believe I heard on NPR that Taliban fighters are going over the documents and picking out names of informants in order to "deal with them."
And NPR knows this how? They checked with their reporters embedded with the Taliban or maybe the DoD told them, or maybe, like most journalists they just made shit up?
Obama is? He took three months to consider his general's report, then gave the man LESS than the MINIMUM number of troops the general asked for-- as if to claim that he somehow knew better.
Why do you assume he didn't know better? Generals are omniscient now? Obama has no advisors?
Why even bother having a president, just let the generals make all the decisions.
He also deserves blame for the Housing Bubble, which was the result of a Clinton policy passed in 1997. (Banks must loan mortgage money, or else be sued for racism.)
$ uname -a UnixWare xxxxxx 5 7.1.1 i386 x86at SCO UNIX_SVR5 $ strings/usr/lib/drf/bzip ...
Copyright (C) 1992-1993 Jean-loup Gailly
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. ...
The source code itself probably won't run as-is on different hardware, but there are clues and hints and subtleties that can be copied. A more efficient algorithm for this, or a creative way of doing that.
In Busybox?
Just because you've got busybox in your TV doesn't mean you have to give away the source code to the rest of it.
If you're going to be pedantic get it right - most infantry rifles in WW2 were clip loaded. Even the semi-automatic M1 took clips, rather than using a removable magazine.
Looks like the Associated Press and Reuters wire articles must be good enough for the masses.
No, some of us don't want to read Murdochs crap. We can get our news from a real newspaper, like the Guardian, or Libération, or well, just about anything.
You mean, it's the one that's so out of touch with reality that it doesn't recognize that, in the last 220 years, some real and legitimate competition has arisen? No wonder they're having trouble adjusting to the 12st century
They're the only paper called "The Times". Where is the confusion?
(By the way, The Times didn't exist in the 12th century).
One such mechanism is that you can choose the researchers you fund. Then, results that jive with your purpose will be over-represented.
But if that were the case there would be a group of researchers who have published papers that refute the "consensus" on AGW, then given up because they can't get any grants, or reversed their positions and started getting money.
You mean the way that the grant money at the CRU went from thousands to millions? Oh that's right, that was for supporting AGW.
No it wasn't, it was for researching climate.
More baseless ad-hominem attacks. I'm geting bored.
Everything I have seen says that in total the usual suspects (oil companies, coal companies, etc) have spent more money on grants to AGW promoters than they have to AGW skeptics
The reason for that is simple - AGW "skeptics" don't do any science, so obviously they don't get funding to do research.
Except for here and here and here, yes, that's right, every time the "funding corrupts the science" meme shows up, AGW researchers are being accused of corruption by "denialists". Absolutely every time.
Avoiding GM Foods? Monsanto Says You're Overly Fussy Nothing to do with climate science, the BBC printing an op-ed piece from the famous John Innes triffid breeding station without revealing the writers affiliation.(*)
So it's bloggers with twisted nickers, more dodgy stuff from UEA and and "astroturf".
What does this have to do with research funding again?
((*) When I was at UEA in 1977-1980 we all knew what was going on behind those strong fences with bright floodlights at night. The CRU was obviously set up as a cover operation to hide what the loonies in the John Innes centre were up to).
Slashdot Mirror
Are you serious?
The same way you do I expect.
What would stop them?
And NPR knows this how? They checked with their reporters embedded with the Taliban or maybe the DoD told them, or maybe, like most journalists they just made shit up?
This is flambait how? Ignorant slashdot mods don't know that the Taliban infiltrated a CIA compound, eventualy killing 7 CIA agents.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/03/cia.bombing.claims/index.html
I'd prefer Bora Bora myself. I bet OBL would too.
Why do you assume he didn't know better? Generals are omniscient now? Obama has no advisors?
Why even bother having a president, just let the generals make all the decisions.
This is racist nonsense.
Of course they did.
Then they became republicans.
Never heard of the "southern strategy"? Or just want to keep quiet about it?
No.
Copyright good.
Current copyright terms bad.
That's hard to understand?
Oh look, a GPL violation in SCO UnixWare.
That was hard to find, wasn't it.
In Busybox?
Just because you've got busybox in your TV doesn't mean you have to give away the source code to the rest of it.
Details please.
Or he'll try to corner the silver market.
On second thoughts...
If you're going to be pedantic get it right - most infantry rifles in WW2 were clip loaded. Even the semi-automatic M1 took clips, rather than using a removable magazine.
Zero points for reading and comprehension - how do you go from "racial elements" to "grounded on"?
Well, as long as you didn't teach him all he knows about FORTRAN...
Oh I'm sure he does. Luckily he's got his trusty .45 to protect you from the commie zombie eco-nuts.
He's also the guy to see if you have some FORTRAN problems.
No, some of us don't want to read Murdochs crap. We can get our news from a real newspaper, like the Guardian, or Libération, or well, just about anything.
They're the only paper called "The Times". Where is the confusion?
(By the way, The Times didn't exist in the 12th century).
Shh.... we don't want to upset them.
Gordon neverputs his crowbar down.
Pah, just leave him there. You can always carry a couple of spares.
You're right - we weren't burned to a crisp.
Of course that may be because we weren't there then.
But if that were the case there would be a group of researchers who have published papers that refute the "consensus" on AGW, then given up because they can't get any grants, or reversed their positions and started getting money.
Where are they?
No it wasn't, it was for researching climate.
More baseless ad-hominem attacks. I'm geting bored.
The reason for that is simple - AGW "skeptics" don't do any science, so obviously they don't get funding to do research.
Nothing to to with climate science. Bloggers complaining about their blog collective being corrupted by money, not people complaining about research being corrupted.
Nothing to do with climate science, the BBC printing an op-ed piece from the famous John Innes triffid breeding station without revealing the writers affiliation.(*)
Nothing to do with science - "big tobacco" being accused of funding political action.
So it's bloggers with twisted nickers, more dodgy stuff from UEA and and "astroturf".
What does this have to do with research funding again?
((*) When I was at UEA in 1977-1980 we all knew what was going on behind those strong fences with bright floodlights at night. The CRU was obviously set up as a cover operation to hide what the loonies in the John Innes centre were up to).