Saddam has been kicking inspectors out of his country, then saying "Oh, come right in," for the last 10 years. Then he wonders why people were getting annoyed with him.
Sure they were making progress, he said that right after Saddam kicked them out again. And then Saddam offered to let them come back in. More stalling tactics.
The thing is, I agree that our current President Bush went about it the wrong way. He really should have built more of a coalition, since everyone else should have held up their end of the bargain as well. The problem is indeed that we were sending the wrong message. The message we should have been sending is that the UN does still have teeth. Unfortunately, we sent that the UN is toothless, since they won't hold up their end of the deal, but the US might come in the UN's place.
The parent post is an illustration of the point of the original article, that if you repeat something often enough people will believe it and forget the truth.
Indeed, but we didn't sign a cease-fire that said that we would allow them.
Taking and holding Baghdad was judged impossible in 1991, and it's probably impossible now. The difference is that Bush Sr. had the sense to listen to his military advisers.
And what does that have to do with the fact that Saddam agreed to allow weapons inspectors, on the condition that if you keep fooling around we were going to come back.
Warning someone 200 times that you're going to kill them doesn't make it legal to do so. The same principle applies to nations.
No, and warning them we are going to hold up our end of a bargain that they made with us earlier doesn't make it legal either, the bargain they made earlier does.
Or rather a message was sent that the United States will attack whom ever it wants, when ever it wants.
Or perhaps that perhaps you should open your country up to weapons inspectors and get out of their way as you agreed to when we let you keep your country earlier? Perhaps you should heed one of the last 200 warnings of "No, really, you need to let us in, like you agreed to do."
Just a thought, but that's what most everyone I talk to thinks we went into Iraq for.
Thank you for raising that. It was sort of annoying to see how quite a few people seem to think that the Kyoto treaty was a gift from God, and it would solve all our problems, and how Bush is utterly evil because he was in charge of the government that turned it down.
You know, the thing is, I realize that humans are polluting the environment, no one argues with that. Is it doing irreparable damage? Not in the really long term. Might we die off before it gets repaired? Sure.
There's a lot of stuff we can be doing, and I do a lot of it myself, but there's also no reason to get rabid about it, and there's no reason to jump at the first treaty that talks about cutting pollution, especially when it's a poorly formed one that is made to benefit certain countries over others (and not the least-polluting countries either).
Region coding allows us to ensure that customers in each of our markets can be optimally supported by customer service advisors trained in the specifics of that market.
Oh, so *that's* why I keep getting a hold of a guy from another country who can't speak clear english, and can't understand me either.
What I love is how they said that they aren't doing this to make money, but then state that it will pay off once the US dollar rises over the Euro. Umm. If it will pay off when the dollar rises over the Euro, then how exactly is this not related to price controls, and thus profits?
I thought the mods (Troll) on your post as well as the parent (Flamebait) were both in poor taste, really. They're both funny.
Seriously, yes, everyone knows that Al Gore didn't actually think he invented the internet. However, he did play a part in getting the public into it. The fun part is that he *said* that he invented the internet, which, taken literally, is really quite fun to poke at. Everyone just relax, these Al Gore jokes are to be laughed at, not taken seriously. Just like he was.:D
Almost half the country (including myself) tried, my friend.
Oddly enough, even a lot of us who voted for Bush agree with a lot of these ideas, but the Dems must have *wanted* to lose. If they wanted to win they could have put someone worth a damn up to bat, I certainly would have voted for him. Given how pathetic Bush is for a choice, Kerry was insulting. Neither choice was acceptable. As the parent said, we really need to get rid of our two party system, or get some new blood in there at the very least!
Actually, they have both options in Word. The tab is called Character Spacing, but they have Position, which is vertical, and Spacing, which is horizontal.
2) The whole thing that got me started doing an analysis of this was that I thought immediately that I recognized the shift in baseline that can most easily be seen in characters that are repeated, like ll and tt. That cannot be done with Microsoft Word. It is a characteristic of out-of-adjustment IBM machines.
