Again, I believe the insurgency is being led from outside the country
What evidence do you have to support this? The vast majority of the violence is sectarian, and it is being publically promulgated by Iraqi natives, like Muqtada al Sadr. And who is doing this? Al Qaeda does not have the resources and it's difficult to believe that any of the Sunni regional powers would like to see an unstable Iraq. That leaves Iran, but they have little incentive to promote violence against the Americans when the Americans are supporting a pro-Iran government in Iraq.
More importantly, the insurgency is not monolithic and mostly consists of what amounts to local street gangs. And many of these groups issue public statements and propogand and many of their members are publically known, and they are all Iraqi. It is difficult to imagine how anyone could not only secretly fund and manage such disparate groups, but that they could keep it all secret AND pump out huge volumes of fabricated propoganda.
No, the "insurgency" or "resistence", or more accurately, "rogue milita" in Iraq are almost entirely home-grown.
Be prepared for a lot of calls to regional customer service centers and having to wade past a couple of lower tiers of "customer service" on each call in order to get someone to give you your money back or a store credit (more likely). Each lower tier will claim that they cannot refund your money because of the piracy issues.
And they can kiss your ass. In California and in many other states you can't sell defective merchandise. Period. And it is the customer that determines what counts as "defective". Yeah, you can force them to take back that monitor with one bad pixel. In fact, in practice this means you have a 30 day return policy on ANYTHING in California. If they don't take it back, take them to small claims court. The filing fee is usually less than $50. Be sure to ask for an additional $500 in court for the store wasting your time.
Another alternative is to pay with a credit card and then dispute the charge if they don't agree to the return. American Express and Visa are generally very good about this. Chargebacks are very expensive for merchants.
The whole concept of "ratings" is basically an anti-competitive move against "independents" in any industry. This is merely an extension of that problem. Fees have always been used to lockout shoestring independent films (for example) from MPAA ratings. This is no different. The fees are meant to help alleviate the cost of the ESRB, which is presumably funded by other means. The fees should be waived for "small" games (games that sell less thatn 50,000 copies). As for free games the ESRB should, on it's own initative, obtain and review these games posting reviews on the websites allowing free vendors to easily attach ratings. Sure it will be an expense, but isn't the ESRB supposed to be about customer service anyway?
Once you've identified the location from which the shot was fired, you shine a laser at it at an intensity such that if you're looking at it with the naked eye, you're extremely uncomfortable, but if you're looking through a scope, you lose an eye.
Besides the aformentioned Geneva issues (laser weapons used for blinding being needlessly cruel), what's the point? Targeting the scope at the proper angle seems to be a MUCH more difficult issue than you take into consideration. And if you can target the scope well enough to do this, surely you can target the sniper himself. If you can locate and target the sniper, why not just kill him? And not with an incredibly expensive laser system, but with conventional weapons.
What is needed is better target detection and tracking systems to direct the already available firepower. The system in the article is of dubious value because if you read carefully it's not that the robot does a better job of detecting snipers than a soldier, just that it is CAPABLE of doing so and could theoretically be approach a sniper (and get shot up) more safely. But is a heavy, complicated, expensive piece of equipment. I think it's very unlikely soldiers are going to haul this thing out every time they suspect they are entering an area containg a sniper. And they have to hope that the snipers are stupid enough to shoot at it. I suspect they will learn pretty quickly there is no point in attacking the robot.
The civilians don't care much if Americans kill insurgents, as long as they only kill insurgents. You have to understand that most of the Iraqis are completely sick of the war. They don't care who's fighting whom, who's blowing up whom, they just want it done, they want us out, they want the insurgents to stop.
Think about this for a minute. The insurgents come for the civilian population, that's a fact. These are the "civilians" fathers, sons, brothers, etc. Do you really assume they "don't care" about their relatives? Polls show as much as 70% of the population of Iraq supports the insurgents. Are you going to kill 19 million people? The insurgents are simply not going to stop attacking Coalition forces are long as the Colaition forces remain and there remains some native population.
And it's also become more apparent to everyone that the insurgency has always been coming from Iran.
