"Finally, Congress declared war on Iraq for the first Gulf War. Not only did they have the president's support of action in Iraq, they also had the UN's support."
What's more, the First Gulf War wasn't ended with a peace treaty, it was ended with a cease fire. Which means if either side were to violate the terms of the cease fire, the war starts up again. Since the President has determined that Iraq violated the terms of the agreement, bingo!, the war is hot. No declaration is needed, since this isn't a new war.
"(b) Iraq has TARGETED US figter planes, but never fired."
I'm serving in Operation Northern Watch. I write up reports on Iraqi weapons when they are used against us. They have fired on coaltion aircraft (not just US, also UK), literally, thousands of times. They just never hit because they suck.
So, given that someone with firsthand experience can easily refute this statement, why should anyone take the rest as fact?
We can disagree about whether the war is pointless and/or counterproductive, but how is it unconstitutional? Congress gave the President plenty of authority to use force against Iraq months ago. So where is the unconstitional bit?
Buck up, Airman. It could be worse. You could be living in a tent at Incirlik AFB, Turkey. 'Course, I could be in Kuwait with most of my shipmates from home, so everything is relative.
"Getting back to the subject, investing millions of dollars in a commercial product...isn't "speech"...."
You're joking, right? How much do you think it costs The New York Times to print just one edition? Since they're spending millions of dollars (or, more accurately, the corporation which owns The New York Times is spending it), should that paper not enjoy the benefits of freedom of speech? Should we set a dollar limit on how much you can spend before your right to free expression is negated? Or are "inalienable rights" reserved for only the poor?
Umm, what AOL is doing is right and proper. Is your host the MX record for a domain? No? Then noone should be accepting mail from it. Can your host be authenticated with reverse IP look-ups, crosschecked with MX? No? Then, again, noone should be getting your mail. (All except your own ISP, that is.)
This might be inconvient for you, but this system exists as a deterent to spammers. Don't like it? Get your own IP addresses for home use or host your own domain somewhere (that's what I do).
"It's difficult to say which is better, a lot of F/B/C probes (think plastic disposable watches), or a single billion $ probe (think Rolex: takes a licking and keeps on ticking). I think there's room for both types."
Actually, Timex "takes a licking and keeps on ticking". Considering the cost of a decent Timex versus Rolex, maybe cheaper is better.
Yes, I'm sure dropping several million tons of material in the water won't cause any ripple effects....
One of Stanley-Robinson's Mars books (I forget if it was the first or second) has a scene where the space elevator on Mars falls due to terrorism. The results of having an object twice as tall as the planet's circumference falling (and wrapping around the planet) seems pretty harmful to me.
"Note: this is not intended to be aimed at those geeks who do actually know what soap, water and deoderant are. The problem is, even 10% of unclean, sweaty bodies would be enough to make things unpleasant."
Hey, I've been in Turkey for six months now. Trust me, you get used to body odor.;)
"Last time I checked, people over 18 are allowed to star in porn movies, be a prostitute in Nevada, vote and participate in wars. Is this book _so_ awful, that you have to be over 21?"
Probably because you have to be drunk to appreciate the book. (I 'spose non-Americans under 21 are free to read it if they want.)
With all due respect, the last thing I expect to do when reading a review of a book is have to take time to look up the meaning of a word. If it's not a common usage word, which in this case "singularity" is not, then a brief explanation is called for.
"in that pseudo-moral sense that children aren't mature enough to handle reading about subjects like death, consensual torture and murder, sex, cancer, and incest
Here is a tip, how about not putting irrelevant flamebait into the first paragraph of a book review?"
Hey, the guy hangs out on Kuro5hin. Of course there's going to be anti-moralist flamebait in the first paragraph! I'm just surprised he didn't add it to all the others.
This has got to be the Worst Review Ever. You didn't even answer a few basic questions, like: 1) What's the plot? Is it Caroline's search for her lost humanity, or the Prime Intellect's taking control of human life? 2) What is the underlying theme of the book? It seems to be the question of what life and humanity are, but I'm only guessing.
Also, your review brings up some ideas that you fail to explain: 1) What the hell is the "Singularity"? 2) Why/How are people now immortal?
And lastly, is the book even worth reading? Does it make you question any deeply held beliefs, or provide any pure entertainment value, or both/neither?? Come on, if you're gonna take the time to write a review of a book, put in more than the publisher would on the back of the jacket!
Don't tell me you actually believe anything that comes out of the mouth of the Iraqi dictator, do you? If they have a massive food distribution system to "ensure everyone is fed", all that really means is that the Iraqi government controls "who gets to eat".
Regarding automating the fire fighting systems, see the insightful comment from someone else about the HMS Sheffield.
"On another topic, why do you say that you "didn't want to miss this war?" "
Because I'm a warmonger that wants to kill people and win medals. Really. I'm serious.
