also would consider someone running around firing a gun randomly to be impolite at best and a public nuisance. But unless she kills someone, she's not guilty of murder.
I compare this case directly with President Ahmadinejad, who has been accused by the United States government of doing essentially what you're describing. Disregarding the fact that United States intelligence said this week that he neither has a loaded gun nor ammunition, they're still determined to deliver the death penalty to his nation.
When you start expanding laws into what people might do, you end up with an overcrowded prison system. Be proud fellow Americans, there are more people locked up in American prisons than any nation has ever done before in history. You also end up with wars like the war in Iraq where millions of women and children are paying for the crimes officially committed by Saudi Arabians with no ties to Iraq.
It's better in my opinion to concentrate on what people have done. This spammer cost many millions of people, including almost certainly me, an untold amount of time sifting through his garbage (refining procmail filters, etc. etc.) to get email we need. He has committed a crime equal with murder. He has stolen time away from people that they could have spent with their families and vice versa. That's not his decision to make, nor yours, nor mine. And there is nothing theoretical about it.
He bought a 200M list of addresses almost four years ago that was 95% garbage and refined it to the 7.5M addresses that worked. Do you have any idea how much working time that took? How much network resources were consumed processing the bounced emails, etc.? All for the express purpose of sending email to people who didn't want it on their dime. That's evil.
I'm more afraid that the filter on illegal downloads will make a person like me who aren't planning to download the illegal stuff becoming a victim because the filter probably will end up blocking any legal downloads too. Blizzard uses BitTorrent for downloads and if they wind up blocking Wrath of the Lich King something brown and smelly is sure to hit the fan.
I think subscriptions like Netflix are part of the reason why people are not going to the theaters as much as they used to, I don't know or care about Netflix, but whatever.
My own reasons for preferring to watch movies any place[1] other than a theater:
avoiding subtitles and dubbing (the jury is in after several years of thought and I hate this)
can smoke, drink beer, etc.
no lines, etc.
no annoying cellphones around you
more comfortable (and cleaner)
can have the movie paused while vital actions like natural functions or a trip to the fridge is performed
if you get bored and fall asleep, big deal, just stay asleep and wake up the next day
um, er, well, I haven't seen a movie since around the time of Titanic that I felt was worth the effort of getting out of the house to go see
Your mileage may vary, offer good unless prohibited, state and local restrictions may apply, etc. etc. etc.
[1] International plane flights void all of the reasons listed above, replace with "Shit! When am I going to get out of this hellish sardine can? Oh look, a movie!"
I think they should stop referring to music that people downloaded without paying as "stolen" or "illegal" but we should refer it "undocumented music" or is on a "guest-listenership plan" And the people DEMAND that this undocumented music be given a path to citizenship!!!!!
The ISP community is going to be at the forefront of this in the future because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not seeing that the content is being properly protected Um no. They'll lose everything if they start filtering, but thanks for playing.
The California Department of Motor Vehicles has its own YouTube channel with over 17k subscribers. I have no idea what that means, though I've watched YouTube videos before (usually linked from elsewhere). Whatever.
I do know that my youngest son who has been receiving lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of shots from doctors just keeps getting sicker. He tends to be sicker after getting shots than before. And what about all the ladies (never men) who have vaccine scars on their arms everywhere you look in the Philippines?
I had a bad reaction myself to the last vaccine I got in high school.
Side-effects matter.
I'm prepared to believe that there's some truth in those videos. I wish to God for the sake of my son's life I could figure out where it is.
However for signicantly large factors of stupid, reinstalling an OS might seem unpossible. Like the sorts of people who these days write summaries for slashdot... You must be new here.
There's no aspect of "thought crime" whatsoever involved. Putting people at risk is doing something wrong. That's one of the reasons there's a difference between robbery and armed robbery, or why you can be arrested for DUI even though you haven't crashed into anything or anyone. And this is where you have been brainwashed. To use an extreme example, if someone drinks until they are falling-down drunk, drives to the nearest liquor store and buys more booze and drives back home without hurting anyone, what crime has been committed?