It's pretty apparent that while Iran certainly supports some factions in Iraq, the conflict has it's own internal causes. Assuming your thesis is correct, what would the solution be? Putting diplomatic pressure on Iran would not work as and military pressure is not a option. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter if the violence is caused by outside forces or not since the USA is clearly less capable fo controlling htose "outside forces" than the enemy within Iraq.
Look at all the major changes in previous 5 year spans. Compare Windows 3.11 in 93 to Windows 98 in 98, or Windows 95 in 95 to Windows 2000 in 2000 and you'll see what I'm talking about. Hell, compare the initial (really awfull) release of OSX 10.0 to the decent release of 10.4 only 4 years later. Sure there's a lot more to improve in OS X since it was so totally new.. but the fact that Apple can pull off more in less time doesn't speak well for Microsoft.
I think the Apple analogy is rather apt. It's also been 5 years the the release of a new version of Internet Explorer. It seems on the "consumer" side at least, there have been problems at Microsoft simiar to the problems Apple faced in the mid 90's.
On the PC, there are 3 core genres that don't sem to be going away:
First Person Shooters Massively Multiplayer Online RPGs Strategy games of all kinds
PCs remain at the cutting edge of graphics and these are the genres of games most dependant on that. Innovations in PC graphics, primarly because of games of these genres, essentially "trickle down" to the consoles and that dynamic seems unlikely to change anytime soon. Also, the keyboard and mouse control scheme is widely considered superior to console controllers for these kinds of games. With the great similarity of the XBOX 360 and PS3 controllers to their predecessors this also seems unlikely to change.
Sure Americans aren't taught about this, unless they play football, basketball, soccer, are members of the Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts, go hiking, camping, or attend a required Physical Education course in Junior High or High School. In ALL of these places I was taught about the dangers of drinking too much water, especialy when it's really hot. But then, I grew up in California where people do lots of outdoor activities and it sometimes gets hot. Just like this woman, who attended the same public schools that I did.
She was ignorant, absolutely. The DJs were even more ignorant and stupid for not warning participants of the danger. I think her family may have a case against the radio statio, but that doesn't mean she didn't act foolishly. It's the "coming together" of these stupid people that was the problem (notice that none of the other contest participants died or was injured).
Another thing that irritates me is that there is not enough attention paid to the rural population's transportation needs. The rural population tends to have less income, yet has to travel longer distances in order to do shopping, go to the doctor, etc. and often for work.
So our civilization should cater to a small minority rather than the vast majority of the population? There ARE costs associated with living out in the sticks. Rent is a lot cheaper. Utilities may be cheaper. Taxes may be lower. But you might have to haul your own garbage, or grade your own road, or etc. Having to pay more for your vehicle is simply part of that. If you don't like it, move to the city.
Rural people don't need to waste gas, but do need different vehicles than are often considered 'environmentally correct'. For instance, the Subaru Brat was a bit hit in Northern New England when it was introduced because it provided an inexpensive 4WD pickup with great gas mileage.
It *IS* indeed possible to make 4WD vehicles that are fuel effiecent. For example, Subaru Outbacks are popular with the mountain folk up there. Of course they're lighter and flimisier than the trucks and can't handle really tough terrain.
When I played GTA San Andreas I remember thinking to myself, "This isn't the kind of game I'd want my kids playing." For me, it hit a little bit too close home. Having grown up in Long Beach, and seen gang life first hand, the game was uncomfortably realistic. As an adult, I could see it for the entertainment and escapism that it was. However I think that when you expose kids to that kind of content, you are in effect saying, "I approve." and I don't think that it is right to tell your children that you approve of the lifestyle being presented in a game like GTA:San Andreas.
Does anybody think that by watching "Scarface", you are approving of the lifestyle of cocaine trafficing? That by watching "Pirates of the Carribean" you're approving of piracy? etc.
I also think you're being a bit naive here. Is San Andreas going to be kids only, or even primary, exposure to the gangster lifestyle? Not hardly. What about music, television, movies, and most importantly, other kids and the world around them? I grew up in an elite suburb, but I still had exposure to the crips, the bloods, and skinheads. "Sheltering" kids doesn't work, it just strips them of the ability to aquire street smarts.
