Though IIRC, the point of the asbestos coating o the structural steel members was to buy the 8-10 hours it was estimated it would take to evacuate the upper floors by helicopter. The plan, as I understood it, was to buy time to set up a ferry line of helos to get people out who were trapped above an impact by airlift from the roof. 8-10 hours was the spec for how long it would take, and the thus how long the asbestos was supposed to be able to keep the building up.
They're stuffed. Drywall had exactly nothing to do with this one.
However, I find interesting the fact that the lack of asbestos coating for the structural steel above the, what was it, 60th floor is being ignored. That was the insulation that was supposed to reduce the heat impact on the structural elements in just such a fire for ~8-10 hours. And application of which was stopped midway through construction, after NYC passed their "no asbestos" laws.
"It is because they can't afford what American tech employees expect for income and benefits, because Amercian workers complain if they have to work more than 40 hours, and because American workers are typically not as dedicated or as well educated as their off-shore counterparts (especially in ANY aspect of engineering)."
Which is an accurate state of affairs from 1995 to 2001, and applies to neither the period before that, or the present day. You might note that the state of affairs you describe is essentially identical to why Chinese immigrants were encouraged during the CA Gold Rush (1849-1851), and during the construction boom after the American Civil War, esp. in rail construction.
You should also look at the historical precedents for what happened after that.
"This is a great country, but when people that call themselves US citizens feel infringed, they immediately attack foriegners. Maybe this is why so many countries around the world utterly HATE america? "
Which (a) has nothing to do with the previous discussion, and (b) does nothing to explain why those foreign countries and their residents hate teh US on a day-to-day basis, even when we're doing something _good_ for them. Also, you might note that within a generation, you, too, will be assimilated (IF you decide to stay, that is). The same things were said about and by Germans, Irish, Italians, Japanese, and .
I don't think this was intentionally leaked considering that Cheney is scheduled to visit the middle east in a few days.
There's one problem with that scenario. Which paper broke this: the LA Times. Which, as everyone knows, has incredible connections and depth of field (in a Republican White House, fergodsake?) in foreign affairs and defense.
This was a leak. The LA Times will never admit it, but someone set this up to go out the door, in a deniable, "we never meant for this to hit the street" manner.
Sheezus, with friends like the USA, who needs enemies?:-(
Like I said, there are contingency nuclear targetting plans for just about everywhere. Hell, I live in the US (California) and I expect there are contingency targetting packages available for _here_. A couple points to note: First, a lot of these plans fall in the "write it up and put it on the shelf" vein. There are guys who do nothing but, full time, generate contingency targetting packages. Eventually they're going to work their way into the pile of "snowball's chance in hell" set of packages. Second, most of the really low-odds packages (like, say, Canada) get looked at maybe once every 10+ years. If that. There's just no point.
From further downthread: Under what circumstances would the USA nuke Canada? (Keeping in mind that Canada doesn't have nukes, or any other weapons of mass destruction.)
Damnfino. They just write the damn things, and stick 'em on the shelf. I'm sure, somewhere in the Canadian MOD, there's a contigency plan for occupying Detroit and the upper half of New York in the face of US combat forces. Not like you're ever going to _use_ it, but it's there.
Take your pick. I thought looking over the relevent part of the USAAF Strategic Bombing Survey, combined with postwar data from both the US and Japanese sources, would be useful. I also like van der Vaat's _The Pacific Campaign_, as a good source for quick reference.
History: The US wasn't willing to accept negotiation. They demanded UNCONDITIONAL surrender. Japanese peace feelers had been extended to Russia (by a Japanese prince, I believe)
Short version: Go look into the Yalta &etc. agreements. You will note there that the agreed-upon terms for surrender of all Axis powers was _unconditional_. That wasn't "the US wasn't willing to accept negotiation", it was "the US, UK, USSR, and all other participating powers agreed that war would be prosecuted against ALL Axis powers until they UNCONDITIONALLY surrendered."
That was the deal presented to Italy, when they surrendered in 1943. That was the deal presented to Germany, when they surrendered in May, 1945. And it was the deal presented to Japan, in Sept. 1945.
The "why wasn't the bomb detonated on a deserted island" question has been hashed out in the mainstream and not-so-mainstream press for 50 years. The simple version is that the guy who was elected in this country and given the constitutional authority to make that decision decided that it would not accomplish the goal of ending the war. You can argue that point _as much as you want to_, but there's one problem - the demonstrable answer that works is the one that was used. All you are EVER going to come up with is a theoretical "well, it ought to" statement.
Oh yeah - one last thing: "The sight of a detination should have been enough to frighten them into peace without slaughtering thousands of civilians. "
If that was the case, then why didn't they sue for peace/surrender after the Tokyo firebombing raids? After all, the Tokyo raids inflicted over 140,000 casualties - approximately 30,000 more casualties than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
Then you don't know very much about nuclear weapons targetting and policy. Short version. For every country, there exists a nuclear targetting package. Or packages. Sometimes LOTS of them. Hell, there are contigency nuclear targetting packages for Canada and Mexico, for ghods sake.
Also, it's common knowledge amongst policymakers worldwide that US policy is "You use a WMD (weapon of mass destruction) on us, we use one on you - and all we have are nukes. So to us a nuke is a radiological weapon is nerve gas is a biological. Remember that." We've only been saying it for _40 years_.
This was intentionally leaked. To make clear to SH that the same rules still apply, and that use of chem/bio weapons on US troops really _will_ be met with nuclear weapons.
Go read the background before you make statements like the above, please. You really don't know what you're talking about.
Japan wasn't negotiating. At all. They were prepared to resist to the point where >50% of the population was dead.
After the first bomb was dropped, the "ok, let's surrender" party started pushing really hard, backed by the "this could be the rest of the country" thesis. At the same time, the "no, keep fighting" side was preparing to depose the government (and the emperor) to keep up the fight. After the second vote, the cabinet _tied_ in a vote to surrender, allowing the emperor to step in and end things - and they _still_ had to avert a potential coup.
No, there weren't any "negotiations" going on. There were a few "if we surrender, what can we expect" feelers, from the Japanese, via the Soviets, who didn't really let them get anywhere (BTW - check out the timing on the Soviet declaration of war vs. Japan).
And Hiroshima (and Nagasaki, and Kokura, and...) were industrial targets. They'd been kept off LeMay's target list deliberately.
Re:Security != Justice ?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 2
I respectfully disagree. I find that his arguments are most compelling, and usually quite devastating - though they do go against those of the mainstream press. In any case, Mr. Chomsky can take care of his own in a debate, that's beside the point.