I honestly don't know much about typesetting, but that one struck me as being odd. Quick question: Does highlighting the character, going Format->Font->Character Spacing and setting the position value count?
Unfortunately, the statement from CBS is useless without knowing what questions they asked.
I mean, there's a large difference in: "Did he have bad days?" or "Did he ever come under pressure?" (as in relation to having trouble running interference, etc) and: "Did he ever say anything about Bush, and if so, what?"
VOTE KERRY: Because... um... well, look at the alternative! Geez!
I know that it's probably your sig, but *that* is what I think is the saddest part about this election.
We have a president who's an idiot (though by many accounts a great-big-lovable-teddy-bear moron) and "someone else."
What's really fun is that neither side wants you to actually look at the candidate, they just both seem to want to tell you "you don't want the other guy in office!"
*sigh* I'll tell you that I am voting for Bush, but to be honest, it's mainly because if Kerry wins we might be stuck with him for 8 years, whereas only 4 more with Bush. Add to that the gut feeling I have about Kerry, and I feel it's easier for me to keep Bush in check (stupidity is easier to manage than someone who changes their line constantly), and I pretty much have to.
Though granted, if Bush wins, Hillary might very well run next time.. And THAT thought is truely the scariest of nightmares..
Actually, it's worse than that. She lives in the UK, but she's getting harassed by a multinational company and a person in the US. Penguin could take their case to the English courts easily enough, but it's better for them and KatieT to file over here, since it'll cost Katie even more that way.
Thanks for the clarification. I had gotten the impression from talking to him that most of the good stuff is from things that you don't have to fight for the spot over.
Oh well, guess I keep waiting until someone makes a MMORPG worth my money.
I don't know, I sort of like the idea of making the skill aquisition automatic. Just make it really, REALLY slow. Like you want to raise your armor-making skill? Sure, it's going to take 6 months of setting yourself as working on it at night though.
If everyone could just walk up to the cave, say a magic word, and pop here's the monster, what's the challenge? What's the reward?
How about being able to actually do something useful? Or maybe being able to kill the creature instead of having it killed constantly?
The rare spawn thing doesn't just suck, it really, really sucks. It killed the game for me anyway. I played E&B. In fact, it first hit during a good time for me, so I played it a lot. I played it pretty well too. I was picking up jobs *on the way* before 90% of the players on the server even knew that they existed. But I can't stand having to camp places on the off chance the thing will spawn, and then the really off chance it'll give you what you want. I prefer playing nice, actually. So I did. I went around and helped everyone else out, and when a guy was trying to get a spawn, I just buffed him and let him be. I figured there's always time later, right? Well, as my time disappeared, the camping spots got worse and worse. More and more power-gamers wanted to get the stuff, get powerful, and then they'd quit. And since these players had the really powerful equipment, the devs had to buff the creatures even more, to present a challenge. What does that do to people who don't have time to spend doing that? It makes a full 1/2 the game virtually impossible to play without having to spend enormous amounts of time.
Don't get me wrong, I had fun, but it wasn't because of the final product.
I've actually been paying pretty close attention to a friend playing FFO, and I'm kinda liking the way they handle "rare spawns", at least as far as I can tell. You have to do all sorts of stuff before you can do it, but you trigger a spawn for *your* group. Anyone can get everything and trigger it. Sure, it does take some time, but it's basically just you go do X and Y, and then you're done. Can't do it again without someone else who has never done it.
The guy that posted it isn't necessarily racist because the guy was black, the title that he gave it showed pretty clearly that he had no respect for the man who killed himself.
To be honest, I haven't seen the video, and I actually haven't RTFA either. However, a title talking about "Cleaning" the projects due to a suicide is racist. It doesn't matter that the man was white, black, red, green or anything else. Hell, it could be a black guy that posted the video about a black guy, but I'd still say he was racist, just due to the title.
I understand that your point is that at the very least, even if it wasn't racist, it shows the man who posted it thought that the man who killed himself was trash that needed to be "cleaned." I completely agree with that, of course.