Maybe when you're in you're seventies and in searing pain you might find it more difficult.
Or maybe she was overly concerned with modesty to the point that she let herself get severely burned?
And I was using the high end of the two to five second threshold at which liquid at that temperature causes 3rd degree burns.
I call bullshit on this. I've had parts of my body IMMERSED in boiling water for longer than 5 seconds and I did not recieve 3rd-degree burns. 2nd-degree only, and no skin loss. So I am utterly convinced that her exposure was considerably longer.
That's the whole point. People make mistakes, but a dangerous product is one where the consequence of common mistakes like the exact same one you made yourself are not ridiculously out of proportion with what one would expect.
Virtually every product on the market has the potential to cause severe harm or death if used improperly. In my case I was sitting in the passenger side, and the driver took the cup of coffee, took the lid off and took a sip, then handed me the hot coffee cup, and then accelerated which caused the hot coffee to slosh all over me. I think would would be insane to blame the McDonald's Corporation for this incident. By your logic I would have grounds to sue for my minor injuries.
How about the recognition that this was a freak accident? Out of BILLIONS of cups served, millions presumably to elderly women, this is the only person who somehow managed to severely burn themselves. I more inclined to believe that this case was exceptional rather than McDonald's coffee cups being ticking time bombs.
It's like excusing the Ford Pinto because, well, you just shouldn't get in an accident!
The Ford Pinto case was probably BS too. Statistically, the Ford Pinto didn't really have more fires than other corparable vehicles. But the key difference is that that the Pinto lacked critical safety features common to cars of that era, so at least in terms of design the car was exceptionally unsafe. This is not the case with McDonald's coffee, though some have argued this.
There is a civil war in Iraq right now, sponsored and exacerbated largely by the United States. If the US forces left Iraq there is little doubt the civil conflict would abate.
What's the evidence for this?
The civil war in Iraq is roughly a 5-way conflict. The sides are, roughly:
4) The Coalition forces (American, British, etc.) and milita
5) Islamist foreign insurgents
The Coalition forces are currently backing 2 sides of this conflict, the Shi'te and Kurdish milita. They are actively fighting the other 2 sides, the Sunni milita and Islamist insurgents (who are largely on the side of the Sunni).
The conflict would abate if the Coalition forces left simply because there would be fewer people fighting in the country. The Coalition would stop it's fighting against the Sunni and Islamists, and it's likely that most of Islamists would leave as they are in Iraq mostly to fight the Coalition forces.
Note that I said "abate", not "end". I'm merely saying the the situation would improve somewhat, not that the war would end if the Coalition forces left. It is likely the conflict will continue until Syria, Iran, and Iraq's other neighbors directly intervene.
First, off-the-shelf magstripe technology has neither the data density nor the durability required for this application.
I sharply disagree on the durability aspect, it's good enough for credit cards and other photo ID. And the data density is only a problem if you want the stripe to contain ALL of the data on the passport, including the photo, which I maintain is a terrible idea.
Your main pint of the other post was that privacy was not a design consideration of the contactless system even though this represents the primary object to such a system. So you're essentially validating that concern.
The chip is an additional security measure, in addition to all of the other security measures implemented in the passport (microprinting, laser perforation, holograms, etc., etc., etc.).
IN PRACTICE, it will be the sole security measure because no security staffer will ever actually look at the passport in detail. They will simply thumb open the back cover and scan the chip. If you have a fake chip all you will need, IN PRACTICE, is a passport cover. But it doesn't change the fact that it really is an all-eggs-in-one-basket approach.
Now you might argue that it's easier to fake the rest of the passport, but you would be wrong. Tampering with the photo, text, special paper etc. represents a relitively complicated procedure that must be done for each passport, requiring some sophistication. But with this system all that really hard work of cracking the system only needs to be done ONCE, then the chips could be easily cloned, etc. with off-the-shelf tools in a very short amount of time. This is EXACTLY what we say with the EU system.