Well, I'll grant that they're definitely _interesting_ arguments. One thing I've noted, though, is that Chomsky tends to make an argument, then redefine the terms in use to stack the deck. Given that he's a linguistic analyst by trade, that's a pretty evil way to make your point (IMHO). But yes, he can generally hold his own, by confusion if nothing else.
Okay, I think we misunderstood each other. You're saying I dont my a** from a hole in the ground...I though you meant the Chinese - you have to admit, in the context of the original post, it could be interpreted that way. Well, I retract my comment, then. It's certainly not racist to insult me (though not in very good form).
Point. It isn't necessarily racist to call the Chinese gov't clueless, either. If I'd been refering to "Chinese" as an ethnographic group, you might have a point, though.
Well, since I'm self-taught, I don't know who you're referring to with "they".
A decent high school history/civics program, perhaps? 15 years ago, that was pretty basic stuff.
That being said - basic sources to try are a good library with ILL, or a university library. Also, go chat up whoever teaches the IR (International Relations) coursework at your local CC. That should get you started. I long ago learned to use primary sources where feasible - one of the reasons I dislike Chomsky, for example (Ghod, his books are harder to read than Tolkein).
But I appreciate you not gloating over my mistake We can disagree over politics and stay civil at the same time - though that's not often the case on online forums!
Too true! Sorry for getting a little over-the-top.
All that in the resolution against torture? I find your interpretation doubtful...
If you're talking about the 12/91 resolution, yes, there really is such a loophole - big enough to drive a truck, or in the specific case the ANC, through. Y'see, the resolution language was cobbled together, and a caveat was put in to cover groups like the ANC in "post-colonial" situations, which pretty much gave them a free hand to hit back at anybody in the West, or anybody they decided to declare was advancing the colonialist agenda.
Countries which have suffered from terrorism such as France, Italy and Egypt would not have voted for such a resolution if it had contained those loopholes.
Sorry to disillusion you, but they did vote for it, and it did contain those loopholes.
In any case, these loopholes could have been ironed out by further negotiations. Perhaps you can point me to those particular sections in the resolution that you feel were legally unsound? Or are you quoting someone else on these?
Gaack. Now I can't find the references. Look at the text of the 12/97 resolution, though, and you'll see language removing all "post-colonial liberation movements" from the definition of terrorist.
It does bring an interesting question, though: at what point do "liberation movements" go across the line and become "terrorists"? Don't forget that the British press described the american revolutionaries as "terrorists"...
Actually, I'd like to see a real, honest-to-ghod primary source quote on that. I've seen it bandied about, but I question whether it was really said.
Personnally I think that as long as the targets are military, then it's okay, but attacking civilians is terrorism. After all, soldiers realize that, by choice, they are at risk of being killed by the enemy. But you can bet that those palestinians who attacked and killed Israeli soldiers will be labelled as terrorists, while the contras that terrorized Nicaragua in the 80's are still considered as "freedom fighters" by the old guard of the american right.
Well, recognition and acceptance of the Laws of War (inc. targetting rules) is a big start. Which means civilians are Right Off the targets list. So suicide-bombing a pizzeria really doesn't make it as "liberation" activities. Nor does indiscriminately shooting up a residential neighborhood. Nor does lynching someone held in criminal custody. That being said, I don't necessarily disagree that the Israelis go over the line, too.
As for the contras/Sandinistas - that was a dirty war on _both_ sides. The Sandinistas were pretty nasty, too - they did a pretty thorough job going after civilians while they were on the outs, and I was really wondering if they were going to go back to their old ways after Ortega lost the Presidency to Chamoro (?).
Not that it would have mattered. The US would have gone in anyway
We were already _there_. The question is whether the rest of the UN would have helped. However, since an awfully large number of UN resolutions are on precisely that point (legitimizing things that countries would otherwise do anyway), that's kind of a specious argument, isn't it?
Well, that's not quite true, it it? There actually have not been a lot of western democracies that have been found guilty of unlawful use of force against another country. France in Algeria, perhaps? Even then I'm not sure. And those that have don't even come close to the U.S. as far as "war by proxy" is concerned.
Most of the countries that participated in the Gulf War, just for example, have been filed against under those statutes. That covers most of the Western democracies you're citing...
They only did so after being denied justice, and in order to attack the death squads who launched their attack from across the border. Today, it is found quite acceptable by most of the contra supporters for Israel to do the same when Hamas or Islamic Jihad launch attacks from Palestine.
Interesting. So it's morally acceptable for Nicaragua to invade another country without even bothering with the niceties of a declaration of war, but not acceptable for Israel to do the same with folks who _have_ declared war on Israel?
Which is it? If the Contras are terrorists, then what are Islamic Jihad and Hamas?
A better way of saying it would be that the contras were about to be beaten, so the US sent in reinforcements in order to help their proxy military/terrorists. You're right though, Nicaragua was doing more than protecting itself: it was openly defying the U.S. dictatorial policies towards Central America, which of course was simply unacceptable! Cuba was enough of an embarassment already...
A "better" way to say it? Honduras asked for our help - the Contras weren't the ones who invited 4 BNs of US infantry into their "country".
Or let's look at this a little differently. Try putting that model on the Kurds. Is it morally acceptable for the Turkish Army to roll into Iraq to shut down Kurdish terrorist/liberation (pick your term) groups operating across the border? If not, why? And how do you define the difference?
That's the big problem with the argument-line you're advancing. Groups that meet (generic) your political viewpoint are acceptable, and whatever they want to do is cool. Groups that don't aren't, no matter if they're well-behaved or not.
Yes, it is by far the biggest, baddest bully. Of the bullies, it is also the only western democracy.
If you really believe that, then once again, you don't know what you're talking about. You should look into German actions behind the Croat secession from Yugoslavia, for example, or French actions throughout the world. Either of those rebuts your case. France, in particular, has a pretty bad track record. Belgium doesn't look too good these days, either.
If Joe Sixpack really knew what his country did in his name, I guess maybe things could change for the better - but Joe doesn't care.
Maybe, maybe not. Empire has a wierd logic, and people are willing to accept things in the abstract that they won't accept up-close-and-personally.
You are right in the economic sense - but as I recall we're talking about politics and military matters here. You know, foreign policy, terrorism,
low-level conflicts, torture, the U.N... You're veering off in a totally different direction.
Pshaw. They're pretty much bound up together as issues, esp. as you're defining them. if you don't realize that, you need to go back and read some more.
Also, note that the "rules" thing applies in the strictly politico-military sense, as well. Case in point: Look at the terms of the Israeli/Egyptian peace treaty, and see if there isn't some "advantage" being grabbed there, too.