"Lots of people are likely to die, indirectly through your actions, if a war happens."
Indirectly, my ass. I'll be pulling the triggers and pushing the buttons. My only hope is that I'll be close enough to watch their brains spurt out when it happens. Watching people die at long range is a let down.
"It's possible some could be your friends and acquaintances. There's a small but real chance one could be you."
Shit happens, when it's your time, there's not much you can do about it. In the meantime, I'll watch my shipmate's backs and try to keep 'em from dying for their country. Though when I found a hole in my chem gear recently, I had a momentary bout of fear. It passed (once supply gave me replacement gear).
"WTF would you *want* to be in a war?"
Glory, honor, that kind of thing. You don't really think most people in the military prefer peace, do you?
Speaking as a sailor (served from '88 to '96, and now from '01 to present..didn't want to miss this war), I can tell you that *everyone* on board a warship is a firefighter. There are some guys who specialize in it, but they just lead the fire teams. Everyone, from the newest seaman recruit up to the Old Man hisself, is expected to lend a hand in putting out any fires. Think of it: you've got nowhere to run to, and the idea of sitting in the ocean until you're rescued isn't very appetizing (except to the sharks...).
Reducing a ship's compliment by over 2/3 is a Bad Idea. When one of these ships gets hit with something the size of the bomb that hit the USS Cole, or the missiles that hit the USS Stark, I guarantee she will go down like a two dollar whore. The Stark is an especially good example, because when the missiles struck, one hit near her primary magazine. One lone individual kept the powder cool with a fire hose until he was found hours later. Considering his job was one of the ones likely to be eliminated by this "advance" in technology, the ship would almost definitely have gone down if she had been outfitted with it instead of a well trained crew.
Slashdot Mirror
"Finally, Congress declared war on Iraq for the first Gulf War. Not only did they have the president's support of action in Iraq, they also had the UN's support."
What's more, the First Gulf War wasn't ended with a peace treaty, it was ended with a cease fire. Which means if either side were to violate the terms of the cease fire, the war starts up again. Since the President has determined that Iraq violated the terms of the agreement, bingo!, the war is hot. No declaration is needed, since this isn't a new war.
Whores. Lots and lots of whores.
And don't be stingy with the cocaine, either.
Even better, they proclaim neutrality at the same time they condemn one of the participants.
"(b) Iraq has TARGETED US figter planes, but never fired."
I'm serving in Operation Northern Watch. I write up reports on Iraqi weapons when they are used against us. They have fired on coaltion aircraft (not just US, also UK), literally, thousands of times. They just never hit because they suck.
So, given that someone with firsthand experience can easily refute this statement, why should anyone take the rest as fact?
We can disagree about whether the war is pointless and/or counterproductive, but how is it unconstitutional? Congress gave the President plenty of authority to use force against Iraq months ago. So where is the unconstitional bit?
Buck up, Airman. It could be worse. You could be living in a tent at Incirlik AFB, Turkey. 'Course, I could be in Kuwait with most of my shipmates from home, so everything is relative.
"Getting back to the subject, investing millions of dollars in a commercial product...isn't "speech"...."
You're joking, right? How much do you think it costs The New York Times to print just one edition? Since they're spending millions of dollars (or, more accurately, the corporation which owns The New York Times is spending it), should that paper not enjoy the benefits of freedom of speech? Should we set a dollar limit on how much you can spend before your right to free expression is negated? Or are "inalienable rights" reserved for only the poor?
Ah, but you forget, smoking hashish or opium isn't strictly forbidden by the Koran (drinking alcohol is, though, go figure).
Don't forget where we get the word "assassin" from.
Umm, what AOL is doing is right and proper. Is your host the MX record for a domain? No? Then noone should be accepting mail from it. Can your host be authenticated with reverse IP look-ups, crosschecked with MX? No? Then, again, noone should be getting your mail. (All except your own ISP, that is.)
This might be inconvient for you, but this system exists as a deterent to spammers. Don't like it? Get your own IP addresses for home use or host your own domain somewhere (that's what I do).
"It's difficult to say which is better, a lot of F/B/C probes (think plastic disposable watches), or a single billion $ probe (think Rolex: takes a licking and keeps on ticking). I think there's room for both types."
Actually, Timex "takes a licking and keeps on ticking". Considering the cost of a decent Timex versus Rolex, maybe cheaper is better.
"...all of a sudden someone's trip through the mall is like an episode of the Crocodile Hunter..."
Yeah, I can imagine Steve Irwin sneaking up on a woman in a bikini saying "Crikey, she's a beauty!"
Yes, I'm sure dropping several million tons of material in the water won't cause any ripple effects....