As for my naivete, you do realize that breaking RSA would be a significant mathematical breakthrough, right?
Cryptographic attacks are usually based on implementation rather than direct attacks on the algorithim, like the attacks on the EU epassport system. The EU system uses AES but you can clone a passport in 5 minutes. I'm sure the Europeans thought their implementation was perfect too.
Passports would likely (but not certainly) have to be reissued.
Invalidating and reissuing millions of passports is completely impractical. I'm just going to ignore this.
You do realize that the contactless smart chips in passports is not a US initiative, right? ICAO is an international organization and the initial impetus for the chips came from Europe.
Yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't pork-barrel nonsense. Look at Joint Strike.
And ITMS users had Harmony long before that thanks.
Harmony does not strip the Fairplay DRM off songs purchased off the iTunes store. The current tool seems to be QTFairUse6 which stips off Fairplay leaving a raw AAC file, playable in only a very few MP3 players. Of course, you can transcode to MP3, but that's a pain in the ass. Still, I wasn't aware that this was working at all.
Any screen recording software will record it - one such example s SnapzPro. I'm sure we'll have an equivilent program to strip the DRM off it soon anyway.
If you don't think manually re-recording your videos (in realtime) isn't a major hassle, you have a lot more free time than I do. Apparently QTFairUse doesn't work on the video.
It does not strip the file, it reads it - and altering the name is a choice you can configure. Learn to use software before you critize the abilities it offers
Then explain it to me. How do I import a MP3 file into iTunes AND put it onto an iPod without the name being changed on either the desktop OR the iPod? iTunes 6 for Windows changes the filenames when the tracks are loaded onto the iPod into gibberish. How do I copy ONE track from my iPod to my friend's Windows system using ONLY iTunes?
Of course Apple is not directly pressing for this - it is the pressure from them, that you admit to in your own writing, that drives the only response possible to break free of Apple - unprotected files being sold.
I think I understand your reasoning. Apple has their own proprietary DRM and refuses to implement Windows Media. Apple has a huge marketshare for MP3 players (80%). Therefore, Windows Media stores are forced to adopt uprotected MP3 files in order to sell to iPod owners. This will force the labels to either submit to Apple's monopoly or sell unprotected MP3s.
I disagree. Yahoo's offering MP3's is a desperation move driven by poor sales at that store, I don't think it reflects a general trend. Secondly, the situation is easily resolved by creating custom library software for your store that works with iPods (see: Real). The client software could convert protected WMAs to MP3 on the fly, the labels would me much more likely to accept this more limited solution.
Though it is even more likely that some stores will simply end up reverse-engeneering and ripping off FairPlay, relying on the labels to give them some legal cover.
It's more like "give up cheap everything". The USA makes it's money through trade, and more specifically, by enforcing trade rules that benifet the United States at the expense of other nations. These rules are (ultimately) enforced through military action. If we don't "meddle" in other nations, those nations will try to get a better trade deal and the USA will lose lots of money, which will translate to a lower quality of life for Americans. There are plenty of other factors, but protecting economic interest is the main reason the USA "meddles" and the USA will continue to do so, as long as they want to keep making money.
How many would Saddam have killed if he'd remained in power?
A tiny fraction of those that are now dead. We don't have to speculate about this. It's a fact. It is quite easy to calculate what the death rate is in most nations, Iraq is not much of an exception even now. It's about 20x higher now than it was in early 2003 under Saddam Hussien. It's at least 5x what it was during the massive war with Iran. And since that war, Iraq's military capability (according to all accounts) had vastly degraded. Saddam Hussien didn't even have control of his own nation, with Northern Iraq effectively a seperate Kurdish state.
So IF Saddam Hussien were still in power, AND he decided to start a massive war with either Israel or Iran, AND he somehow completely reconsitituted his military to pre-Gulf War levels in the span of a few months, And he swiftly defeated the Kurdish forces, AND he set up concentration camps/death squads to kill huge numbers of Iraqis indiscriminately, he MIGHT have been able to match the current death rate. The chance of any of the above happening was/is ZERO.
