crash.... bang..... lawsuit...
against the user and the developer...
Would you rather using such devices be encouraged? It is called unauthorized eavesdropping and is illegal in most countries.
this is not a toy for corporate america...
Just curious -- you seem to use the word "corporate" as a derogatory term. Would you rather live in a "tribal america"? Or in a "collective farming america"?
Moscow has become a booming city ripe with economic opportunity
When/if the oil price drops again, Russian economy will be in big trouble again -- as it was in Brezhnev's times once, and again in 1998.
Russia may be treating its oil/gas wealth better than some countries (like Venezuella or some of the Gulf states), but certainly is nowhere near Norway's resilience to the prices' fluctuations.
you keep ignoring that GWI was a multi-national UN war. we weren't the only force there. the entire UN force was the police in your analogy.
(No, in my analogy "the entire UN" is the jury. Only the countries, that actively fought the war, are the police. Whatever.)
In my opinion, we are still in GWI. The war did not end in 1992 -- it was suspended by the cease-fire, as a convict's sentence may be suspended by parole.
Iraq violated many terms of that cease-fire many times -- an undisputable fact. What is disputed is whether there was a need for another UN authorization explicitly authorizing invasion.
I say, we did not need a UN authorization to resume the hostilities any more, than a parole officer needs another jury trial to take a paroled, but relapsed criminal back to prison.
if i beat up my neighbor for being a drug dealer, and the cops look the other way, does that mean that i broke no law?
If you want analogies, then USA is the police. We were asked to subdue a violent criminal in 1991, and we are still subduing him.
That said, the notion of Citizen Arrest is not unheard of (even if my link may be infuriatingly Conservative). So, even by your flawed analogy, where the US is another "common citizen" (and not the enforcer, that it really is today), we are in the clear.
We saw this explosion of interest in 2000 fueled by the dot-com boom.
Many people entered the field, who should've gone elsewhere. They become unhappy programmers and make their co-workers unhappy too.
The people, who are truly interested in Computer Science and Informatics, are welcome, but there is nothing alarming in the fact, that there aren't as many of them.
continuing targeting and occasional firing at our aircraft?
You mean the ones flying over and bombing Iraq "targets"?
Our "flying and bombing" was according to the 1992 cease-fire agreement. Their "targeting and occasional firing" was contrary to it. Thank you for confirming my bigger point, however -- that this war is, actually, just a continuation of the 1991-92 one and not "an unprovoked attack on sovereign nation".
overt financing of terrorism against one of our allies
continuing mistery about citizens of our other ally
Not relevant to US
That's just foolish. Of course, allies are relevant. Anyway, that is just another cease-fire violation making our resumption of hostilities even less "unprovoked".
last, but not least -- the failure to account for WMDs? The burden of proof was on Iraq, remember?
Guilty until proven innocent?
Yes, exactly. Failure to prove, he has no WMDs left was, in itself, a violation of the cease-fire agreement.
Somalia stopped massive famine - saved 200,000 lives at a cost of about 40 US lives. What has Iraq accomplished?
The point I was making about Somalia and Liberia was that we do, in fact, intervene in oil-less African countries -- contrary to QuantumG's limited world view. Had he not limited the scope to Africa, I would've mentioned Yugoslavia, Vietnam, and Korea as well.
last, but not least -- the failure to account for WMDs? The burden of proof was on Iraq, remember?
I can't believe you brought this up.
They "proved" it. Go take a look at what the UN inspection team found. For that matter, take a look at what the troops found (or didn't find, rather).
No, they did not prove it... You are revising history. Here is to to refresh your memory:
Jan. 27, 2003 The UN's formal report on Iraqi inspections is highly critical, though not damning, with chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix stating that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it."
What our troops did or did not find after the war is irrelevant. Per 1992 cease-fire, the burden of proof was on Saddam. Absent (or insufficient) evidence to the contrary, he was to be presumed guilty.
Iraq's army was fourth largest in the world (after China, Russia, and US). You were saying?..