It is thought crime.
"Endangering other people" is such a nebulous concept that it can be applied to anything and that makes it worthless as a criteria for determining criminal intent.
Thoughtcrime, from the Orwellian definition, is the crime of thinking something inappropriate. Well, there you go. Perhaps you are confused on the definition of "inappropriate"?
Ignoring the moral aspect, the first person in the above aspect has demonstrated that they are guilty of premeditated killing and is likely to be a future danger to society. The second person has not (although they might be dangerously incompetent). I would argue the same thing with your second point. If someone is lethally negligent once, they are likely to do the same thing in the future.
I don't see the difference. The escalation of the criminalization of BAC was solely due to serial drunk driving murderers.
I've never killed someone directly. At "best", I was a cold warrior contracting to DoD in the 1980's, so it is likely that some system that I contributed code towards has killed someone, so my hands are probably not clean there. In order to maintain my blue passport I've remitted taxes to the US government which have been used to sustain murder^H^H^H^H^H^Hwar in the middle east. That doesn't seem any different to me than what is called "Conspiracy to Commit Murder" and I feel guilty and ashamed. I've written against the Iraq war since before it started and I've voted against it. Does that matter? Not really, IMO. One day, there will be an accounting. Blowback is a bitch.
Company X sells product Y. But to sell it Mr Z has to wash it first. Some A' keeps getting Y dirty. So Mr Z keeps washing, and washing and washing till he dies. Company X being the ISP selling email services among other things, Mr. Z being the unfortunate salary man in IT culling out spam and A' the spammer. O.K.
So in your opinion A' is guilty of murder, but Company X, who let Mr Z work himself to death, never getting him an assistant or figuring out a better way to produce product Y goes scott free. I never wrote that, but let's follow it to some sort of conclusion. The intent of A' is to make Mr. Z's job impossible - he wants the spam to get through to as many people as he can. Company X responds as in your scenario by laying off employees B, C, D to make room for assistants for Mr. Z - they're on a tight budget. Because we're talking about Japan, employee C doesn't lose his and his family's health insurance, but he has to move to Kansai to get a new job. His eldest son becomes despondent not having a father around and one day plays Samurai at his Juku to deadly consequences.
So yes, I would consider A' as having the primary measure of guilt. It was his intent to cause misery for anyone attempting to block his attacks and currently thought crime is in fashion.
Sounds to me the ones guilty of murder are the Bosses of Mr Z and Mr Z himself for being so dumb as to work himself to death. You've obviously never had children. If it comes down to me working myself to death to preserve my children or death to my children, there's only one choice. (And right now, my youngest is very sick and although covered by PhilHealth, it doesn't cover everything).
we don't see these things happening when Blizzard patches, expands, or upgrades World of Warcraft. All of the new WoW content is available for BOTH windows AND Macintosh on patch/expansion day.... For the most part, true. The 2.2 patch, which introduced movie and in-game voice options trashed Mac sound support in favor of fixing some garbage MS Windows system by pessimizing the default number of sound channels used. To Blizzard's credit, they quickly[1] had info in their forums to allow us to fix our sound *and* WoW on OS X does not require admin privileges to upgrade.
I'd be severely annoyed at a game update that made a machine unbootable.
[1] "Quickly" as in when I got into WoW in the evening after the patch and was appalled by the new sound, the explanation and recommended workaround had already been posted.
Finally, punishing criminals for what they're thinking when they commit a crime is nothing new.... A murder is a homicide committed with "malice aforethought." It's punished more harshly solely based on what the murderer was thinking when he committed the crime. That's not a thought crime. Eh? How do you define "thought crime" then?