He had gassed his own people, killing far more than have died in this current 'war'.
Wrong. The outside numbers of Iraqi civilians that died from poison gas (provided by the US government) is somewhere between 3,000 and 20,000. The number I've heard most often is 13,000. A far cry from the estimated 600,000 dead in the current conflict.
I doubt if you're going by strict numbers, you can say that more lives have been lost as a result of removing Saddam from power in this way than to leave him in power.
Again, you are wrong. Death rates in Iraq are currently at least 20x what they were in 2002/early 2003. Especially among young men.
Unless, of course, we bail out of Iraq. In that case, there will probably be a civil war which could cost hundreds of thousands more.
There is a civil war in Iraq right now, sponsored and exacerbated largely by the United States. If the US forces left Iraq there is little doubt the civil conflict would abate. However the deaths of hundreds of thousands more Iraqis is now inevitable. If you really want to do something to help them you should be encouraging the USA to stop pissing away billions on useless "security" expenses in Iraq and instead send that money directly to the (now millions of) Iraqi refugees crammed into Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, etc.
Therefore, even from a compassionate perspective, this was a mistake; not because we can't win, but because the American people don't have the testicular fortitude anymore to do what is necessary to win.
Define "win" and then describe in detail how we get there in Iraq. Explain to us how you plan to stop the sectarian violence in Iraq, stop the insurgency against Coalition forces, rebuild the shattered infrastructure of the country, and convince Iraqis to accept Western democracy, values, and economic policy. We constantly hear this drivel about "staying the course" and the need to "win" in Iraq without the slightest hint as to how we might do that or if it's even possible.
And no backpedaling. It is not fair to say "Well it COULD have gone perfectly, but Rumsfeld fucked it up." which is what you hear from a lot of necons today. You are saying that it is possible to "win" in Iraq NOW. I'd like to hear HOW.
You can't have military plans circulating weeks before an attack can you. Secrets are there for good reason.
While I hate to be snide, this is simply terribly naive. The military (for example) conceals MUCH more than is necessary for any practical sense of security. For example, why won't they give details about attacks AFTER they've occurred (like how many bombs were dropped and what kind and how many people were killed). Why are the financial details of military contracts kept hidden? How is national security compromised if it's revealed that the military spent $100 on a widget rather than the market proce of $10 a widget?
The fact is that "national security" is increasingly used as a way for government officials to conceal incompetence and corruption. This has gotten considerably worse during the Bush administration, widely regarded as the most opaque administration ever.
The public can't be trusted with everything.
I'm of the opinion that oversight by the public, flawed though it may be, is infinitely preferable to no oversight whatsoever. Look at Guantanamo Bay or the "rendition" program to see a total lack of oversight in action.
I happen to be 6'5" and in fairly good shape and I can just barely transport my 27" Trinitron single-handed. I believe a 32" would be impossible. This, more than anything, has prevented me from getting a new TV. I'm too cheap to shell out the money for a 32" LCD TV, but a bigger CRT would break my back. It's for this reason that I've been looking into a cheap projector. Though getting something that I would consider bright enough (2500+ lumens) and cheap enough has proved a bit of a problem.
The most basic acceptance test of any moral or social philosophy is whether it can be applied generally. Yours boils down to: I do what I think is correct.
ALL moral decisions are individual and ultimately arbitrary. He certainly CAN apply this moral principle universally: Do you think he would object to other people doing EXACTLY the same thing? (downloading a copy of purchased content in another format). He is saying that he "generally" believes the legal restrictions on the use of content are not "moral" and he chooses not to follow them, NOR DOES HE EXPECT OTHERS TO.
You, nor does anyone else in the world, do not seriously believe that you should slavishly follow every tiny aspect of the byzantine US legal system even assuming that were possible (it's not). Would you refuse to help somone that collapsed across the street because it would be jaywalking? Even better, in the US it's ALSO a crime to not help someone obviously in need. So in the above situation ther is LITERALLY NO WAY not to break the law. I could come up with a 1,000 more examples. It's very simple:
Law has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. Period.