Where did you get this? Do you mean before 1991? Since they lost the war, their army was completely decimated. Also note that they had no air force to speak of.
True, actually, they were the 4th in the world before 1991. However, according to this:
The key units Iraq depended on to stop the Coalition were six Republican
Guard divisions (strength: 85,000), two Special Republican Guard brigades,
two Special Forces brigades (strength: 15,000), and internal security
forces. The Iraqi Army was 300,000 strong.
they were nothing to sneeze at. The grand-parent's claim, that they had "no military capability what-so-ever" is totally ridiculous. Not that it matters very much, mind you...
Illegal? Well, this one will be the easiest for you to prove -- no need to argue about politics. Just quote me the UN Security Council resolution condemning our invasion as "illegal".... Thanks!
Would you accept draft resolutions? Those that didn't pass because the US vetoed them?
Only if you will accept draft resolutions explicitly authorizing our resumption of hostilities. Those that didn't pass because France, Russia, China vetoed them. Our veto power is just as much part of the legalities of the issue, as are theirs... Oops...
continuing targeting and occasional firing at our aircraft?
overt financing of terrorism against one of our allies (Israel -- $10K per homicide bomber)?
continuing mistery about citizens of our other ally (Kuwait) captured in 1991 and never accounted for?
last, but not least -- the failure to account for WMDs? The burden of proof was on Iraq, remember?
The country your government attacked had no military capability what-so-ever.
Iraq's army was fourth largest in the world (after China, Russia, and US). You were saying?..
If it is the goal of your military to prevent wars then why don't you go invade the countries in Africa? Oh that's right, they have no oil.
Thanks to our firmness on Iraq, we did not even have to invade Liberia -- Charles Taylor ran away, when Marine transports approached his shores. Several years earlier we "invaded" Somalia, but our then-President did not have the guts to do it right... Check the map to find, where these two countries are...
An argument that, although still illegal...
Illegal? Well, this one will be the easiest for you to prove -- no need to argue about politics. Just quote me the UN Security Council resolution condemning our invasion as "illegal".... Thanks!
Because even when you are presented with evidence that life in Iraq is worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein your government can always say it doesn't matter because the people of Iraq are now able to vote.
Should I really be surprised? I'm arguing with a citizen of a country, which still considers British Queen to be its Head of State!
Jokes aside, what is your evidence of life in Iraq being worse than before? And what value (if any) do you place on the ability to vote? Is it worse 10 daily food rations, in your opinion? Or only 5? Perhaps, 8 and free tank of gas?
You can shriek all you want about things political, but legally we are squeky clean.
We were at war with Iraq since 1991 (you don't disapprove of our defense of Kuwait, do you?). In 1992 there was a cease-fire. Iraq broke most of the terms of it and we (finally) resumed active hostilities. End of story.
My dad's computer -- on RCN's network -- is probed quite often.
The automated script runs through the default logins such as "root", "toor", "daemon" -- which on FreeBSD would not be able to login remotely even if attackers could guess the password.
I've configured syslog.conf to feed ssh's notifications of such attacks to a simple script, that routes the attacker's IP into blackhole...
This does not contradict PETA's principles -- so long as the animal was ethically treated while it lived and died, it is Ok to use its skin.
Couldn't this apply to fur coats, then?
It could, I'm sure, if PETA really were consistent, honest, and -- most importantly -- reasonable...
For example, if a PETA-sympathizer was to read your post, she would quickly tell you, that the furry-animals are not treated ethically, therefore even if that treatment changes, it would still be wrong to wear fur. Or something...
To them the procedure of anal electrocution would always be wrong, even if it were the most humane way to kill the creature...
And you'll still be an ever agreable dolt, because she is a hot chick, and you are a geek...
First I RECCOMMEND Google give more back and did not demand
Your post was called "where is our share?" You did not propose new legislation, I'll grant you that, but you used plenty of demagoguery to imply, Google owes something.