As far as political/military matters are concerned, however, the U.S. is far above and beyond the rest. In that arena, no one compares to them as far as "setting the rules and rigging them in their own favor" is concerned.
Not always. Some of those "setting the rules in your favor" situations are more "setting the rules level - and we'll compete you into the ground." As I said, there wouldn't _be_ a WTO to use as an arbitration/trade standards forum if it weren't for the US. There are many more examples of that out there.
Hmmm...the IMF's record is less than stellar. The recent case of Argentina is a good example of that...
Agreed. However, a lot of that is courtesy of Argentinian behavior, not the IMF per se. If you've got someone on a beer budget who likes to buy Mercedes', is it his fault, or the banker who won't extend his line of credit, when he goes into bankruptcy?
Look, we're obviously on opposite end of the spectrum on the matter. Shall we agree to disagree?
Obviously. Works for me.
Re:Security != Justice ?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 2
Among others. I'm quite an avid reader, and I like to read conservative sources as well as progressive ones. I like to make my own mind. What I like about Chomsky is that he always documents his writings - as compared to William F. Buckley, who, well, does not.
You're right. He does. His logic just doesn't work out, though. He's very good at making his argument - but, from what I've seen, it ultimately leads off into the swamp.
"People who don't know their a** from a hole in the ground." That sounds like a racist statement to me.
Please, demonstrate to me what is racist about that statement. It is a statement that you do not know what you are talking about, pure and simple. Race does not at _any_ point enter into the statement. It is not racist, sexist, religiously skewed, biased on account of age or sexual orientation. Hell, it doesn't even violate the ADA. It simply says "you don't know what you are talking about" and is equally applicable regardless of any of the above qualities. That you choose to interpret it as racist says more about _your_ agenda than anything else.
Well, I admit you have me there. I guess I've been mistaken about this for quite a while, now.
Hmmpf. 'Kay. Though they're _supposed_ to teach the basics of this stuff, and make it clear where to get more.
However, that still doesn't excuse the fact that the U.S. has voted against a resolution condemning the use of torture,
I looked into it a bit. You should ask _why_ the US chose to vote against that particular resolution before complaining too loudly about it. The way it was written, it had several loopholes written into it to condone "liberation" groups who happened to have decided that blowing up airliners full of civilians was a dandy way to get their point across. Just as an example, remember that airliner that went down off the Comorros (I think thats it) a few years ago - the one with the dramatic footage of the place cartwheeling into the sea? Well, the group that did that would have gone right through that loophole. The Libyan crew that did Pan Am 103 would have gone right through that loophole. The LTTE terror squads would have gone through that loophole. Hell, the guys who raided the Indian Parliament would have gone through that loophole.
Also, a lot of other _good_ resolutions have been vetoed by other UNSC Permanent members. Do you know the _only_ reason the UN authorized a presence in Korea in 1950? Because the USSR had decided to boycott the UN shortly beforehand. D'you really think the UN would have authorized what wound up being authorized if the USSR had been in its seat?
as well as being found guilty by the World Court of unlawful use of force against Nicaragua,
Almost every country that's done _anything_ internationally has been wracked up under those statutes.
then killing a resolution that would have forced countries to respect international law (not international mob rule, as you seem to think).
Ummm, I would respectfully suggest that you need to bone up on just what "international law" really is. Note - it is NOT law as engaged within a given country.
The fact is, Nicaragua tried to use legal means to defend itself against unlawful agression, instead of retorting to terrorism (which is bad, we all agree).
To a certain extent. To a certain extent they didn't. In 1988, they rolled over the border into Honduras. The Hondurans were scared enough that the US wound up deploying a 4 BN task force. Note also that Nicaragua was doing a lot more than just "defending itself" during that period.
But the fact is that it doesn't matter if the U.S. is right or if it's wrong: by force of its might, it sets the rules, rigging them in its favor. Might makes right, the american way.
No, it does matter. However, relative to the other players out there, are you willing to continue making the assertion that the US is the big bad bully?
As for the "it sets the rules, rigging them in its favor", every country does that, whenever it has the chance. Do you honestly think those stalwarts in the EU don't do it? Please! I recall reading an interesting description of how France manipulated Airbus and the EU to force an American company to divulge its avionics secrets (for systems employed on Airbus aircraft), then proceeded to heavily subsidize a newly-created French company to drive (I think it was Litton) out of the European avionics market. Or look at Japanese import restrictions. Or... I think you get the idea. _Every_ country rigs the rules in its favor, as much as possible. That being said, given the chance, no other country has tried to create things like the IMF (currency/economic stability) or the WTO (which is a fundamentally American conceit and creation). Other countries may bitch about American behavior _in_ the WTO structure, but they wouldn't have it to complain in in the first place without American stubbornness.
Re:Security != Justice ?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 2
So some non-democratic countries voted for it, big deal! How does that invalidate it? Well, it doesn't. The fact is, nearly all democratic countries voted in favor of it. Funny you should mention Venezuela and Indonesia, though, as these regime have been supported by the U.S. for almost three decades.
Stop and look through the books. There are more "democracies" that aren't in the UN, than there are countries that actually respect the rule of law. Zimbabwe is a "democracy" - but you'd never guess it by the way they run the country. Venezuela was, until that jackbooted thug Chavez rewrote the constitution to suit his own needs.
BTW - care to cough up a cite on that resolution? No. Look it up yourself and prove me wrong.
[snicker] You've been reading Chomsky, haven't you? You're refering to that bit in 12/97.
Well, that's kind of a racist attitude, wouldn't you say? After all, they did invent the mother of all modern weapons: gunpowder! But the fact is I do know what I'm talking about, you don't. The five permanent members of the security councils (the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China) were, at the time, the only countries with nuclear capability. Or perhaps you have a better explanation?
No, nothing racist about it whatsoever. You don't know what you're talking about, and you've just demonstrated it twice. Here, let me walk you through it.
When was the UN created? 1945.
When was the UN Security Council created? 1945.
When were the permanent members of the UN Security Council selected? 1945.
Who were those members? US, USSR, UK, France, and Communist China.
Who among them had nuclear weapons? Only the US.
Why were they selected? Because they were the "big 5" countries that had won WW2.
When did the various members of the UNSC get atomic weapons? USSR: Aug 29, 1949; UK: Oct 3, 1952; France: Feb 13, 1960; Nationalist China: never
When did Communist China get it's first nuclear weapon: Octobe 16, 1964
When did Communist China lose its UN Security Council seat? 1949.
When did Communist China receive its UN Security Council seat, displacing Nationalist China? 1971
Permanent Security Council seats have _nothing_ to do with the criteria you specified.