Theonly use of which is for OS X to recognize it is running on Apple hardware - it IS NOT USED to prevent you from running Linux or any other OS, or adding your own OS X drivers, as Microsoft had been talking about.
Apple has used the "boot rom" and other techniques to prevent users from running MacOS on third-party hardware since it's inception. This is inherently more restrictive than the MS/Linux approach of alowing users to install their operating systems on commodity hardware.
That you can easily remove - even the video you can simply re-record with any number of video screen capture software. This is mandated by content providers, not Apple - remember Apple is the one that brought DRM to this loose state. Microsoft is the one giving you protected video paths with Vista.
I don't consider "manually re-recording all downloads" to be the same as "easily remove". Windows Media has hacks and tools to easily remove the DRM like FairUse4WM, and what THOSE tools do is actually strip off the DRM leaving you with an unprotected WMA file. And you're right, DRM is mandated by the content providers, just like with MS. The protected video paths are also mandated by content providers. If MacOS wants to play BlueRay or HD-DVD video Apple MUST implement something very similar.
You can't burn itunes tv shows to DVD
You can if you simply copy it.
I do not know what this means. You simply cannot convert a downloaded protected video to DVD-Video in iTunes and then burn it to a DVD. I do not know if there are third-party tools that allow you to do this.
Since iTunes recognizes ID3 tags it is childs play to copy a whole directory of music from any iPod you can mount into iTunes, and have the music all show up.
While iTunes recognizes ID3 tags, it actually strips them off MP3 files you import to iTunes and dumps the metadata into it's own proprietary database at the same time mangling the file names. All of this is done deliberately to make it hard to pull music off an iPod AND to make it completely incompatible with other MP3 players. The net effect is to make it a major hassle to copy a track to a friend's system because you have to A) Somehow figure out what random gibberish (SJDH23S.AAC for example) your track has been named and then manually re-naming and then re-tagging each file. This simply IS NOT a problem with every other MP3 player. Somehow EVERY OTHER MP3 vendor can manage to database music libraries without completely mangling the filenames and metadata. This is fucking terrible and anyone to defends it is just a desperate Apple fanboy.
People like you have been blasting Apple for DRM use for years when in fact Apple is the company that is slowly backing studios out of DRM use. the MP3 sales trial recently on Yahoo would never have been done if Apple had not locked up the popular use of DRM with Apple instead of an indsutry controlled company such as Microsoft.
The music industry hates Apple passionately because they percieve Apple as having "screwed them" on iTunes. Read some of my other posts on this issue. More importantly, the big labels are deathly afraid of one player (Apple) dominating the online music industry the way MTV dominates music videos. They (rightly) percieve this will put them at a financal disadvantage down the road, that's why the labels generally prefer the more "distributed" approach of Windows Media. The problem is that the diversity of products in Windows Media has created a somewhat less satisfying user experience, so the labels are trying various tricks and promotions to cajole users into the Windows Media camp, like the Yahoo! downloads.
If you have any solid evidence that Yahoo! developed this service due to pressure from Apple, I'd like to see it. Please explain why Apple isn't offering unprotected MP3s on their store if they are truly the ones pushing this.
Except the XPC/SFF luggables have the advantage for being actually able to upgrade or change components. Want a Dlue-Ray drive, you're SOL with the Dell. Want a decent video card? SOL again. Want a large, fast hard drive (the Dell uses notebook hard drives)? SOL again. etc.
As another poster mentioned, this system has all of the disadvantages of a laptop (proprietary, not expandable, expensive, etc.) and few of the advantages (battery, high portablity), which is exactly why luggables fell out of favor. Virtually everyone in this segment is MUCH better off with some sort of SFF system.
Clinton's Justice Department was noticably lackadaisical about prosecuting or enforcing certain accounting standards (depends on what your definition of 'profit' is, I guess.) Anyway, when Bush comes into office, with a business background, 'fudging the numbers' is not cool. You either made a profit or you didn't, regardless of what shell offshore companies you bought.
