the GP wasn't blaming bush for the occurrence of the hurricane.
That was understood, Anonymous Coward, and I did not claim otherwise.
he/she was talking about the effects of the politics which are making the hurricane's impact much, much worse than it needed to be.
And that's what I'm saying is B.S. The "natural" part of this was the hurricane. The "disaster" part is the effects it is causing along the coast. There's no evidence that anything Bush has (or hasn't) done has made those effects "worse".
and yes, bush is at least somewhat to blame, and it's pretty easy to see why.
Yes, because you're a liberal moron that blames everything on Bush. You're right, it's very easy to see that. You are transparent.
the money that was supposed to continue to go towards fixing the levees around new orleans went instead to the iraq war.
Prove it! Prove that New Orleans received less money because of the Iraq war. And once you've done that (if you can do that), prove that it would've made a difference? The dang levees broke! What would've been done with this money that was supposedly diverted to Iraq that would've prevented a hurricane and massive flooding from destroying the leveess?
if the money had been there, the shoring up of the levees would have been completed, and the flooding would have been a fraction of what it is.
Uh huh, and you know that how? It is perfect arrogance to believe we can hold back the sea, much less an angry sea churned up by a massive hurricane. You seem to have no understanding of the forces involved and significantly over-estimate money's ability to solve this problem.
The problem is not money. The problem is the very poor location of New Orleans. No amount of money can fix that.
bush didn't make katrina, but he did make her worse.
What a load of unsupported crap you're shoveling there, Anonymous Coward.
p.s. "liberal" is not an epithet. i'd be more than a little surprised if you even knew what the word meant.
I didn't use liberal as a epithet. Ironically, it seems to be the liberals themselves that see the use of that word as an epithet. Telling, really.
p.p.s. bush-bashing might have gone out of style among those idiots who voted for him, but the rest of the world has just gotten started.
Actually it's pretty easy to break down states by county and you'll see that most of the country is Republican. About the only state that isn't mostly Republican is New Mexico.
Obviously that's on a geographical basis, but if you are dropped in any random point in the United States, most likely you'll be in the midst of conservatives.:)
I'm so sick of people--mostly liberal--trying to blame everything on someone, usually Bush. Levees broke? That's because Bush spent money in Iraq instead of New Orleans. Big storm hit New Orleans? That's because Bush didn't go along with Kyoto.
So many liberals are science- and logic-challenged.
The Bush-bashers lose sight of the fact that no amount of money is going to protect a below-sea-level-city on the edge of the sea and surrounded by rivers, lakes, and swamps, from massive flooding when a massive hurricane comes through. It's just not going to happen. Build those levees as high as you want, install more pumps. We are nothing compared to the forces of nature, and water is one of nature's strongest forces.
It would be the height of arrogance to think that man can win against the overwhelming forces of nature. And it would be the height of stupidity to blame a natural disaster on the president.
I doubt it. Water is cheap. Oil is not. That's why you see oil pipelines and you don't see long-distance water pipelines (other than the natural water pipelines which are commonly known as rivers).
I agree completely (at least with the part about not rebuilding New Orleans).
It was insane to have a lower-than-sea-level city build right on the edge of the ocean, a lake, and a swamp in the middle of a hurricane zone to start with. It's now been destroyed for those very reasons. A bigger tragedy than what happened this week would be to not learn the lesson, rebuild, and have the problem recycle itself in 40 years, 20 years, 10 years, maybe even next year or next month.
Looking at the pictures of pretty much the entire city under water, and recognizing that most of the dwellings are made of wood, and recognizing that wood doesn't like to retain its structural integrity after days, weeks, or months underwater, I think we need to recognize that most of the structures are going to have to be demolished anyway. We're probably watching the death of a city. Amazing, really.
It goes agaisnt human nature--or at least against American nature--but I think at times like this one has to make a sensible, non-emotional decision and realize that this city should not be rebuilt. At least not at its current location.
