It's far worse than that: their "researchers" have to sign a statement of faith that rules out anything that doesn't jibe with their version of young-earth creationism.
> > So if you want to protect yourself, get WMDs, and get them fast.
> *sigh* That's a really bad idea, too. If the US was at war with someone, and they actually used WMDs of any kind to defend themselves, the response would be devastating. Our official policy is to respond to WMD in kind-and that means breaking out our still significant nuclear weapons. Even if we chose not to use them, the response from the military, and the American people at large, would be devastating to say the least. Think of a demand for vengeance on a scale that would make the response to 9/11 look calm.
I don't see any reason for North Korea to fear a US invasion.
AFAICT, most of the power of nuclear weapons is in having them rather than in using them.
> Just a few years ago the people of Iraq were being starved and gassed to death by an evil dictator. Now in less than three weeks there will be free Iraqi elections for the first time in over 30 years.
And that's going to fix everything, just like we were supposed to believe the invasion would, the capture of Saddam would, the handover of power to the transitional government would, the flattening of Fallujah would,...
> I think to most Americans, these things have just become clichés. Each mini-scandal leaked out with so little fanfare that by the time each was proven true, they had lost their bite. Had each of these things been released to the press and proven in a single day, we might have impeached Bush.
It's more than that. Compare the six years and $30,000,000 spent investigating Whitewater, and the incessant news coverage in spite of nothing ever being proven. The most glaring Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld scandals don't get even a tiny fraction of that kind of attention.
The late-night NBC 30-minute news segment didn't even include the current no-WMD story in its headlines.
> Hint: WMD was one of several reasons, and not the top one.
Guess that's why Powell played it down when he presented the case to the UN, huh.
> The report stated that Saddam had a complete bioweapons infrastructure in place and ready to ramp up to full production within a 6 month period.
What the Administration likes to forget to tell you is that practically any nation in the world could start producing bioweapons within six months.
> Knowing now just how rotten and corrupt the oil for food program was, it was only a short matter of time before Saddam was once again cranking out bioweapons.
Another alternative would have been to crack down on the corruption rather than ignoring it.
The Bush Administration has been trying to put an anti-UN spin on the scandal, but it's about to kick them in the balls.
> At least in Europe, which has a rather strained relations with America, most people like America (and have many good reasons for it) and American people (altough this liking sometimes has a bit paternal aspect). What the world doesn't like is a couple of people around, and including, your current president.
Way back in the '80s people around the world were saying that they liked the American people, but were completely baffled by our choice of leadership.
> I don't know about most places but my part of West Texas went from 9 inches or rain in 2003, to more that 53 inches of rain in 2004. Thats the most rain that my county has seen since it was settled in the early 1900's.
For whatever anecdotes are worth, both my hometown and my current domicile now experience longer dry spells punctuated by brief but intense wet spells compared to what they had a few decades ago. Overall my hometown has gotten drier, but oddly the net precipitation where I live now has hardly changed; it's just that we get way behind the long-standing average, then catch up or even get ahead over a single weekend.
> I'm more inclined to believe that the shit we pump into the atmosphere, combined with the earth changing naturally, is going to cause more extremes. Not warming or cooling, but more extremes more often. More droughts, more floods, more snowstorms, more of anything but normal weather conditions.
Global warming = more thermal energy in the atmosphere. IANAPlanetologist, but I wouldn't be the least surprised to find that more thermal energy --> more meterological extremes.
> Prior to the war, WMDs were named as the justification for a 'preemptive' invasion.
> After the war and during the war, when WMDs were not being found,... not so much.
I liked Umansky's tart assessment at Slate: "the Iraq Survey Group, which when last heard from was still hot on the trail for banned weapons, has in fact folded its tent, and it did so about three weeks ago. (No, you didn't miss the White House announcement.)"
> They've already found mountains of conclusive evidence that Saddam had WMDs...they're just buried somewhere in the desert...or hidden in Syria...or Russians Black Ops stole them right before the war...something...
Probably the CIA filched them and sold them to Iran in order to fund black ops in South America.
> Though many years late, Windows XP is what WinNT4.0 should have been... Fully featured, responsive, and with the new security built into SP2, practically invulnerable to virii or hacker intrusion.
Yeah, and in two years you'll be calling it crap, just like the people who used to rave about NT poop on it now.
Why don't you beat the rush and admit that XP is crap now.
Slashdot Mirror
> They do not provide positive evidence
It's far worse than that: their "researchers" have to sign a statement of faith that rules out anything that doesn't jibe with their version of young-earth creationism.
> I'm not defending either side here...but how exactly does one call this a "creationist textbook sticker?"
Maybe because it was put there for the sole purpose of pleasing creationists?
> Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 16:18 KJV
Yeah, that's why Gates and Rumsfeld are living in the gutter these days.
> In other news, the U.S. government ran a $1 billion dollar surplus in the month of December.
And how much did we spend on the unnecessary and unbudgeted war in Iraq that month?
> > So if you want to protect yourself, get WMDs, and get them fast.