I'm not even going to debate your point, which is not far from claiming, that librarians leech on the writers (and publishers) without doing anything useful...
Whatever. Google does not owe anything -- so long as it does not force you to use it.
And no, it does not index my email messages, because I do not use GMail. Neither should you, if you dislike them.
In a few years Google will be seen as the smart guys who leeched everyone's work to make a buck.
So? Even if it were true (which it is not), what's wrong with that?
Get a Radeon 9250 and enjoy full 2D + 3D support with 100% open source drivers.
Also, the drivers suck -- one can only have DRI enabled for one instance of X-server. My partner and I grew accustomed to using Ctrl-Alt-F9 (and F10) to switch between our simultaniously running X-sessions. It worked great with NVidia on PentiumII, but on amd64 with Radeon it does not work.
Get a Radeon 9250 and enjoy full 2D + 3D support with 100% open source drivers.
I can't find a supported model, with dual-DVI output. The DVI-VGA Radeon 9200 I have, gives horrible flicker on the VGA head, when connected to LCD monitors.
Your point being? To shut up someone who said the truth about Google?
No, that was the point of the moderators.
My point is, you have no grounds to demand any "share". My secondary point is that your demanding such "share" is against Open Source's best interests.
Linux, that Google is utilizing so efficiently, is not some sort of "shareware", which you are supposed to pay for if you continue to use it. No, Linux is free with no attached strings.
You are trying to attach strings through demagoguery. Very unpleasant...
Stop handwaving. The Hans Blix' quote I provided speaks for itself: "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it."
Were the inspectors wrong? Yes, they were, and I don't blame them. Saddam's obfuscations -- intended to keep the illusion of WMDs inside and outside Iraq -- would've confused anybody. It became apparent, that the inspections/sanctions regime was ineffective many years before Bush's "warmongers" got into their offices... Remember, that Iraq was supposed to clear up within 12 months -- by 1994.
The inspectors had not found _any_ evidence of [there being -mi] weapons of mass destruction [in 2002-2003 -mi]
They were supposed to find evidence of there NOT being any such weapons. Per the 1992 seize-fire agreement, the burden of proof was on Iraq. Absent (or insufficient) evidence to the contrary -- Saddam was guilty...
Did Bush really want to overthrow Saddam? Yes. Do I agree with him? Yes. Should Clinton have done it much earlier? Yes. Did we have sound reasons to it? Yes, and plenty...
US had the weapons inspectors search Saddams palaces and harem for weapons of mass destruction, knowing that Saddam would refuse at first.
Oh, that poor guy, don't we all feel sorry for him?.. But you are wrong. Saddam's downfall came from trying to convince UN, he had no WMDs, while maintaining the conviction among his neighbors (and Iraqis), that he had. He managed to walk this tight line for a while, but finally slipped.
Where the heck are the FreeBSD/amd64 drivers for NVidia?
At least 2D would be good for starters. And no, do not reach for the "Reply" link below to point me to the open source driver (nv) -- it does not support secondary heads...
* Weapons of mass destruction inspections? What do you know, they were right!
No, they weren't... This is such a recent history, that I suspect you are not simply mistaken/forgetful, but are lying. Here is the reminder, in particular:
Jan. 27, 2003 The UN's formal report on Iraqi inspections is highly critical, though not damning, with chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix stating that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it."
Google does not demand anything from you. But you sure demand "your share" from them...
That's the fundamental difference.
They only tell you, how to achieve higher ranking, thus offering a mechanism you can use, should your policy happen to include trying to be as visible as possible. But they do not impose a policy.
Your attempt to base any demands on Google's use of open-source is particularly disturbing (and is sure to add more weight to arguments against it)... You are attaching strings to it, that would make it less desirable, than even the proprietory offerings. At least, with those the rules are clearly set upfront and no one will come back later demanding "their share".
If you, actually, have contributed something to an open-source project (beyond installing a free OS or posting a screenshot), then grin and enjoy the recognition, your hobby is getting.