Bah, yourself. According to the numbers he posts, he can't document more than 2479 casualties. Further, fully 1/3 of that number is in one incident that looks like it's combatants being hit, not civilians.
Re:Security != Justice ?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 2
The fact is: most of the UN members are bunch of representatives from non-democratic governments. You mean, like Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, South Africa (post-apartheid), to name some of them? Yes, these are all a bunch of undemocratic dictatorships! How DARE they vote for a resolution condemning torture.
Nah. Places like Zimbabwe. Venezuela. Burma. Indonesia. Vietnam. Algeria. Congo.
BTW, the US has also blocked a U.N. resolution that would have defined what IS terrorism, even though the U.S. military manuals do define
it as the use of force OR threat of use of force against civilians in order to attain political goals. Of course the U.S. would never agree to this, since it would put an end to their use of "low-intesity conflicts" around the world...
As opposed to everyone else's use of same? France, Germany, Russia, China - all those "caring" countries... BTW - care to cough up a cite on that resolution?
How can you have China, for example, in the Secutiy Council? Easy, China is a nuclear power. That's how they got in the security council in the first place.
Cool! People who don't know their a** from a hole in the ground. You obviously don't have the faintest clue about what you speak. Care to try that one again?
Being real doesn't necessarily mean becoming a cynic. The important thing is that the U.S.'s foreign policy is unjust, and concerned only with American interests. This creates a world where it is increasingly isolated, its allies going along more out of fear than respect. That is not a healthy situation.
As opposed to, say, France's foreign policy, which is an enlightened model devoid of self-interest, and totally focussed on only that which is bent on improving the world as a whole? Which is, of course, why the French gov't decided to locate a Red Cross refugee camp right next to the Chunnel, then blame all subsequent problems on Britain's "lax" refugee laws?
Facts was:Security != Justice ?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 2
Never let facts get in the way of a good story - I have to agree with you there.
Stop and take a look at who created Saudi Arabia, Jordan, &etc. out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. While you're there, try to figure out why it's called _Saudi_ Arabia, and not _Hashemite_ Arabia.
Re:Security != Justice ?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 2
"Our current president got fewer votes statewide in Florida, the last contested state in the election where his brother is Governor, and Nationwide than his opponent. "
Gotta love that pair of canards. For the first - the votes have been reviewed _exhaustively_ at this point. Based on the standards Gore and the DP wanted to use, he lost. Period. He would have lost _even if_ every ballot had been counted to his standards. You might also take note of the DP's desperate attempts to get overseas military ballots disqualified en mass. For the second - total popular vote isn't the way the system works _and everybody who bothers to read the rules knows it_. If total popular vote was how the issue was decided, _both_ sides' campaign strategies would have been different.
The electoral vote system, as it stands, is as fair and reasonable as any other solution. It's also the agreed-upon solution (what, you don't like living in a republic?). Don't like it? Try either of the following:
- convince enough people to change the system
- get your friends out and voting. 40% of the electorate stayed home last time.
So, Jon thinks thinks that his is the triumph of the drones. He should probably go read Emilio Douhet - he'll see his theories expanded upon in much greater detail.
For all the talk of how it was the drones who won the war, and how the guys on the ground weren't important - they're wrong, pure and simple. If you go back and re-read the data, you'll find a lot of inaccurate, do-nothing strikes, until one day, BAMM, they start doing precision strikes against front-line Taliban/AQ positions. Guess what - drones have NOTHING to do with that. That date marks when the GB support/designation teams arrived.
Furthermore, you'll note that we had bombers/drones/etc. roaming all over the battlefield - but it wasn't until somebody from the Army, Marines, or Northern Alliance was standing on it that we decided an area was secure.
People have been making this argument since WW1. It didn't work then, it didn't work in the 20s/30s, it didn't work during WW2, it didn't work in Korea, it didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Iraq, it didn't work in Bosnia, it didn't work in Kosovo, and it didn't work in Afghanistan.
Get over it. High tech is not a panacea, however much you'd like it to be. You want to control ground? Stand some grunt, and his rifle on it. All of the other stuff is just there to help.
Actually, yes. Especially if you use a specific configuration, then say "go configure it", but don't bother to cover your tweaks.
Example from a few years ago. I was working with Oracle Video Server group. Their docs for the client said "go install and config the client, then install our software." What they didn't realize is that the "as shipped" configuration of the underlying hardware required a _very_ specific configuration to get it to work - including downloading the update patch and installing that OVER the driver set supplied with the hardware. Took a 9-step installation and turned it into a 32-step process. The client-side developers hadn't bothered to tell anybody (nor did they really realize...) that they were using an uprev version of the driver software, not what was shipped.
No, it's not a close-minded view. It's a realistic view. There's a BIG difference between what you did at home and work experience, however much you'd like to think otherwise. Unless you were coding device drivers at age 16, or programming mainframe DB applications, or writing and testing commercially-releasable applications, _it doesn't count_. When I was 9, I coded character-generation programs on an 8K Pet. That doesn't mean that's "when I started programming with commercially-useful experience". My _work_ experience started in college.
Y'know what grade inflation is? Well, what you're doing is resume inflation.
Something reliable - the frequencies used. 802.11b uses the same 2.4Ghz freq. space used by high-end portable phones. 802.11a, in contrast, uses the 5Ghz band.
Ummm, guys, this is a problem that was solved 6 years ago. One group I was working with over at Oracle had a ~1.5TB video store, with ~100 realtime inputs, running in testbed to ~20,000 users. In 1995 (yeah - think Pentium 133s as hot machines).
Part of the solution is that you want to convert to a video format, rather than trying to store the raw frames. MPEG-1, -2, -4, or Motion JPeg are probably your best bets. That should get you a fairly large compression factor over the raw frame data set.
Some of this technology is still around, if you know where to look. Email me if you want to chat.
Every time I run into this argument, I keep wondering what people like you are doing in a university. You're not there for what the university teaches. You're there for vocational skills - that's it. So, why are you bothering with a university? Why are you wasting their time, and your money? Why aren't you letting someone who could _get something_ out of that education in, when you obviously (a) don't get it, (b) don't give a sh*t, and (c) really just want those initials after your name.
Seriously - what you're after is what vocational schools are about. What's the point of a university? It produces research. It produces well-rounded people. It makes you learn how to learn, so you can go do it yourself.
If all you want is how to program, how to configure a Cisco box, or how to sysadmin, save everyone a lot of trouble, and go find a VocTech school.