I wrote:
Justice is getting punished for what you've done wrong, not for what you might have done wrong. If it were up to me, I'd eliminate the thought crime variants of murder that you outlined. I have pages and pages of notes on this when I was trying to draw up a basic penal code for the fictional nation I created on NationStates, I'll have to dig those up sometime. So basically you are dead wrong here:
You're entirely overlooking the deterrent purposes of penal punishment. Nope, sorry. You get behind the steering wheel of a car[1] and kill someone? That's murder and it should be punished as such and that's how I define deterrence. Contrast to a burglar (armed or not) or a drunken policeman[2] entering your home and threatening you and/or your family? Is lethal force in self defense permissible in that case? I think so. Colorado thought so too when they enacted their "Go ahead, make my day" law several decades ago.
The sticking point I had was getting a reasonable-to-me definition of self defense that would work in the event of defending against an invasion.
We won't ever have real peace until killing people in anything other than self defense is Just Plain Murder.
Would it constitute deterrence if we executed all of the US legislators who voted in favor of an aggressive[3] war in Iraq and the soldiers who carried out their orders (just following orders was no defense in the past)?
[1] Automobiles kill far more people than firearms do except when you factor in war.
[2] Been there, done that and I'm not sure of the exact translation. He was a Kagawad, an elected high law enforcement official authorized to carry arms by the government like a city sheriff. (And he did it twice). The first English language hit I see on it is from Yahoo! Answers, a source as dubious as Wikipedia http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071205140300AACNZm8
[3] It wasn't punitive. The official list of the guilty of the 9/11 incidents were Saudis. It wasn't preemptive in the sense of get them before they use their weapons of mass destruction before they kill lots of people, there weren't any weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't deterrent in the sense of curtailing terrorism because there's been more terrorism than less since the start of the war.
Slashdot Mirror
Both of those reasons sound plausible. I'm thinking only of Philippine Air and most of their fleet are old 747-400 wide bodies (currently being replaced by the poison gas streaming out of the air vents[1] Airbus 3(3|4)0-300). Maybe it's strictly a Philippine regulation, too.
...
Come to think of it, last month I flew on a brand new plane brought into service a few days before (so said the newspapers) and the same restriction was enforced.
[1] That's what it looks like. Reminds me of old Batman and Robin - can this be the final flight for our intrepid passengers??? Tune in tommorow, same bat time, same bat channel
C is not a high-level language because it is sugar-coated assembly.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I don't trust anyone to form an opinion for me, so I did my own testing. Based on a random search of topics where I can personally verify the accuracy of the data, I give Wikipedia low marks. If they dumped 95% of the site, the world might even be a better place, but in my opinion, it's just not worth the effort to figure out where the good data is.
There aren't very many towers in the Pacific Ocean and the passage over Guam and Hawaii doesn't seem to me to be a real problem.
... uses a spectrum licensed from the Federal Communications Commission that was once reserved for seat-back phones, it does not interfere with cellphone service on the ground. But the hand-off process does create the potential for the airborne equivalent of a dropped call -- a problem that occurred during the test on Wednesday.It is also one of the reasons JetBlue is not charging passengers to log on.
"Why charge for something that doesn't work very well yet?" Oopsy! There go your chances for ever working at Microsoft.
I do see that they're only talking about US-domestic routes and I avoid those like the plague. Never mind. My cell here in gitmo is a lot more comfortable, but here comes the nice man who is going to take me swimming, got to go!
We've been told that notebook computers with wireless internet and cellphones interfere with the avionics and are dangerous and must be kept off the entire flight. Now internet access from planes is O.K. What has changed?
Just asking.
-sb (dreading the horribly long flight across the Pacific he faces to go home for Christmas)
I did that around a time you were complaining about the treatment you got on the Ubuntu help lists and the posts you made were linked. I only `foed' you when you continued to complain after many people here attempted to explain just how much help you actually got and how little assistance you gave those who were trying to help you. I'm a developer of (usually, but not always) Open Source and dang it, we're volunteer engineers not mind readers.