And if you have not (which I find to be more likely), than pick some sort of unpleasantry usually intended to shut an opponent up and direct it towards yourself...
The war was justified using fabricated claims of WMDs and terrorist strongholds, neither of which were true, it turns out.
If anyone did fabricate the claims, it was not the current administration. Here is my collection of quotes. But I think, most of the WMD claims were sincere -- it is illogical to think, "Bush Lied" (or Cheney did). Had they known (as we know do), Iraq was WMD-free, they wouldn't have said such things, knowing too, that the invasion is inevitable and the truth will soon come out.
No, they expected to see their words confirmed (the invading troops were training in chemical and bacteriological defence), and it was a very good guess on their part -- most in the Iraqi army believed in some super weapons too. And even the UN's top inspector (despite his annoyance with Americans) could not vouch for Iraq.
I may agree with you, that the WMD-aspect was, overstressed. Even if he had them, Saddam would, probably, never used them...
But such is today's world -- Saddam's overthrow was the greatest show of international aid of our times, but who is ever going to credit US for it? Maybe, the next generation of Iraqis will, if we find the guts to stay there long enough...
Back to the subject, the Shuttle was intended as a nationalist pride -- a show off even more ambitious (and even less practical) than Concorde, and ended up benefitting the science a little bit, but did significantly improve any lives...
Slashdot Mirror
Once we find a better way, corporations will fade away the same way tribes and slavery did.
Not without a (good) cause...Russia may be treating its oil/gas wealth better than some countries (like Venezuella or some of the Gulf states), but certainly is nowhere near Norway's resilience to the prices' fluctuations.
Watch this space.
In my opinion, we are still in GWI. The war did not end in 1992 -- it was suspended by the cease-fire, as a convict's sentence may be suspended by parole.
Iraq violated many terms of that cease-fire many times -- an undisputable fact. What is disputed is whether there was a need for another UN authorization explicitly authorizing invasion.
I say, we did not need a UN authorization to resume the hostilities any more, than a parole officer needs another jury trial to take a paroled, but relapsed criminal back to prison.
That said, the notion of Citizen Arrest is not unheard of (even if my link may be infuriatingly Conservative). So, even by your flawed analogy, where the US is another "common citizen" (and not the enforcer, that it really is today), we are in the clear.
Many people entered the field, who should've gone elsewhere. They become unhappy programmers and make their co-workers unhappy too.
The people, who are truly interested in Computer Science and Informatics, are welcome, but there is nothing alarming in the fact, that there aren't as many of them.
- continuing targeting and occasional firing at our aircraft?
- overt financing of terrorism against one of our allies (Israel -- $10K per homicide bomber)?
- continuing mistery about citizens of our other ally (Kuwait) captured in 1991 and never accounted for?
- last, but not least -- the failure to account for WMDs? The burden of proof was on Iraq, remember?
Iraq's army was fourth largest in the world (after China, Russia, and US). You were saying?..Thanks to our firmness on Iraq, we did not even have to invade Liberia -- Charles Taylor ran away, when Marine transports approached his shores. Several years earlier we "invaded" Somalia, but our then-President did not have the guts to do it right... Check the map to find, where these two countries are...
Illegal? Well, this one will be the easiest for you to prove -- no need to argue about politics. Just quote me the UN Security Council resolution condemning our invasion as "illegal".... Thanks! Should I really be surprised? I'm arguing with a citizen of a country, which still considers British Queen to be its Head of State!Jokes aside, what is your evidence of life in Iraq being worse than before? And what value (if any) do you place on the ability to vote? Is it worse 10 daily food rations, in your opinion? Or only 5? Perhaps, 8 and free tank of gas?
We were at war with Iraq since 1991 (you don't disapprove of our defense of Kuwait, do you?). In 1992 there was a cease-fire. Iraq broke most of the terms of it and we (finally) resumed active hostilities. End of story.