Great, I feel better now. I was wondering how long it would be before someone found a way to blame the Hurricane Katrina damage and New Orleans on Bush. Good work, your liberal masters would be proud.
Seriously, guys, Bush-bashing really went out of style about November 3rd of last year. Not everything that goes wrong in the world is Bush's fault--especially friggin' natural disasters. Beacon of truth: New Orelans would be just as destroyed today regardless of whether there was a war in Iraq or whether Bush had or hadn't won in 2000 and again in 2004. You build a below-sea-level city on the coast of the ocean in a hurricane zone and, sooner or later, that city will be destroyed and there's nothing that any president, governor, or mayor can do to prevent that. Humans are nothing compared to the forces of nature. You might as well try to blame the Mt. St. Helens eruption back in 1980 on President Carter.
It's time some liberals get a clue-by-four and stop trying to blame everything on Bush. It was funny at first, tiring later, and now it's just bitter, childish sour-grapes that make those same liberals look like fools. When you blame natural disasters on Bush, you've really gone too far to retain anything resembling credibility.
Simple. Don't use Flash. I have yet to find a website that I needed that useed Flash. When I've rarely found a site that had content I wanted but said "You need Flash to view this site", I simply close that tab and go to the next link on the Google results.
Of course, the fact they had sent me a diploma didn't seem to be a factor, but lots of employers want a transcript, and it didn't show up there.
Employers ask for transcripts? Is that true of anyone other than new entries in the field? I have never been asked for my transcripts. Heck, I've never been asked for my degree. And if a company asked me for either my transcript or my degree at this point, I'd probably laugh and leave unless the offer was really good.
What counts is experience and the ability to demonstrate you know what you know. Ancient transcripts that include mostly information on how I did in sociology or accounting have nothing to do with the jobs I look for now. Any company that is going to dwell on such a trivial issue rather than look at my experience and work accomplishments is a company I probably don't want to work for...
Again, unless the offer is really good. Yes, for the right amount of money I'd be willing to play their game.:)
No, but if ISPs were receiving 80% less mail they could use 80% fewer servers. If an organization has 5 mail servers and 80% of their incoming mail is spam, they could switch off 4 of those systems if spam didn't exist.
There is a very real cost to spam (energy, additional server hardware, administration costs), and that doesn't even consider the man-YEARS that are spent each day by the people of the world deleting spam.
Needless to say, when 200 million people per day worldwide (random number, probably conservative) have to spend even 10 seconds per day recognizing and deleting spam, that's 2 billion seconds of wasted time on a worldwide basis per DAY. 2 billion seconds is 63 wasted man YEARS per day. I'm going to say that 10 seconds per day is awfully low (considering email comes in all day and if you have to stop what you're doing, check the email that just came in and see it's spam, and then resume what you were doing) and call it 60 seconds per day easy. That means the world is wasting at least 12 billion seconds (3.33 million hours) per day on "just pressing delete". Now if you conservatively say that the average receiver is worth even just $10/hour, the world is losing $33 million dollars per DAY on "just pressing delete."
Think that's not "real" money? If so, you've obviously never employed anyone.
Let's see... U.S. government networks are generally used by the U.S. government and domestic users.
Is it just me, or does completely blocking out all access from China at the router level seem like an obvious response? Obviously these attacks are coming from Chinese IPs or they wouldn't know they were coming from China... so just blacklist the IP address ranges that have no business accessing the networks.
In a competitive market, price is a function of two things: supply and demand. It is in no way a function of cost. (In a highly competitive market, price approaches actual cost.)
Huh? First you say that price is a function of supply and demand and that is not a function of cost and then you turn around and say that price approaches actual cost--so obviously price is effected to some degree by cost.
You are right that the decision for an accessory manufacturer may very well be impacted by the increased cost, but those that do enter the market are not going to price their products below their cost regardless of competition. Most companies aren't like Microsoft where they can sell each unit at a loss. This new "Microsoft tax" is going to raise the prices of accessories as compared to similar accessories on other platforms.