Interesting. About 4 years ago, Microsoft was doing this, and I got a little tired of it. A quick restraint-of-trade complaint to the CA AG's office, they talked to eBay, and Microsoft shut up and went home. Looks like eBay needs to be reminded of this, and have it pointed out that that they've already had their hands slapped on this once.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but the point is that there was no insulation to blow off. So, there's no way to tell if it would have stayed in place or not.
Ah - yes, that would be a more serious problem.
Though IIRC, the point of the asbestos coating o the structural steel members was to buy the 8-10 hours it was estimated it would take to evacuate the upper floors by helicopter. The plan, as I understood it, was to buy time to set up a ferry line of helos to get people out who were trapped above an impact by airlift from the roof. 8-10 hours was the spec for how long it would take, and the thus how long the asbestos was supposed to be able to keep the building up.
They're stuffed. Drywall had exactly nothing to do with this one.
However, I find interesting the fact that the lack of asbestos coating for the structural steel above the, what was it, 60th floor is being ignored. That was the insulation that was supposed to reduce the heat impact on the structural elements in just such a fire for ~8-10 hours. And application of which was stopped midway through construction, after NYC passed their "no asbestos" laws.
"It is because they can't afford what American tech employees expect for income and benefits, because Amercian workers complain if they have to work more than 40 hours, and because American workers are typically not as dedicated or as well educated as their off-shore counterparts (especially in ANY aspect of engineering)."
Which is an accurate state of affairs from 1995 to 2001, and applies to neither the period before that, or the present day. You might note that the state of affairs you describe is essentially identical to why Chinese immigrants were encouraged during the CA Gold Rush (1849-1851), and during the construction boom after the American Civil War, esp. in rail construction.
You should also look at the historical precedents for what happened after that.
"This is a great country, but when people that call themselves US citizens feel infringed, they immediately attack foriegners. Maybe this is why so many countries around the world utterly HATE america? "
Which (a) has nothing to do with the previous discussion, and (b) does nothing to explain why those foreign countries and their residents hate teh US on a day-to-day basis, even when we're doing something _good_ for them. Also, you might note that within a generation, you, too, will be assimilated (IF you decide to stay, that is). The same things were said about and by Germans, Irish, Italians, Japanese, and .
I don't think this was intentionally leaked considering that Cheney is scheduled to visit the middle east in a few days.
There's one problem with that scenario. Which paper broke this: the LA Times. Which, as everyone knows, has incredible connections and depth of field (in a Republican White House, fergodsake?) in foreign affairs and defense.
This was a leak. The LA Times will never admit it, but someone set this up to go out the door, in a deniable, "we never meant for this to hit the street" manner.
Contigency nuke plans for Canada?!?
:-(
Sheezus, with friends like the USA, who needs enemies?
Like I said, there are contingency nuclear targetting plans for just about everywhere. Hell, I live in the US (California) and I expect there are contingency targetting packages available for _here_. A couple points to note:
First, a lot of these plans fall in the "write it up and put it on the shelf" vein. There are guys who do nothing but, full time, generate contingency targetting packages. Eventually they're going to work their way into the pile of "snowball's chance in hell" set of packages.
Second, most of the really low-odds packages (like, say, Canada) get looked at maybe once every 10+ years. If that. There's just no point.
From further downthread:
Under what circumstances would the USA nuke Canada? (Keeping in mind that Canada doesn't have nukes, or any other weapons of mass destruction.)
Damnfino. They just write the damn things, and stick 'em on the shelf. I'm sure, somewhere in the Canadian MOD, there's a contigency plan for occupying Detroit and the upper half of New York in the face of US combat forces. Not like you're ever going to _use_ it, but it's there.
Take your pick. I thought looking over the relevent part of the USAAF Strategic Bombing Survey, combined with postwar data from both the US and Japanese sources, would be useful. I also like van der Vaat's _The Pacific Campaign_, as a good source for quick reference.
History: The US wasn't willing to accept negotiation. They demanded UNCONDITIONAL surrender. Japanese peace feelers had been extended to Russia (by a Japanese prince, I believe)
Short version: Go look into the Yalta &etc. agreements. You will note there that the agreed-upon terms for surrender of all Axis powers was _unconditional_. That wasn't "the US wasn't willing to accept negotiation", it was "the US, UK, USSR, and all other participating powers agreed that war would be prosecuted against ALL Axis powers until they UNCONDITIONALLY surrendered."
That was the deal presented to Italy, when they surrendered in 1943. That was the deal presented to Germany, when they surrendered in May, 1945. And it was the deal presented to Japan, in Sept. 1945.
The "why wasn't the bomb detonated on a deserted island" question has been hashed out in the mainstream and not-so-mainstream press for 50 years. The simple version is that the guy who was elected in this country and given the constitutional authority to make that decision decided that it would not accomplish the goal of ending the war. You can argue that point _as much as you want to_, but there's one problem - the demonstrable answer that works is the one that was used. All you are EVER going to come up with is a theoretical "well, it ought to" statement.
Oh yeah - one last thing:
"The sight of a detination should have been enough to frighten them into peace without slaughtering thousands of civilians. "
If that was the case, then why didn't they sue for peace/surrender after the Tokyo firebombing raids? After all, the Tokyo raids inflicted over 140,000 casualties - approximately 30,000 more casualties than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
Then you don't know very much about nuclear weapons targetting and policy. Short version. For every country, there exists a nuclear targetting package. Or packages. Sometimes LOTS of them. Hell, there are contigency nuclear targetting packages for Canada and Mexico, for ghods sake.
Also, it's common knowledge amongst policymakers worldwide that US policy is "You use a WMD (weapon of mass destruction) on us, we use one on you - and all we have are nukes. So to us a nuke is a radiological weapon is nerve gas is a biological. Remember that." We've only been saying it for _40 years_.
This was intentionally leaked. To make clear to SH that the same rules still apply, and that use of chem/bio weapons on US troops really _will_ be met with nuclear weapons.
Go read the background before you make statements like the above, please. You really don't know what you're talking about.
Go reread your history books.
Japan wasn't negotiating. At all. They were prepared to resist to the point where >50% of the population was dead.
After the first bomb was dropped, the "ok, let's surrender" party started pushing really hard, backed by the "this could be the rest of the country" thesis. At the same time, the "no, keep fighting" side was preparing to depose the government (and the emperor) to keep up the fight. After the second vote, the cabinet _tied_ in a vote to surrender, allowing the emperor to step in and end things - and they _still_ had to avert a potential coup.
No, there weren't any "negotiations" going on. There were a few "if we surrender, what can we expect" feelers, from the Japanese, via the Soviets, who didn't really let them get anywhere (BTW - check out the timing on the Soviet declaration of war vs. Japan).