The automated script runs through the default logins such as "root", "toor", "daemon" -- which on FreeBSD would not be able to login remotely even if attackers could guess the password.
I've configured syslog.conf to feed ssh's notifications of such attacks to a simple script, that routes the attacker's IP into blackhole...
For example, if a PETA-sympathizer was to read your post, she would quickly tell you, that the furry-animals are not treated ethically, therefore even if that treatment changes, it would still be wrong to wear fur. Or something...
To them the procedure of anal electrocution would always be wrong, even if it were the most humane way to kill the creature...
And you'll still be an ever agreable dolt, because she is a hot chick, and you are a geek...
I'm not even going to debate your point, which is not far from claiming, that librarians leech on the writers (and publishers) without doing anything useful...
Whatever. Google does not owe anything -- so long as it does not force you to use it.
And no, it does not index my email messages, because I do not use GMail. Neither should you, if you dislike them. In a few years Google will be seen as the smart guys who leeched everyone's work to make a buck. So? Even if it were true (which it is not), what's wrong with that?
My point is, you have no grounds to demand any "share". My secondary point is that your demanding such "share" is against Open Source's best interests.
Linux, that Google is utilizing so efficiently, is not some sort of "shareware", which you are supposed to pay for if you continue to use it. No, Linux is free with no attached strings.
You are trying to attach strings through demagoguery. Very unpleasant...
Were the inspectors wrong? Yes, they were, and I don't blame them. Saddam's obfuscations -- intended to keep the illusion of WMDs inside and outside Iraq -- would've confused anybody. It became apparent, that the inspections/sanctions regime was ineffective many years before Bush's "warmongers" got into their offices... Remember, that Iraq was supposed to clear up within 12 months -- by 1994.
They were supposed to find evidence of there NOT being any such weapons. Per the 1992 seize-fire agreement, the burden of proof was on Iraq. Absent (or insufficient) evidence to the contrary -- Saddam was guilty...Did Bush really want to overthrow Saddam? Yes. Do I agree with him? Yes. Should Clinton have done it much earlier? Yes. Did we have sound reasons to it? Yes, and plenty...
Oh, that poor guy, don't we all feel sorry for him?.. But you are wrong. Saddam's downfall came from trying to convince UN, he had no WMDs, while maintaining the conviction among his neighbors (and Iraqis), that he had. He managed to walk this tight line for a while, but finally slipped.At least 2D would be good for starters. And no, do not reach for the "Reply" link below to point me to the open source driver (nv) -- it does not support secondary heads...
That's the fundamental difference.
They only tell you, how to achieve higher ranking, thus offering a mechanism you can use, should your policy happen to include trying to be as visible as possible. But they do not impose a policy.
Your attempt to base any demands on Google's use of open-source is particularly disturbing (and is sure to add more weight to arguments against it)... You are attaching strings to it, that would make it less desirable, than even the proprietory offerings. At least, with those the rules are clearly set upfront and no one will come back later demanding "their share".
If you, actually, have contributed something to an open-source project (beyond installing a free OS or posting a screenshot), then grin and enjoy the recognition, your hobby is getting.
And if you have not (which I find to be more likely), than pick some sort of unpleasantry usually intended to shut an opponent up and direct it towards yourself...
No, they expected to see their words confirmed (the invading troops were training in chemical and bacteriological defence), and it was a very good guess on their part -- most in the Iraqi army believed in some super weapons too. And even the UN's top inspector (despite his annoyance with Americans) could not vouch for Iraq.
I may agree with you, that the WMD-aspect was, overstressed. Even if he had them, Saddam would, probably, never used them...
But such is today's world -- Saddam's overthrow was the greatest show of international aid of our times, but who is ever going to credit US for it? Maybe, the next generation of Iraqis will, if we find the guts to stay there long enough...
Back to the subject, the Shuttle was intended as a nationalist pride -- a show off even more ambitious (and even less practical) than Concorde, and ended up benefitting the science a little bit, but did significantly improve any lives...