> *sigh* That's a really bad idea, too. If the US was at war with someone, and they actually used WMDs of any kind to defend themselves, the response would be devastating. Our official policy is to respond to WMD in kind-and that means breaking out our still significant nuclear weapons. Even if we chose not to use them, the response from the military, and the American people at large, would be devastating to say the least. Think of a demand for vengeance on a scale that would make the response to 9/11 look calm.
I don't see any reason for North Korea to fear a US invasion.
AFAICT, most of the power of nuclear weapons is in having them rather than in using them.
> Just a few years ago the people of Iraq were being starved and gassed to death by an evil dictator. Now in less than three weeks there will be free Iraqi elections for the first time in over 30 years.
And that's going to fix everything, just like we were supposed to believe the invasion would, the capture of Saddam would, the handover of power to the transitional government would, the flattening of Fallujah would,
> Guess what? George Bush dislikes tyranny and totalitarianism.
You forgot the "in others" part.
> I think to most Americans, these things have just become clichés. Each mini-scandal leaked out with so little fanfare that by the time each was proven true, they had lost their bite. Had each of these things been released to the press and proven in a single day, we might have impeached Bush.
It's more than that. Compare the six years and $30,000,000 spent investigating Whitewater, and the incessant news coverage in spite of nothing ever being proven. The most glaring Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld scandals don't get even a tiny fraction of that kind of attention.
The late-night NBC 30-minute news segment didn't even include the current no-WMD story in its headlines.
> So the inspectors were ineffective in what way, exactly?
Failing to aid and abet the PNAC agenda.
> Hint: WMD was one of several reasons, and not the top one.
Guess that's why Powell played it down when he presented the case to the UN, huh.
> The report stated that Saddam had a complete bioweapons infrastructure in place and ready to ramp up to full production within a 6 month period.
What the Administration likes to forget to tell you is that practically any nation in the world could start producing bioweapons within six months.
> Knowing now just how rotten and corrupt the oil for food program was, it was only a short matter of time before Saddam was once again cranking out bioweapons.
Another alternative would have been to crack down on the corruption rather than ignoring it.
The Bush Administration has been trying to put an anti-UN spin on the scandal, but it's about to kick them in the balls.
> At least in Europe, which has a rather strained relations with America, most people like America (and have many good reasons for it) and American people (altough this liking sometimes has a bit paternal aspect). What the world doesn't like is a couple of people around, and including, your current president.
Way back in the '80s people around the world were saying that they liked the American people, but were completely baffled by our choice of leadership.
> I don't know about most places but my part of West Texas went from 9 inches or rain in 2003, to more that 53 inches of rain in 2004. Thats the most rain that my county has seen since it was settled in the early 1900's.
For whatever anecdotes are worth, both my hometown and my current domicile now experience longer dry spells punctuated by brief but intense wet spells compared to what they had a few decades ago. Overall my hometown has gotten drier, but oddly the net precipitation where I live now has hardly changed; it's just that we get way behind the long-standing average, then catch up or even get ahead over a single weekend.
> from the dawn of time the climate has been changing! what makes them think it shouldn't now?
We're going to suffer the consequences regardless. It seems that we're being forced into the terraforming business whether we want to or not.
> I'm more inclined to believe that the shit we pump into the atmosphere, combined with the earth changing naturally, is going to cause more extremes. Not warming or cooling, but more extremes more often. More droughts, more floods, more snowstorms, more of anything but normal weather conditions.
Global warming = more thermal energy in the atmosphere. IANAPlanetologist, but I wouldn't be the least surprised to find that more thermal energy --> more meterological extremes.
> Prior to the war, WMDs were named as the justification for a 'preemptive' invasion.
> After the war and during the war, when WMDs were not being found,
I liked Umansky's tart assessment at Slate: "the Iraq Survey Group, which when last heard from was still hot on the trail for banned weapons, has in fact folded its tent, and it did so about three weeks ago. (No, you didn't miss the White House announcement.)"
> They've already found mountains of conclusive evidence that Saddam had WMDs...they're just buried somewhere in the desert...or hidden in Syria...or Russians Black Ops stole them right before the war...something...
Probably the CIA filched them and sold them to Iran in order to fund black ops in South America.
We invaded them and they didn't attack us with WMD. What more proof do you need!
> If you have a supersized star, would you have big planets?
No, you'd have charbroiled planets.
> In two years, hopefully XP will be a long forgotten memory, but today there is no doubt which operating system is the best.
Wow - Bill Gates posting to Slashdot! Whoda thought it?
> Though many years late, Windows XP is what WinNT4.0 should have been
Yeah, and in two years you'll be calling it crap, just like the people who used to rave about NT poop on it now.
Why don't you beat the rush and admit that XP is crap now.
> it may come as a surprise that Big Brother even listens to what you may say while you are on hold.
I'm actually glad to hear that, because I usually spend the time telling them how crappy their service is and how much of my time they're wasting.
> this will be a huge change in how tech companies work.
Yeah, they won't be able to pay their slaves with a chance to sit at the roulette wheel once per job.
...but you don't see it on the front page of Slashdot.
> First English mention is Nov 14, 1997.
And true to form, it's about something being "raported" on Slashdot.