Ahh, okay. So you don't see them really doing this to defend themselves or the integrity of their name, or anything like that. But from what you say, it wouldn't matter anyway.
Is it never okay to sue another company over labeling or logo usage? That seems to be what our disagreement is based on. I actually agree that sometimes it's necessary to sue the other company to preserve your brand.
Google has put several years work into just making themselves a good household name, almost everyone seems to think "Google" when the words "search engine" come up. That does take a lot of work. Just like how Apple sued another company several years ago about having a little apple-like logo on their computers. (I searched for a link but wasn't able to come up with anything, too much about Apple suing Apple..) I would actually say that sometimes you need to stop people from doing things like that, otherwise you end up with 30 different brands of soda that all look almost like Coke. And you know what? In cases like that, there IS a tangible sales loss.
I'll even say that Google will probably lose some hits (which lead to sales) due to this other search engine's UI design. I'd say that they're argument is more of the "They look like us and they're using that to steal our hits instead of their own hard work and results".
Still, you're right though, this sort of thing is the hardest to show real damage done. And it doesn't help that they don't get their money *directly* from hits..
I can understand that you don't like companies suing like this (though I'm wondering if any case would really qualify as an okay time to sue as far as trademarking goes).
What I don't get is how you say that they are using "predatory legal practices". All I see is a guy trying to make money off of Google's brand-naming efforts and making Google not happy that he's making it seem like it's based on them. How are Google's legal practices actually predatory? Would it *ever* be okay for Google to initiate legal action against anyone for anything?
I'm going to ignore the "parody" issue, as I agree with Google and other people about Booble not technically being an actual parody, but I suspect it's not really the issue here anyway.
I think the other poster's point was that you had several posts all stating much the same thing, though some additional points and ideas in most of them as well. I think he was just upset you didn't formulate your post in a calm and controlled fashion and post a single, well written post. I'd like to see that too, since I don't see many other people posting well thought-out posts about how Google is in the wrong, most of them seem to be of the knee-jerk variety..
That right there is exactly the problem. American public schools are broke
Like hell they are. American high schools (not sure about lower) recieve an inordinate amount of money per student, when compared to community colleges, etc. The reason our kids can't get a decent education isn't the fault of not having the money to do so, it's because the money is being misdirected, and they have policies that they have to follow out the wazoo. That kind of stuff raises the administration costs per kid even more.
Schools have money. They just can't seem to figure out how to use it right.
While we're on the topic, if you are in high school, or have children in high school, make sure you check and see if your area has a program allowing students in their junior and senior years of high school attend local colleges instead of high school to get college *and* high school course credit. States are happy to do so, since it is cheaper to send a kid to college than to high school, but high schools don't tend to inform people about these programs for some odd reason.
Whoops, thanks for pointing that out AC, I actually was talking about the maximum. Sorry about that. I don't know of a minimum, though I'm sure it's less than the cost of court fees, so there you go.
If they screw with you like that, small claims court is a great option. Some states recognize this and have already upped the limit to much higher.
AFAIK, small claims court is a state-limited court, so you'll have to check the limit for your state, but I think the minimum is at least $1000, some are much higher. See nolo.com for your particular state.
When Titanic was out in theatres, my family went to see it with some other relatives. Right after dinner. And was parked in the middle of the row with some sizable people around.
Started having to go to the bathroom within the first 15-30 minutes. And what did the majority of the end of the movie (at least that I bothered watching) have to do with? Right. Water. Nice flushing sounds as the water is going through the ship..
Oh yeah, and to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it: The ship sinks!:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Saddam has been kicking inspectors out of his country, then saying "Oh, come right in," for the last 10 years. Then he wonders why people were getting annoyed with him.
Sure they were making progress, he said that right after Saddam kicked them out again. And then Saddam offered to let them come back in. More stalling tactics.