This move by Microsoft will have two simultaneous effects: 1) Fewer third parties will enter the market. 2) Those that decide to enter the market will be charging a higher price than they otherwise would.
End result for the consumer: Fewer options and higher prices. Yeah, good idea Microsoft.
"But are space weapons necessary? No, says Michael Krepon, director of the Stimson Center's Space Security Project. He argues that developing space weapons is a surefire way to launch a new space weapon race."
Irrelevant. Whether or not developing space weapons is a surefire way to launch a new space weapons race does not answer the question as to whether or not space weapons are necessary.
If I remember correctly, I couldn't even properly search for hotels in Expedia.com under Opera even under the IE setting. So I said, thank you, I'll take my business elsewhere. So I searched for hotels on Yahoo, found the one I wanted, and then booked directly with the hotel chain online and got a better price anyway.
The best one yet (can't remember where) was a site that told me that I couldn't use my browser. There was a contact link so I clicked that to complain--and got yet another message saying my browser wasn't going to cut it. I couldn't even contact them thanks to some idiot web developers. I was going to look up contact information in their whois record and call and bitch but I decided I had already wasted enough time on those clowns. I don't remember what site that was, but I went to another site that had no problems with my browser and did business with them.
Companies and web developers that continue to do IE-only developer are slowly going to become obsolete. This kind of IE-only nonsense was never acceptable but they could get away with it when 95%+ of the people were using IE. That's changing more and more every day and companies are going to look less and less fondly of their own website that's throwing away 10% of their potential profits, and that percentage is growing daily!
NOTE TO TROLLS: Don't tell me a company isn't going to care about 10% of profits. If you have stock in a company that doesn't care about 10% profits, sell your stock, because it's probably going to go down soon. Companies might not develop Linux applications for a 10% market due to the R&D cost, but something like a web page that has no excuse for not handling everyone is a completely different story.
What a load of nonsense! There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not maybe even millions, of engineers in the United States alone. Add to that all the H1Bs that somehow get in... And we're supposed to believe that "other companies" aren't finding qualified candidates? Google and Yahoo have sucked up a few hundred candidates and we're supposed to believe there aren't any good ones left for the rest of the companies to hire in the whole friggin' country?
This has to be one of the most absurd and offensive articles I've seen in awhile. Must not be much for BusinessWeek to report or they're trying to drum up sales with alarmist nonsense.
PS--If it were true, I'll be eagerly awaiting the rapid rise in engineer salaries that would accompany such a scenario. But I'm not counting on it.
I'll take an extra hour of daylight at the end of my day than at the beginning. I could care less if it's dark when I go to work. But if I get an extra hour to do things outside in the summer with my friends and family after I'm done working, works for me!
In fact, I'd just assume have DST all year long. In the winter when I get home from work there is absolutely no time for a bike ride before dark.
Of over 10,000 troops, everyone even remotely involved in the allegations was sent home; grand total, 77. And this is one of 16 current UN operations worldwide
Now, if you want to end wars, distribute the world's wealth in such a way that it becomes exponentially more difficult to accumulate large amounts of it. Also, the various religions must be reconciled back to one vision. Both are effectively impossible, as far as I can see, but do those two things, and war will be a thing of the past.
I doubt it. Taking religion out of the mix will certainly avoid religious wars, but distributing wealth so everyone has the same amount won't avert war. There will still be people that want to take what belongs to their neighbors and, hence, wars will be fought because no-one wants to have the exact same wealth as their neighbor. They want more.
If people want to wage war, the only way to stop them is a lobotomy.
Now there's something I can agree with. As long as humans exist, war will exist. The sooner we recognize and accept that fact the better. I'm all for avoiding war and I do think that we can realistically reduce the incidence of war, but we cannot eliminate it. As such, I fully support having a hell-strong military so that when there is war that we achieve overwhelming victory.