And Hiroshima (and Nagasaki, and Kokura, and...) were industrial targets. They'd been kept off LeMay's target list deliberately.
I respectfully disagree. I find that his arguments are most compelling, and usually quite devastating - though they do go against those of the mainstream press. In any case, Mr. Chomsky can take care of his own in a debate, that's beside the point.
Well, I'll grant that they're definitely _interesting_ arguments. One thing I've noted, though, is that Chomsky tends to make an argument, then redefine the terms in use to stack the deck. Given that he's a linguistic analyst by trade, that's a pretty evil way to make your point (IMHO). But yes, he can generally hold his own, by confusion if nothing else.
Okay, I think we misunderstood each other. You're saying I dont my a** from a hole in the ground...I though you meant the Chinese - you have to admit, in the context of the original post, it could be interpreted that way. Well, I retract my comment, then. It's certainly not racist to insult me (though not in very good form).
Point. It isn't necessarily racist to call the Chinese gov't clueless, either. If I'd been refering to "Chinese" as an ethnographic group, you might have a point, though.
Well, since I'm self-taught, I don't know who you're referring to with "they".
A decent high school history/civics program, perhaps? 15 years ago, that was pretty basic stuff.
That being said - basic sources to try are a good library with ILL, or a university library. Also, go chat up whoever teaches the IR (International Relations) coursework at your local CC. That should get you started. I long ago learned to use primary sources where feasible - one of the reasons I dislike Chomsky, for example (Ghod, his books are harder to read than Tolkein).
But I appreciate you not gloating over my mistake We can disagree over politics and stay civil at the same time - though that's not often the case on online forums!
Too true! Sorry for getting a little over-the-top.
All that in the resolution against torture? I find your interpretation doubtful...
If you're talking about the 12/91 resolution, yes, there really is such a loophole - big enough to drive a truck, or in the specific case the ANC, through. Y'see, the resolution language was cobbled together, and a caveat was put in to cover groups like the ANC in "post-colonial" situations, which pretty much gave them a free hand to hit back at anybody in the West, or anybody they decided to declare was advancing the colonialist agenda.
Countries which have suffered from terrorism such as France, Italy and Egypt would not have voted for such a resolution if it had contained those loopholes.
Sorry to disillusion you, but they did vote for it, and it did contain those loopholes.
In any case, these loopholes could have been ironed out by further negotiations. Perhaps you can point me to those particular sections in the resolution that you feel were legally unsound? Or are you quoting someone else on these?
Gaack. Now I can't find the references. Look at the text of the 12/97 resolution, though, and you'll see language removing all "post-colonial liberation movements" from the definition of terrorist.
It does bring an interesting question, though: at what point do "liberation movements" go across the line and become "terrorists"? Don't forget that the British press described the american revolutionaries as "terrorists"...
Actually, I'd like to see a real, honest-to-ghod primary source quote on that. I've seen it bandied about, but I question whether it was really said.
Personnally I think that as long as the targets are military, then it's okay, but attacking civilians is terrorism. After all, soldiers realize that, by choice, they are at risk of being killed by the enemy. But you can bet that those palestinians who attacked and killed Israeli soldiers will be labelled as terrorists, while the contras that terrorized Nicaragua in the 80's are still considered as "freedom fighters" by the old guard of the american right.
Well, recognition and acceptance of the Laws of War (inc. targetting rules) is a big start. Which means civilians are Right Off the targets list. So suicide-bombing a pizzeria really doesn't make it as "liberation" activities. Nor does indiscriminately shooting up a residential neighborhood. Nor does lynching someone held in criminal custody. That being said, I don't necessarily disagree that the Israelis go over the line, too.
As for the contras/Sandinistas - that was a dirty war on _both_ sides. The Sandinistas were pretty nasty, too - they did a pretty thorough job going after civilians while they were on the outs, and I was really wondering if they were going to go back to their old ways after Ortega lost the Presidency to Chamoro (?).
Not that it would have mattered. The US would have gone in anyway
We were already _there_. The question is whether the rest of the UN would have helped. However, since an awfully large number of UN resolutions are on precisely that point (legitimizing things that countries would otherwise do anyway), that's kind of a specious argument, isn't it?
Well, that's not quite true, it it? There actually have not been a lot of western democracies that have been found guilty of unlawful use of force against another country. France in Algeria, perhaps? Even then I'm not sure. And those that have don't even come close to the U.S. as far as "war by proxy" is concerned.
Most of the countries that participated in the Gulf War, just for example, have been filed against under those statutes. That covers most of the Western democracies you're citing...
They only did so after being denied justice, and in order to attack the death squads who launched their attack from across the border. Today, it is found quite acceptable by most of the contra supporters for Israel to do the same when Hamas or Islamic Jihad launch attacks from Palestine.
Interesting. So it's morally acceptable for Nicaragua to invade another country without even bothering with the niceties of a declaration of war, but not acceptable for Israel to do the same with folks who _have_ declared war on Israel?
Which is it? If the Contras are terrorists, then what are Islamic Jihad and Hamas?
A better way of saying it would be that the contras were about to be beaten, so the US sent in reinforcements in order to help their proxy military/terrorists. You're right though, Nicaragua was doing more than protecting itself: it was openly defying the U.S. dictatorial policies towards Central America, which of course was simply unacceptable! Cuba was enough of an embarassment already...
A "better" way to say it? Honduras asked for our help - the Contras weren't the ones who invited 4 BNs of US infantry into their "country".
Or let's look at this a little differently. Try putting that model on the Kurds. Is it morally acceptable for the Turkish Army to roll into Iraq to shut down Kurdish terrorist/liberation (pick your term) groups operating across the border? If not, why? And how do you define the difference?
That's the big problem with the argument-line you're advancing. Groups that meet (generic) your political viewpoint are acceptable, and whatever they want to do is cool. Groups that don't aren't, no matter if they're well-behaved or not.
Yes, it is by far the biggest, baddest bully. Of the bullies, it is also the only western democracy.
If you really believe that, then once again, you don't know what you're talking about. You should look into German actions behind the Croat secession from Yugoslavia, for example, or French actions throughout the world. Either of those rebuts your case. France, in particular, has a pretty bad track record. Belgium doesn't look too good these days, either.
If Joe Sixpack really knew what his country did in his name, I guess maybe things could change for the better - but Joe doesn't care.
Maybe, maybe not. Empire has a wierd logic, and people are willing to accept things in the abstract that they won't accept up-close-and-personally.
You are right in the economic sense - but as I recall we're talking about politics and military matters here. You know, foreign policy, terrorism,
low-level conflicts, torture, the U.N... You're veering off in a totally different direction.