The thing is, I agree that our current President Bush went about it the wrong way. He really should have built more of a coalition, since everyone else should have held up their end of the bargain as well. The problem is indeed that we were sending the wrong message. The message we should have been sending is that the UN does still have teeth. Unfortunately, we sent that the UN is toothless, since they won't hold up their end of the deal, but the US might come in the UN's place.
The parent post is an illustration of the point of the original article, that if you repeat something often enough people will believe it and forget the truth.
Yeah, I noticed that about your post.
The US has also refused UN weapons inspections.
Indeed, but we didn't sign a cease-fire that said that we would allow them.
Taking and holding Baghdad was judged impossible in 1991, and it's probably impossible now. The difference is that Bush Sr. had the sense to listen to his military advisers.
And what does that have to do with the fact that Saddam agreed to allow weapons inspectors, on the condition that if you keep fooling around we were going to come back.
Warning someone 200 times that you're going to kill them doesn't make it legal to do so. The same principle applies to nations.
No, and warning them we are going to hold up our end of a bargain that they made with us earlier doesn't make it legal either, the bargain they made earlier does.
Or rather a message was sent that the United States will attack whom ever it wants, when ever it wants.
Or perhaps that perhaps you should open your country up to weapons inspectors and get out of their way as you agreed to when we let you keep your country earlier? Perhaps you should heed one of the last 200 warnings of "No, really, you need to let us in, like you agreed to do."
Just a thought, but that's what most everyone I talk to thinks we went into Iraq for.
Thank you for raising that. It was sort of annoying to see how quite a few people seem to think that the Kyoto treaty was a gift from God, and it would solve all our problems, and how Bush is utterly evil because he was in charge of the government that turned it down.
You know, the thing is, I realize that humans are polluting the environment, no one argues with that. Is it doing irreparable damage? Not in the really long term. Might we die off before it gets repaired? Sure.
There's a lot of stuff we can be doing, and I do a lot of it myself, but there's also no reason to get rabid about it, and there's no reason to jump at the first treaty that talks about cutting pollution, especially when it's a poorly formed one that is made to benefit certain countries over others (and not the least-polluting countries either).
Region coding allows us to ensure that customers in each of our markets can be optimally supported by customer service advisors trained in the specifics of that market.
Oh, so *that's* why I keep getting a hold of a guy from another country who can't speak clear english, and can't understand me either.
What I love is how they said that they aren't doing this to make money, but then state that it will pay off once the US dollar rises over the Euro. Umm. If it will pay off when the dollar rises over the Euro, then how exactly is this not related to price controls, and thus profits?
I thought the mods (Troll) on your post as well as the parent (Flamebait) were both in poor taste, really. They're both funny.
:D
Seriously, yes, everyone knows that Al Gore didn't actually think he invented the internet. However, he did play a part in getting the public into it. The fun part is that he *said* that he invented the internet, which, taken literally, is really quite fun to poke at. Everyone just relax, these Al Gore jokes are to be laughed at, not taken seriously. Just like he was.
Almost half the country (including myself) tried, my friend.
Oddly enough, even a lot of us who voted for Bush agree with a lot of these ideas, but the Dems must have *wanted* to lose. If they wanted to win they could have put someone worth a damn up to bat, I certainly would have voted for him. Given how pathetic Bush is for a choice, Kerry was insulting. Neither choice was acceptable. As the parent said, we really need to get rid of our two party system, or get some new blood in there at the very least!
Hell, give me someone who scares me *less* than Bush, and I'll vote for him in an instant. I can't stand the guy, but Kerry *really* scares me.
Both parties sucked big time this year.. Again.. Can we get some decent people next time? Please?
Actually, they have both options in Word. The tab is called Character Spacing, but they have Position, which is vertical, and Spacing, which is horizontal.
2) The whole thing that got me started doing an analysis of this was that I thought immediately that I recognized the shift in baseline that can most easily be seen in characters that are repeated, like ll and tt. That cannot be done with Microsoft Word. It is a characteristic of out-of-adjustment IBM machines.