Global demilitarization would not usher in world peace, but it would make wars less violent and deadly.
I doubt it. With increasing military might, wars have become less deadly. Compare WWII to Vietnam or Iraq. Yes, I know, hugely different scales. But overwhelming military force makes use of opposing force less attractive and allows that force to be used in a much more focused manner. Complain all you want about civilian casualties in Iraq, but I'll bet it doesn't even come close to half the civilian casualties in Dresden in two days in WWII. And compare the American losses in Iraq to those in Vietnam on a yearly basis and even in an occupation situation, deaths are lower.
Global demilitarization would simply put all countries back on equal footing... Which is more or less where we were before Germany started building up in the 1920's and 1930's and we know how many lives that saved. And when the next ambitious country comes along and starts building up, we'll get to ship in hundreds of thousands of soldiers armed with nothing more than guns and essentially repeat the tragedies of WWII events such as D-Day.
Yes, I'm American. Yes, I'm glad we have the military might rather than someone else. But even if our military might is not always used in ways the world appreciates, the stabilizing aspect of our overwhelming force (and that of the former Soviet Union) has prevented another world war from occurring for 60 years. That's almost four times as long as the time between WWI and WWII.
One "day" someplace far, far away a human will be born, live a long life we fools can not even fathom, and die. It will have never even been aware of the existence of a "Bible", "Quran" or Arthur C. Clarke. The warmongers in the "U.S. Space Command" that contributed to making such a thing possible won't be credited for this.
Why do you assume that humans will stop recording and being interested in history? Seems like an illogical position for you to take.
Slashdot Mirror
That was understood, Anonymous Coward, and I did not claim otherwise.
he/she was talking about the effects of the politics which are making the hurricane's impact much, much worse than it needed to be.
And that's what I'm saying is B.S. The "natural" part of this was the hurricane. The "disaster" part is the effects it is causing along the coast. There's no evidence that anything Bush has (or hasn't) done has made those effects "worse".
and yes, bush is at least somewhat to blame, and it's pretty easy to see why.
Yes, because you're a liberal moron that blames everything on Bush. You're right, it's very easy to see that. You are transparent.
the money that was supposed to continue to go towards fixing the levees around new orleans went instead to the iraq war.
Prove it! Prove that New Orleans received less money because of the Iraq war. And once you've done that (if you can do that), prove that it would've made a difference? The dang levees broke! What would've been done with this money that was supposedly diverted to Iraq that would've prevented a hurricane and massive flooding from destroying the leveess?
if the money had been there, the shoring up of the levees would have been completed, and the flooding would have been a fraction of what it is.
Uh huh, and you know that how? It is perfect arrogance to believe we can hold back the sea, much less an angry sea churned up by a massive hurricane. You seem to have no understanding of the forces involved and significantly over-estimate money's ability to solve this problem.
The problem is not money. The problem is the very poor location of New Orleans. No amount of money can fix that.
bush didn't make katrina, but he did make her worse.
What a load of unsupported crap you're shoveling there, Anonymous Coward.
p.s. "liberal" is not an epithet. i'd be more than a little surprised if you even knew what the word meant.
I didn't use liberal as a epithet. Ironically, it seems to be the liberals themselves that see the use of that word as an epithet. Telling, really.
p.p.s. bush-bashing might have gone out of style among those idiots who voted for him, but the rest of the world has just gotten started.
I rest my case. Go back to your cave, troll.
Obviously that's on a geographical basis, but if you are dropped in any random point in the United States, most likely you'll be in the midst of conservatives. :)
I'm so sick of people--mostly liberal--trying to blame everything on someone, usually Bush. Levees broke? That's because Bush spent money in Iraq instead of New Orleans. Big storm hit New Orleans? That's because Bush didn't go along with Kyoto.
So many liberals are science- and logic-challenged.