You brought back memories of the time (when I was not being paid to work on XEmacs) of a guy who had a problem with a Solaris XEmacs and insisted on repeatedly emailing me coredump files[1] even though I asked him not to and didn't answer the questions I asked that might have helped me figure out what the problem actually was. I had limited bandwidth and his useless coredumps were severely impacting my work.
So yes, it was over your Ubuntu[2] issues. Otherwise, you seem like a reasonable person.
[1] Coredumps only work locally. There is a slim chance that they can be debugged remotely, but that chance is 0 if you do not have access to a machine with an identical configuration, which I didn't.
[2] I'm not an Ubuntu person, though I have nothing against it personally. I despise apt (and apt-based Linux distros) for all the pain and suffering it has caused me in the past. I like rpm and can work well with it, so sue me.
There are now so many restrictions on campaign contributions, etc. that I am sure that a botnet would violate something. For starters, the spam model requires an involuntary donation on the part of the recipient, and in the case of the botnet the involuntary bot. Campaign contributions must not be solicited from non-citizens and if only machine in the botnet is not owned by a US citizen, oops! The involuntary aspect of the donation wouldn't bother the Bush/Clinton/Gores, but would bother a Ron Paul, who I don't believe is accepting matching Federal funds (at least I hope he still isn't). If a particular individual involved in the spamming had already contributed the maximum allowed amount, that would also constitute a violation. Karoshi, if involved, would be most difficult to pin down to a one-time spamming, but probably wouldn't be a technical violation of US campaign finance laws.
I'd say overall, it's a gray, unexplored area and most candidates would be fine with it. The technicalities it might break are places most candidates don't want to go.
My own opinion? He is not directly[1] responsible for this. It's too coercive and unlibertarian-ish. Dr. Paul has made his views on taxation quite clear and refuses to collect his congressional salary. I voted for Dr. Paul the first time he ran for President and if I'm allowed to vote for him again, I will.
[1] It's possible that a misguided individual did it on his behalf, but remember the lesson of the California 23rd congressional district in 1998. The Tom Bordanaro campaign was sunk by 3rd party massively spammed and disgustingly graphic anti-partial birth abortion ads. His opponent, Lois Capps the abortionist, still has that seat.
The United States is supposed to be a nation of laws not men, and interpretations just invite misunderstanding (or misunderestimating as the case may be). By your argument, it should be perfectly legal to run around firing a gun in random directions until you happen to hit someone. Yes, "endangering other people" is a subjective term--that's why we have lawmakers who (in theory) create rules that exlpicitly state what the community considers acceptable. True and I also would consider someone running around firing a gun randomly to be impolite at best and a public nuisance. But unless she kills someone, she's not guilty of murder.
I compare this case directly with President Ahmadinejad, who has been accused by the United States government of doing essentially what you're describing. Disregarding the fact that United States intelligence said this week that he neither has a loaded gun nor ammunition, they're still determined to deliver the death penalty to his nation.
When you start expanding laws into what people might do, you end up with an overcrowded prison system. Be proud fellow Americans, there are more people locked up in American prisons than any nation has ever done before in history. You also end up with wars like the war in Iraq where millions of women and children are paying for the crimes officially committed by Saudi Arabians with no ties to Iraq.
It's better in my opinion to concentrate on what people have done. This spammer cost many millions of people, including almost certainly me, an untold amount of time sifting through his garbage (refining procmail filters, etc. etc.) to get email we need. He has committed a crime equal with murder. He has stolen time away from people that they could have spent with their families and vice versa. That's not his decision to make, nor yours, nor mine. And there is nothing theoretical about it.
He bought a 200M list of addresses almost four years ago that was 95% garbage and refined it to the 7.5M addresses that worked. Do you have any idea how much working time that took? How much network resources were consumed processing the bounced emails, etc.? All for the express purpose of sending email to people who didn't want it on their dime. That's evil.
My own reasons for preferring to watch movies any place[1] other than a theater:
Your mileage may vary, offer good unless prohibited, state and local restrictions may apply, etc. etc. etc.