I honestly don't know much about typesetting, but that one struck me as being odd. Quick question: Does highlighting the character, going Format->Font->Character Spacing and setting the position value count?
Unfortunately, the statement from CBS is useless without knowing what questions they asked.
I mean, there's a large difference in:
"Did he have bad days?" or "Did he ever come under pressure?" (as in relation to having trouble running interference, etc)
and:
"Did he ever say anything about Bush, and if so, what?"
And so on..
More information is needed from all parties.
VOTE KERRY: Because... um... well, look at the alternative! Geez!
I know that it's probably your sig, but *that* is what I think is the saddest part about this election.
We have a president who's an idiot (though by many accounts a great-big-lovable-teddy-bear moron) and "someone else."
What's really fun is that neither side wants you to actually look at the candidate, they just both seem to want to tell you "you don't want the other guy in office!"
*sigh* I'll tell you that I am voting for Bush, but to be honest, it's mainly because if Kerry wins we might be stuck with him for 8 years, whereas only 4 more with Bush. Add to that the gut feeling I have about Kerry, and I feel it's easier for me to keep Bush in check (stupidity is easier to manage than someone who changes their line constantly), and I pretty much have to.
Though granted, if Bush wins, Hillary might very well run next time.. And THAT thought is truely the scariest of nightmares..
Actually, it's worse than that. She lives in the UK, but she's getting harassed by a multinational company and a person in the US. Penguin could take their case to the English courts easily enough, but it's better for them and KatieT to file over here, since it'll cost Katie even more that way.
Thanks for the clarification. I had gotten the impression from talking to him that most of the good stuff is from things that you don't have to fight for the spot over.
Oh well, guess I keep waiting until someone makes a MMORPG worth my money.
I don't know, I sort of like the idea of making the skill aquisition automatic. Just make it really, REALLY slow. Like you want to raise your armor-making skill? Sure, it's going to take 6 months of setting yourself as working on it at night though.
If everyone could just walk up to the cave, say a magic word, and pop here's the monster, what's the challenge? What's the reward?
How about being able to actually do something useful? Or maybe being able to kill the creature instead of having it killed constantly?
The rare spawn thing doesn't just suck, it really, really sucks. It killed the game for me anyway. I played E&B. In fact, it first hit during a good time for me, so I played it a lot. I played it pretty well too. I was picking up jobs *on the way* before 90% of the players on the server even knew that they existed. But I can't stand having to camp places on the off chance the thing will spawn, and then the really off chance it'll give you what you want. I prefer playing nice, actually. So I did. I went around and helped everyone else out, and when a guy was trying to get a spawn, I just buffed him and let him be. I figured there's always time later, right? Well, as my time disappeared, the camping spots got worse and worse. More and more power-gamers wanted to get the stuff, get powerful, and then they'd quit. And since these players had the really powerful equipment, the devs had to buff the creatures even more, to present a challenge. What does that do to people who don't have time to spend doing that? It makes a full 1/2 the game virtually impossible to play without having to spend enormous amounts of time.
Don't get me wrong, I had fun, but it wasn't because of the final product.
I've actually been paying pretty close attention to a friend playing FFO, and I'm kinda liking the way they handle "rare spawns", at least as far as I can tell. You have to do all sorts of stuff before you can do it, but you trigger a spawn for *your* group. Anyone can get everything and trigger it. Sure, it does take some time, but it's basically just you go do X and Y, and then you're done. Can't do it again without someone else who has never done it.
Scotty gave us this technology back in 1986, I could have sworn I saw him entering it into a Mac Plus...
:-)
Thus why we're just now seeing it come out.
The guy that posted it isn't necessarily racist because the guy was black, the title that he gave it showed pretty clearly that he had no respect for the man who killed himself.
To be honest, I haven't seen the video, and I actually haven't RTFA either. However, a title talking about "Cleaning" the projects due to a suicide is racist. It doesn't matter that the man was white, black, red, green or anything else. Hell, it could be a black guy that posted the video about a black guy, but I'd still say he was racist, just due to the title.