Pshaw. They're pretty much bound up together as issues, esp. as you're defining them. if you don't realize that, you need to go back and read some more.
Also, note that the "rules" thing applies in the strictly politico-military sense, as well. Case in point: Look at the terms of the Israeli/Egyptian peace treaty, and see if there isn't some "advantage" being grabbed there, too.
As far as political/military matters are concerned, however, the U.S. is far above and beyond the rest. In that arena, no one compares to them as far as "setting the rules and rigging them in their own favor" is concerned.
Not always. Some of those "setting the rules in your favor" situations are more "setting the rules level - and we'll compete you into the ground." As I said, there wouldn't _be_ a WTO to use as an arbitration/trade standards forum if it weren't for the US. There are many more examples of that out there.
Hmmm...the IMF's record is less than stellar. The recent case of Argentina is a good example of that...
Agreed. However, a lot of that is courtesy of Argentinian behavior, not the IMF per se. If you've got someone on a beer budget who likes to buy Mercedes', is it his fault, or the banker who won't extend his line of credit, when he goes into bankruptcy?
Look, we're obviously on opposite end of the spectrum on the matter. Shall we agree to disagree?
Obviously. Works for me.
Among others. I'm quite an avid reader, and I like to read conservative sources as well as progressive ones. I like to make my own mind. What I like about Chomsky is that he always documents his writings - as compared to William F. Buckley, who, well, does not.
You're right. He does. His logic just doesn't work out, though. He's very good at making his argument - but, from what I've seen, it ultimately leads off into the swamp.
"People who don't know their a** from a hole in the ground." That sounds like a racist statement to me.
Please, demonstrate to me what is racist about that statement. It is a statement that you do not know what you are talking about, pure and simple. Race does not at _any_ point enter into the statement. It is not racist, sexist, religiously skewed, biased on account of age or sexual orientation. Hell, it doesn't even violate the ADA. It simply says "you don't know what you are talking about" and is equally applicable regardless of any of the above qualities. That you choose to interpret it as racist says more about _your_ agenda than anything else.
Well, I admit you have me there. I guess I've been mistaken about this for quite a while, now.
Hmmpf. 'Kay. Though they're _supposed_ to teach the basics of this stuff, and make it clear where to get more.
However, that still doesn't excuse the fact that the U.S. has voted against a resolution condemning the use of torture,
I looked into it a bit. You should ask _why_ the US chose to vote against that particular resolution before complaining too loudly about it. The way it was written, it had several loopholes written into it to condone "liberation" groups who happened to have decided that blowing up airliners full of civilians was a dandy way to get their point across. Just as an example, remember that airliner that went down off the Comorros (I think thats it) a few years ago - the one with the dramatic footage of the place cartwheeling into the sea? Well, the group that did that would have gone right through that loophole. The Libyan crew that did Pan Am 103 would have gone right through that loophole. The LTTE terror squads would have gone through that loophole. Hell, the guys who raided the Indian Parliament would have gone through that loophole.
Also, a lot of other _good_ resolutions have been vetoed by other UNSC Permanent members. Do you know the _only_ reason the UN authorized a presence in Korea in 1950? Because the USSR had decided to boycott the UN shortly beforehand. D'you really think the UN would have authorized what wound up being authorized if the USSR had been in its seat?
as well as being found guilty by the World Court of unlawful use of force against Nicaragua,
Almost every country that's done _anything_ internationally has been wracked up under those statutes.
then killing a resolution that would have forced countries to respect international law (not international mob rule, as you seem to think).
Ummm, I would respectfully suggest that you need to bone up on just what "international law" really is. Note - it is NOT law as engaged within a given country.
The fact is, Nicaragua tried to use legal means to defend itself against unlawful agression, instead of retorting to terrorism (which is bad, we all agree).
To a certain extent. To a certain extent they didn't. In 1988, they rolled over the border into Honduras. The Hondurans were scared enough that the US wound up deploying a 4 BN task force. Note also that Nicaragua was doing a lot more than just "defending itself" during that period.
But the fact is that it doesn't matter if the U.S. is right or if it's wrong: by force of its might, it sets the rules, rigging them in its favor. Might makes right, the american way.
No, it does matter. However, relative to the other players out there, are you willing to continue making the assertion that the US is the big bad bully?
As for the "it sets the rules, rigging them in its favor", every country does that, whenever it has the chance. Do you honestly think those stalwarts in the EU don't do it? Please! I recall reading an interesting description of how France manipulated Airbus and the EU to force an American company to divulge its avionics secrets (for systems employed on Airbus aircraft), then proceeded to heavily subsidize a newly-created French company to drive (I think it was Litton) out of the European avionics market. Or look at Japanese import restrictions. Or... I think you get the idea. _Every_ country rigs the rules in its favor, as much as possible. That being said, given the chance, no other country has tried to create things like the IMF (currency/economic stability) or the WTO (which is a fundamentally American conceit and creation). Other countries may bitch about American behavior _in_ the WTO structure, but they wouldn't have it to complain in in the first place without American stubbornness.
Stop and look through the books. There are more "democracies" that aren't in the UN, than there are countries that actually respect the rule of law. Zimbabwe is a "democracy" - but you'd never guess it by the way they run the country. Venezuela was, until that jackbooted thug Chavez rewrote the constitution to suit his own needs.
BTW - care to cough up a cite on that resolution? No. Look it up yourself and prove me wrong.
[snicker] You've been reading Chomsky, haven't you? You're refering to that bit in 12/97.
Well, that's kind of a racist attitude, wouldn't you say? After all, they did invent the mother of all modern weapons: gunpowder! But the fact is I do know what I'm talking about, you don't. The five permanent members of the security councils (the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China) were, at the time, the only countries with nuclear capability. Or perhaps you have a better explanation?
No, nothing racist about it whatsoever. You don't know what you're talking about, and you've just demonstrated it twice. Here, let me walk you through it.
When was the UN created? 1945.
When was the UN Security Council created? 1945.
When were the permanent members of the UN Security Council selected? 1945.
Who were those members? US, USSR, UK, France, and Communist China.
Who among them had nuclear weapons? Only the US.
Why were they selected? Because they were the "big 5" countries that had won WW2.
When did the various members of the UNSC get atomic weapons? USSR: Aug 29, 1949; UK: Oct 3, 1952; France: Feb 13, 1960; Nationalist China: never
When did Communist China get it's first nuclear weapon: Octobe 16, 1964
When did Communist China lose its UN Security Council seat? 1949.