It would be the height of arrogance to think that man can win against the overwhelming forces of nature. And it would be the height of stupidity to blame a natural disaster on the president.
Looking at the pictures of pretty much the entire city under water, and recognizing that most of the dwellings are made of wood, and recognizing that wood doesn't like to retain its structural integrity after days, weeks, or months underwater, I think we need to recognize that most of the structures are going to have to be demolished anyway. We're probably watching the death of a city. Amazing, really.
It goes agaisnt human nature--or at least against American nature--but I think at times like this one has to make a sensible, non-emotional decision and realize that this city should not be rebuilt. At least not at its current location.
Seriously, guys, Bush-bashing really went out of style about November 3rd of last year. Not everything that goes wrong in the world is Bush's fault--especially friggin' natural disasters. Beacon of truth: New Orelans would be just as destroyed today regardless of whether there was a war in Iraq or whether Bush had or hadn't won in 2000 and again in 2004. You build a below-sea-level city on the coast of the ocean in a hurricane zone and, sooner or later, that city will be destroyed and there's nothing that any president, governor, or mayor can do to prevent that. Humans are nothing compared to the forces of nature. You might as well try to blame the Mt. St. Helens eruption back in 1980 on President Carter.
It's time some liberals get a clue-by-four and stop trying to blame everything on Bush. It was funny at first, tiring later, and now it's just bitter, childish sour-grapes that make those same liberals look like fools. When you blame natural disasters on Bush, you've really gone too far to retain anything resembling credibility.
Employers ask for transcripts? Is that true of anyone other than new entries in the field? I have never been asked for my transcripts. Heck, I've never been asked for my degree. And if a company asked me for either my transcript or my degree at this point, I'd probably laugh and leave unless the offer was really good.
What counts is experience and the ability to demonstrate you know what you know. Ancient transcripts that include mostly information on how I did in sociology or accounting have nothing to do with the jobs I look for now. Any company that is going to dwell on such a trivial issue rather than look at my experience and work accomplishments is a company I probably don't want to work for...
Again, unless the offer is really good. Yes, for the right amount of money I'd be willing to play their game. :)
There is a very real cost to spam (energy, additional server hardware, administration costs), and that doesn't even consider the man-YEARS that are spent each day by the people of the world deleting spam.
Needless to say, when 200 million people per day worldwide (random number, probably conservative) have to spend even 10 seconds per day recognizing and deleting spam, that's 2 billion seconds of wasted time on a worldwide basis per DAY. 2 billion seconds is 63 wasted man YEARS per day. I'm going to say that 10 seconds per day is awfully low (considering email comes in all day and if you have to stop what you're doing, check the email that just came in and see it's spam, and then resume what you were doing) and call it 60 seconds per day easy. That means the world is wasting at least 12 billion seconds (3.33 million hours) per day on "just pressing delete". Now if you conservatively say that the average receiver is worth even just $10/hour, the world is losing $33 million dollars per DAY on "just pressing delete."
Think that's not "real" money? If so, you've obviously never employed anyone.
Is it just me, or does completely blocking out all access from China at the router level seem like an obvious response? Obviously these attacks are coming from Chinese IPs or they wouldn't know they were coming from China... so just blacklist the IP address ranges that have no business accessing the networks.
Yes, we will have completed that move on approximately January 18, 2038.
Huh? First you say that price is a function of supply and demand and that is not a function of cost and then you turn around and say that price approaches actual cost--so obviously price is effected to some degree by cost.
You are right that the decision for an accessory manufacturer may very well be impacted by the increased cost, but those that do enter the market are not going to price their products below their cost regardless of competition. Most companies aren't like Microsoft where they can sell each unit at a loss. This new "Microsoft tax" is going to raise the prices of accessories as compared to similar accessories on other platforms.
This move by Microsoft will have two simultaneous effects: 1) Fewer third parties will enter the market. 2) Those that decide to enter the market will be charging a higher price than they otherwise would.