Um, no. Bush's Justice Department didn't move one finger to increase prosecaution for bad accounting practices until after there was huge public outcry over Enron, Worldcom, and other companies and then dragged their feet on prosecutions. Bush is strongly associated with Enron because Bush is a former business partner of Bush, among other things. Enron is Bush's #1 lifetime donor and his biggest contributor in the 2000 campaign. Bush has called Ken Lay a personal friend. He was also a personal friend of Dick Cheney. and part of his "Energy Task Force". It has been confirmed that Ken Lay was poised to be named as Secretary of Energy before the Enron scandal broke.
Bush is tagged with fostering this corruption.
Largely because he did. But most people throw the lion's share of the blame at the corrupt Republican congress for passing legislation that fostered a culture of abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I believe the insurgency is being led from outside the country
What evidence do you have to support this? The vast majority of the violence is sectarian, and it is being publically promulgated by Iraqi natives, like Muqtada al Sadr. And who is doing this? Al Qaeda does not have the resources and it's difficult to believe that any of the Sunni regional powers would like to see an unstable Iraq. That leaves Iran, but they have little incentive to promote violence against the Americans when the Americans are supporting a pro-Iran government in Iraq.
More importantly, the insurgency is not monolithic and mostly consists of what amounts to local street gangs. And many of these groups issue public statements and propogand and many of their members are publically known, and they are all Iraqi. It is difficult to imagine how anyone could not only secretly fund and manage such disparate groups, but that they could keep it all secret AND pump out huge volumes of fabricated propoganda.
No, the "insurgency" or "resistence", or more accurately, "rogue milita" in Iraq are almost entirely home-grown.
Be prepared for a lot of calls to regional customer service centers and having to wade past a couple of lower tiers of "customer service" on each call in order to get someone to give you your money back or a store credit (more likely). Each lower tier will claim that they cannot refund your money because of the piracy issues.
And they can kiss your ass. In California and in many other states you can't sell defective merchandise. Period. And it is the customer that determines what counts as "defective". Yeah, you can force them to take back that monitor with one bad pixel. In fact, in practice this means you have a 30 day return policy on ANYTHING in California. If they don't take it back, take them to small claims court. The filing fee is usually less than $50. Be sure to ask for an additional $500 in court for the store wasting your time.
Another alternative is to pay with a credit card and then dispute the charge if they don't agree to the return. American Express and Visa are generally very good about this. Chargebacks are very expensive for merchants.
The whole concept of "ratings" is basically an anti-competitive move against "independents" in any industry. This is merely an extension of that problem. Fees have always been used to lockout shoestring independent films (for example) from MPAA ratings. This is no different. The fees are meant to help alleviate the cost of the ESRB, which is presumably funded by other means. The fees should be waived for "small" games (games that sell less thatn 50,000 copies). As for free games the ESRB should, on it's own initative, obtain and review these games posting reviews on the websites allowing free vendors to easily attach ratings. Sure it will be an expense, but isn't the ESRB supposed to be about customer service anyway?
Once you've identified the location from which the shot was fired, you shine a laser at it at an intensity such that if you're looking at it with the naked eye, you're extremely uncomfortable, but if you're looking through a scope, you lose an eye.
Besides the aformentioned Geneva issues (laser weapons used for blinding being needlessly cruel), what's the point? Targeting the scope at the proper angle seems to be a MUCH more difficult issue than you take into consideration. And if you can target the scope well enough to do this, surely you can target the sniper himself. If you can locate and target the sniper, why not just kill him? And not with an incredibly expensive laser system, but with conventional weapons.
What is needed is better target detection and tracking systems to direct the already available firepower. The system in the article is of dubious value because if you read carefully it's not that the robot does a better job of detecting snipers than a soldier, just that it is CAPABLE of doing so and could theoretically be approach a sniper (and get shot up) more safely. But is a heavy, complicated, expensive piece of equipment. I think it's very unlikely soldiers are going to haul this thing out every time they suspect they are entering an area containg a sniper. And they have to hope that the snipers are stupid enough to shoot at it. I suspect they will learn pretty quickly there is no point in attacking the robot.