When did Communist China receive its UN Security Council seat, displacing Nationalist China? 1971
Permanent Security Council seats have _nothing_ to do with the criteria you specified.
Bah, yourself. According to the numbers he posts, he can't document more than 2479 casualties. Further, fully 1/3 of that number is in one incident that looks like it's combatants being hit, not civilians.
Nah. Places like Zimbabwe. Venezuela. Burma. Indonesia. Vietnam. Algeria. Congo.
BTW, the US has also blocked a U.N. resolution that would have defined what IS terrorism, even though the U.S. military manuals do define
it as the use of force OR threat of use of force against civilians in order to attain political goals. Of course the U.S. would never agree to this, since it would put an end to their use of "low-intesity conflicts" around the world...
As opposed to everyone else's use of same? France, Germany, Russia, China - all those "caring" countries... BTW - care to cough up a cite on that resolution?
How can you have China, for example, in the Secutiy Council? Easy, China is a nuclear power. That's how they got in the security council in the first place.
Cool! People who don't know their a** from a hole in the ground. You obviously don't have the faintest clue about what you speak. Care to try that one again?
Being real doesn't necessarily mean becoming a cynic. The important thing is that the U.S.'s foreign policy is unjust, and concerned only with American interests. This creates a world where it is increasingly isolated, its allies going along more out of fear than respect. That is not a healthy situation.
As opposed to, say, France's foreign policy, which is an enlightened model devoid of self-interest, and totally focussed on only that which is bent on improving the world as a whole? Which is, of course, why the French gov't decided to locate a Red Cross refugee camp right next to the Chunnel, then blame all subsequent problems on Britain's "lax" refugee laws?
Never let facts get in the way of a good story - I have to agree with you there.
Stop and take a look at who created Saudi Arabia, Jordan, &etc. out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. While you're there, try to figure out why it's called _Saudi_ Arabia, and not _Hashemite_ Arabia.
"Our current president got fewer votes statewide in Florida, the last contested state in the election where his brother is Governor, and Nationwide than his opponent. "
Gotta love that pair of canards. For the first - the votes have been reviewed _exhaustively_ at this point. Based on the standards Gore and the DP wanted to use, he lost. Period. He would have lost _even if_ every ballot had been counted to his standards. You might also take note of the DP's desperate attempts to get overseas military ballots disqualified en mass. For the second - total popular vote isn't the way the system works _and everybody who bothers to read the rules knows it_. If total popular vote was how the issue was decided, _both_ sides' campaign strategies would have been different.
The electoral vote system, as it stands, is as fair and reasonable as any other solution. It's also the agreed-upon solution (what, you don't like living in a republic?). Don't like it? Try either of the following:
- convince enough people to change the system
- get your friends out and voting. 40% of the electorate stayed home last time.
So, Jon thinks thinks that his is the triumph of the drones. He should probably go read Emilio Douhet - he'll see his theories expanded upon in much greater detail.
For all the talk of how it was the drones who won the war, and how the guys on the ground weren't important - they're wrong, pure and simple. If you go back and re-read the data, you'll find a lot of inaccurate, do-nothing strikes, until one day, BAMM, they start doing precision strikes against front-line Taliban/AQ positions. Guess what - drones have NOTHING to do with that. That date marks when the GB support/designation teams arrived.
Furthermore, you'll note that we had bombers/drones/etc. roaming all over the battlefield - but it wasn't until somebody from the Army, Marines, or Northern Alliance was standing on it that we decided an area was secure.
People have been making this argument since WW1. It didn't work then, it didn't work in the 20s/30s, it didn't work during WW2, it didn't work in Korea, it didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Iraq, it didn't work in Bosnia, it didn't work in Kosovo, and it didn't work in Afghanistan.
Get over it. High tech is not a panacea, however much you'd like it to be. You want to control ground? Stand some grunt, and his rifle on it. All of the other stuff is just there to help.
Actually, yes. Especially if you use a specific configuration, then say "go configure it", but don't bother to cover your tweaks.
Example from a few years ago. I was working with Oracle Video Server group. Their docs for the client said "go install and config the client, then install our software." What they didn't realize is that the "as shipped" configuration of the underlying hardware required a _very_ specific configuration to get it to work - including downloading the update patch and installing that OVER the driver set supplied with the hardware. Took a 9-step installation and turned it into a 32-step process. The client-side developers hadn't bothered to tell anybody (nor did they really realize...) that they were using an uprev version of the driver software, not what was shipped.
Actually, this is kind of amusing, when you think that China just joined the WTO, and we renewed their MFN status.
Makes ya wonder why we bother.
No, it's not a close-minded view. It's a realistic view. There's a BIG difference between what you did at home and work experience, however much you'd like to think otherwise. Unless you were coding device drivers at age 16, or programming mainframe DB applications, or writing and testing commercially-releasable applications, _it doesn't count_. When I was 9, I coded character-generation programs on an 8K Pet. That doesn't mean that's "when I started programming with commercially-useful experience". My _work_ experience started in college.
Y'know what grade inflation is? Well, what you're doing is resume inflation.
Something reliable - the frequencies used. 802.11b uses the same 2.4Ghz freq. space used by high-end portable phones. 802.11a, in contrast, uses the 5Ghz band.
Ummm, guys, this is a problem that was solved 6 years ago. One group I was working with over at Oracle had a ~1.5TB video store, with ~100 realtime inputs, running in testbed to ~20,000 users. In 1995 (yeah - think Pentium 133s as hot machines).
Part of the solution is that you want to convert to a video format, rather than trying to store the raw frames. MPEG-1, -2, -4, or Motion JPeg are probably your best bets. That should get you a fairly large compression factor over the raw frame data set.
Some of this technology is still around, if you know where to look. Email me if you want to chat.
Every time I run into this argument, I keep wondering what people like you are doing in a university. You're not there for what the university teaches. You're there for vocational skills - that's it. So, why are you bothering with a university? Why are you wasting their time, and your money? Why aren't you letting someone who could _get something_ out of that education in, when you obviously (a) don't get it, (b) don't give a sh*t, and (c) really just want those initials after your name.
Seriously - what you're after is what vocational schools are about. What's the point of a university? It produces research. It produces well-rounded people. It makes you learn how to learn, so you can go do it yourself.
If all you want is how to program, how to configure a Cisco box, or how to sysadmin, save everyone a lot of trouble, and go find a VocTech school.
Interesting. About 4 years ago, Microsoft was doing this, and I got a little tired of it. A quick restraint-of-trade complaint to the CA AG's office, they talked to eBay, and Microsoft shut up and went home. Looks like eBay needs to be reminded of this, and have it pointed out that that they've already had their hands slapped on this once.