[1] International plane flights void all of the reasons listed above, replace with "Shit! When am I going to get out of this hellish sardine can? Oh look, a movie!"
I do know that my youngest son who has been receiving lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of shots from doctors just keeps getting sicker. He tends to be sicker after getting shots than before. And what about all the ladies (never men) who have vaccine scars on their arms everywhere you look in the Philippines?
I had a bad reaction myself to the last vaccine I got in high school.
Side-effects matter.
I'm prepared to believe that there's some truth in those videos. I wish to God for the sake of my son's life I could figure out where it is.
... hence the term "brick." It makes me want to take a brick to someone's head. Damian, is that you? Can't we all just get along?- Reginald Denny
It is thought crime.
"Endangering other people" is such a nebulous concept that it can be applied to anything and that makes it worthless as a criteria for determining criminal intent.
I don't see the difference. The escalation of the criminalization of BAC was solely due to serial drunk driving murderers.
I've never killed someone directly. At "best", I was a cold warrior contracting to DoD in the 1980's, so it is likely that some system that I contributed code towards has killed someone, so my hands are probably not clean there. In order to maintain my blue passport I've remitted taxes to the US government which have been used to sustain murder^H^H^H^H^H^Hwar in the middle east. That doesn't seem any different to me than what is called "Conspiracy to Commit Murder" and I feel guilty and ashamed. I've written against the Iraq war since before it started and I've voted against it. Does that matter? Not really, IMO. One day, there will be an accounting. Blowback is a bitch.
So yes, I would consider A' as having the primary measure of guilt. It was his intent to cause misery for anyone attempting to block his attacks and currently thought crime is in fashion. Sounds to me the ones guilty of murder are the Bosses of Mr Z and Mr Z himself for being so dumb as to work himself to death. You've obviously never had children. If it comes down to me working myself to death to preserve my children or death to my children, there's only one choice. (And right now, my youngest is very sick and although covered by PhilHealth, it doesn't cover everything).
I'd be severely annoyed at a game update that made a machine unbootable.
[1] "Quickly" as in when I got into WoW in the evening after the patch and was appalled by the new sound, the explanation and recommended workaround had already been posted.
Q.E.D.
I wrote: Justice is getting punished for what you've done wrong, not for what you might have done wrong. If it were up to me, I'd eliminate the thought crime variants of murder that you outlined. I have pages and pages of notes on this when I was trying to draw up a basic penal code for the fictional nation I created on NationStates, I'll have to dig those up sometime. So basically you are dead wrong here: You're entirely overlooking the deterrent purposes of penal punishment. Nope, sorry. You get behind the steering wheel of a car[1] and kill someone? That's murder and it should be punished as such and that's how I define deterrence. Contrast to a burglar (armed or not) or a drunken policeman[2] entering your home and threatening you and/or your family? Is lethal force in self defense permissible in that case? I think so. Colorado thought so too when they enacted their "Go ahead, make my day" law several decades ago.
The sticking point I had was getting a reasonable-to-me definition of self defense that would work in the event of defending against an invasion.
We won't ever have real peace until killing people in anything other than self defense is Just Plain Murder.
Would it constitute deterrence if we executed all of the US legislators who voted in favor of an aggressive[3] war in Iraq and the soldiers who carried out their orders (just following orders was no defense in the past)?
[1] Automobiles kill far more people than firearms do except when you factor in war.
[2] Been there, done that and I'm not sure of the exact translation. He was a Kagawad, an elected high law enforcement official authorized to carry arms by the government like a city sheriff. (And he did it twice). The first English language hit I see on it is from Yahoo! Answers, a source as dubious as Wikipedia http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071205140300AACNZm8
[3] It wasn't punitive. The official list of the guilty of the 9/11 incidents were Saudis. It wasn't preemptive in the sense of get them before they use their weapons of mass destruction before they kill lots of people, there weren't any weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't deterrent in the sense of curtailing terrorism because there's been more terrorism than less since the start of the war.