End result for the consumer: Fewer options and higher prices. Yeah, good idea Microsoft.
Irrelevant. Whether or not developing space weapons is a surefire way to launch a new space weapons race does not answer the question as to whether or not space weapons are necessary.
I personally like the phrase "amplitudes per second."
The best one yet (can't remember where) was a site that told me that I couldn't use my browser. There was a contact link so I clicked that to complain--and got yet another message saying my browser wasn't going to cut it. I couldn't even contact them thanks to some idiot web developers. I was going to look up contact information in their whois record and call and bitch but I decided I had already wasted enough time on those clowns. I don't remember what site that was, but I went to another site that had no problems with my browser and did business with them.
Companies and web developers that continue to do IE-only developer are slowly going to become obsolete. This kind of IE-only nonsense was never acceptable but they could get away with it when 95%+ of the people were using IE. That's changing more and more every day and companies are going to look less and less fondly of their own website that's throwing away 10% of their potential profits, and that percentage is growing daily!
NOTE TO TROLLS: Don't tell me a company isn't going to care about 10% of profits. If you have stock in a company that doesn't care about 10% profits, sell your stock, because it's probably going to go down soon. Companies might not develop Linux applications for a 10% market due to the R&D cost, but something like a web page that has no excuse for not handling everyone is a completely different story.
This has to be one of the most absurd and offensive articles I've seen in awhile. Must not be much for BusinessWeek to report or they're trying to drum up sales with alarmist nonsense.
PS--If it were true, I'll be eagerly awaiting the rapid rise in engineer salaries that would accompany such a scenario. But I'm not counting on it.
In fact, I'd just assume have DST all year long. In the winter when I get home from work there is absolutely no time for a bike ride before dark.
"Similar charges have been made about U.N. missions in Sierra Leone and Liberia, as well as Kosovo and Bosnia in Europe."
6. ???
7. Africans profit when the stack overflows.
The stack will only overflow if you relace "5. Goto 2" with "5. GOSUBB> 2".
I doubt it. Taking religion out of the mix will certainly avoid religious wars, but distributing wealth so everyone has the same amount won't avert war. There will still be people that want to take what belongs to their neighbors and, hence, wars will be fought because no-one wants to have the exact same wealth as their neighbor. They want more.
If people want to wage war, the only way to stop them is a lobotomy.
Now there's something I can agree with. As long as humans exist, war will exist. The sooner we recognize and accept that fact the better. I'm all for avoiding war and I do think that we can realistically reduce the incidence of war, but we cannot eliminate it. As such, I fully support having a hell-strong military so that when there is war that we achieve overwhelming victory.
I doubt it. With increasing military might, wars have become less deadly. Compare WWII to Vietnam or Iraq. Yes, I know, hugely different scales. But overwhelming military force makes use of opposing force less attractive and allows that force to be used in a much more focused manner. Complain all you want about civilian casualties in Iraq, but I'll bet it doesn't even come close to half the civilian casualties in Dresden in two days in WWII. And compare the American losses in Iraq to those in Vietnam on a yearly basis and even in an occupation situation, deaths are lower.
Global demilitarization would simply put all countries back on equal footing... Which is more or less where we were before Germany started building up in the 1920's and 1930's and we know how many lives that saved. And when the next ambitious country comes along and starts building up, we'll get to ship in hundreds of thousands of soldiers armed with nothing more than guns and essentially repeat the tragedies of WWII events such as D-Day.
Yes, I'm American. Yes, I'm glad we have the military might rather than someone else. But even if our military might is not always used in ways the world appreciates, the stabilizing aspect of our overwhelming force (and that of the former Soviet Union) has prevented another world war from occurring for 60 years. That's almost four times as long as the time between WWI and WWII.
Sorry, disarmament is waaaay overrated.
Why do you assume that humans will stop recording and being interested in history? Seems like an illogical position for you to take.