I understand that your point is that at the very least, even if it wasn't racist, it shows the man who posted it thought that the man who killed himself was trash that needed to be "cleaned." I completely agree with that, of course.
Ahh, okay. So you don't see them really doing this to defend themselves or the integrity of their name, or anything like that. But from what you say, it wouldn't matter anyway.
Is it never okay to sue another company over labeling or logo usage? That seems to be what our disagreement is based on. I actually agree that sometimes it's necessary to sue the other company to preserve your brand.
Google has put several years work into just making themselves a good household name, almost everyone seems to think "Google" when the words "search engine" come up. That does take a lot of work. Just like how Apple sued another company several years ago about having a little apple-like logo on their computers. (I searched for a link but wasn't able to come up with anything, too much about Apple suing Apple..) I would actually say that sometimes you need to stop people from doing things like that, otherwise you end up with 30 different brands of soda that all look almost like Coke. And you know what? In cases like that, there IS a tangible sales loss.
I'll even say that Google will probably lose some hits (which lead to sales) due to this other search engine's UI design. I'd say that they're argument is more of the "They look like us and they're using that to steal our hits instead of their own hard work and results".
Still, you're right though, this sort of thing is the hardest to show real damage done. And it doesn't help that they don't get their money *directly* from hits..
I can understand that you don't like companies suing like this (though I'm wondering if any case would really qualify as an okay time to sue as far as trademarking goes).
What I don't get is how you say that they are using "predatory legal practices". All I see is a guy trying to make money off of Google's brand-naming efforts and making Google not happy that he's making it seem like it's based on them. How are Google's legal practices actually predatory? Would it *ever* be okay for Google to initiate legal action against anyone for anything?
I'm going to ignore the "parody" issue, as I agree with Google and other people about Booble not technically being an actual parody, but I suspect it's not really the issue here anyway.
I think the other poster's point was that you had several posts all stating much the same thing, though some additional points and ideas in most of them as well. I think he was just upset you didn't formulate your post in a calm and controlled fashion and post a single, well written post. I'd like to see that too, since I don't see many other people posting well thought-out posts about how Google is in the wrong, most of them seem to be of the knee-jerk variety..
That right there is exactly the problem. American public schools are broke
Like hell they are. American high schools (not sure about lower) recieve an inordinate amount of money per student, when compared to community colleges, etc. The reason our kids can't get a decent education isn't the fault of not having the money to do so, it's because the money is being misdirected, and they have policies that they have to follow out the wazoo. That kind of stuff raises the administration costs per kid even more.
Schools have money. They just can't seem to figure out how to use it right.
While we're on the topic, if you are in high school, or have children in high school, make sure you check and see if your area has a program allowing students in their junior and senior years of high school attend local colleges instead of high school to get college *and* high school course credit. States are happy to do so, since it is cheaper to send a kid to college than to high school, but high schools don't tend to inform people about these programs for some odd reason.
Whoops, thanks for pointing that out AC, I actually was talking about the maximum. Sorry about that. I don't know of a minimum, though I'm sure it's less than the cost of court fees, so there you go.
If they screw with you like that, small claims court is a great option. Some states recognize this and have already upped the limit to much higher.
AFAIK, small claims court is a state-limited court, so you'll have to check the limit for your state, but I think the minimum is at least $1000, some are much higher. See nolo.com for your particular state.
To claim land you must surround it with a fence that is strong enough to stop a cow.
:-)
Ahh, but at what velocity?
you would fill up with explosives and then blast your self around, quickly running out of fuel
:-)
Did you intend on making a pretty decent description of a combustion engine?
When Titanic was out in theatres, my family went to see it with some other relatives. Right after dinner. And was parked in the middle of the row with some sizable people around.
:-)
Started having to go to the bathroom within the first 15-30 minutes. And what did the majority of the end of the movie (at least that I bothered watching) have to do with? Right. Water. Nice flushing sounds as the water is going through the ship..
Oh yeah, and to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it: The ship sinks!