One of Stanley-Robinson's Mars books (I forget if it was the first or second) has a scene where the space elevator on Mars falls due to terrorism. The results of having an object twice as tall as the planet's circumference falling (and wrapping around the planet) seems pretty harmful to me.
Hey, you're right. Katz hasn't written anything since July of last year. Did he get hit by a bus or something?
If he leaves anonymous FTP with write access running it'll take less than a month.
"Note: this is not intended to be aimed at those geeks who do actually know what soap, water and deoderant are. The problem is, even 10% of unclean, sweaty bodies would be enough to make things unpleasant."
;)
Hey, I've been in Turkey for six months now. Trust me, you get used to body odor.
You may be on to something here:
Cats and Dogs, 2001
Snow Dogs, 2002
Cats and Dogs 2, 2003
"Last time I checked, people over 18 are allowed to star in porn movies, be a prostitute in Nevada, vote and participate in wars. Is this book _so_ awful, that you have to be over 21?"
Probably because you have to be drunk to appreciate the book. (I 'spose non-Americans under 21 are free to read it if they want.)
With all due respect, the last thing I expect to do when reading a review of a book is have to take time to look up the meaning of a word. If it's not a common usage word, which in this case "singularity" is not, then a brief explanation is called for.
"in that pseudo-moral sense that children aren't mature enough to handle reading about subjects like death, consensual torture and murder, sex, cancer, and incest
Here is a tip, how about not putting irrelevant flamebait into the first paragraph of a book review?"
Hey, the guy hangs out on Kuro5hin. Of course there's going to be anti-moralist flamebait in the first paragraph! I'm just surprised he didn't add it to all the others.
This has got to be the Worst Review Ever. You didn't even answer a few basic questions, like:
1) What's the plot? Is it Caroline's search for her lost humanity, or the Prime Intellect's taking control of human life?
2) What is the underlying theme of the book? It seems to be the question of what life and humanity are, but I'm only guessing.
Also, your review brings up some ideas that you fail to explain:
1) What the hell is the "Singularity"?
2) Why/How are people now immortal?
And lastly, is the book even worth reading? Does it make you question any deeply held beliefs, or provide any pure entertainment value, or both/neither?? Come on, if you're gonna take the time to write a review of a book, put in more than the publisher would on the back of the jacket!
Don't tell me you actually believe anything that comes out of the mouth of the Iraqi dictator, do you? If they have a massive food distribution system to "ensure everyone is fed", all that really means is that the Iraqi government controls "who gets to eat".
Regarding automating the fire fighting systems, see the insightful comment from someone else about the HMS Sheffield.
"On another topic, why do you say that you "didn't want to miss this war?" "
Because I'm a warmonger that wants to kill people and win medals. Really. I'm serious.
"Lots of people are likely to die, indirectly through your actions, if a war happens."
Indirectly, my ass. I'll be pulling the triggers and pushing the buttons. My only hope is that I'll be close enough to watch their brains spurt out when it happens. Watching people die at long range is a let down.
"It's possible some could be your friends and acquaintances. There's a small but real chance one could be you."
Shit happens, when it's your time, there's not much you can do about it. In the meantime, I'll watch my shipmate's backs and try to keep 'em from dying for their country. Though when I found a hole in my chem gear recently, I had a momentary bout of fear. It passed (once supply gave me replacement gear).
"WTF would you *want* to be in a war?"
Glory, honor, that kind of thing. You don't really think most people in the military prefer peace, do you?
"Of course, saying you're a fireman is much more impressive than saying that you spend your days chipping paint and mopping floors..."
Bah. Noone mops floors on a ship. They swab decks.
And saying you're a "fireman" does sound better than the truth ("I'm a lowly snipe.")
Speaking as a sailor (served from '88 to '96, and now from '01 to present..didn't want to miss this war), I can tell you that *everyone* on board a warship is a firefighter. There are some guys who specialize in it, but they just lead the fire teams. Everyone, from the newest seaman recruit up to the Old Man hisself, is expected to lend a hand in putting out any fires. Think of it: you've got nowhere to run to, and the idea of sitting in the ocean until you're rescued isn't very appetizing (except to the sharks...).
Reducing a ship's compliment by over 2/3 is a Bad Idea. When one of these ships gets hit with something the size of the bomb that hit the USS Cole, or the missiles that hit the USS Stark, I guarantee she will go down like a two dollar whore. The Stark is an especially good example, because when the missiles struck, one hit near her primary magazine. One lone individual kept the powder cool with a fire hose until he was found hours later. Considering his job was one of the ones likely to be eliminated by this "advance" in technology, the ship would almost definitely have gone down if she had been outfitted with it instead of a well trained crew.
"People without sight often have sharper hearing. Does this make those people "other than human"?"
I don't know, was Daredevil one of the Marvel toys the judge looked at?