The civilians don't care much if Americans kill insurgents, as long as they only kill insurgents. You have to understand that most of the Iraqis are completely sick of the war. They don't care who's fighting whom, who's blowing up whom, they just want it done, they want us out, they want the insurgents to stop.
Think about this for a minute. The insurgents come for the civilian population, that's a fact. These are the "civilians" fathers, sons, brothers, etc. Do you really assume they "don't care" about their relatives? Polls show as much as 70% of the population of Iraq supports the insurgents. Are you going to kill 19 million people? The insurgents are simply not going to stop attacking Coalition forces are long as the Colaition forces remain and there remains some native population.
And it's also become more apparent to everyone that the insurgency has always been coming from Iran.
It's pretty apparent that while Iran certainly supports some factions in Iraq, the conflict has it's own internal causes. Assuming your thesis is correct, what would the solution be? Putting diplomatic pressure on Iran would not work as and military pressure is not a option. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter if the violence is caused by outside forces or not since the USA is clearly less capable fo controlling htose "outside forces" than the enemy within Iraq.
Look at all the major changes in previous 5 year spans. Compare Windows 3.11 in 93 to Windows 98 in 98, or Windows 95 in 95 to Windows 2000 in 2000 and you'll see what I'm talking about. Hell, compare the initial (really awfull) release of OSX 10.0 to the decent release of 10.4 only 4 years later. Sure there's a lot more to improve in OS X since it was so totally new.. but the fact that Apple can pull off more in less time doesn't speak well for Microsoft.
I think the Apple analogy is rather apt. It's also been 5 years the the release of a new version of Internet Explorer. It seems on the "consumer" side at least, there have been problems at Microsoft simiar to the problems Apple faced in the mid 90's.
On the PC, there are 3 core genres that don't sem to be going away:
First Person Shooters
Massively Multiplayer Online RPGs
Strategy games of all kinds
PCs remain at the cutting edge of graphics and these are the genres of games most dependant on that. Innovations in PC graphics, primarly because of games of these genres, essentially "trickle down" to the consoles and that dynamic seems unlikely to change anytime soon. Also, the keyboard and mouse control scheme is widely considered superior to console controllers for these kinds of games. With the great similarity of the XBOX 360 and PS3 controllers to their predecessors this also seems unlikely to change.
Or, more reasonably for the "prison take-down" teams they use to subdue unruly prisoners.
Yeah, now instead of getting sprains and broken bones from these "takedowns" they'll get crushed limbs. Yay! More prisoners in wheelchairs!
Sure Americans aren't taught about this, unless they play football, basketball, soccer, are members of the Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts, go hiking, camping, or attend a required Physical Education course in Junior High or High School. In ALL of these places I was taught about the dangers of drinking too much water, especialy when it's really hot. But then, I grew up in California where people do lots of outdoor activities and it sometimes gets hot. Just like this woman, who attended the same public schools that I did.
She was ignorant, absolutely. The DJs were even more ignorant and stupid for not warning participants of the danger. I think her family may have a case against the radio statio, but that doesn't mean she didn't act foolishly. It's the "coming together" of these stupid people that was the problem (notice that none of the other contest participants died or was injured).
Another thing that irritates me is that there is not enough attention paid to the rural population's transportation needs. The rural population tends to have less income, yet has to travel longer distances in order to do shopping, go to the doctor, etc. and often for work.
So our civilization should cater to a small minority rather than the vast majority of the population? There ARE costs associated with living out in the sticks. Rent is a lot cheaper. Utilities may be cheaper. Taxes may be lower. But you might have to haul your own garbage, or grade your own road, or etc. Having to pay more for your vehicle is simply part of that. If you don't like it, move to the city.
Rural people don't need to waste gas, but do need different vehicles than are often considered 'environmentally correct'. For instance, the Subaru Brat was a bit hit in Northern New England when it was introduced because it provided an inexpensive 4WD pickup with great gas mileage.
It *IS* indeed possible to make 4WD vehicles that are fuel effiecent. For example, Subaru Outbacks are popular with the mountain folk up there. Of course they're lighter and flimisier than the trucks and can't handle really tough terrain.
When I played GTA San Andreas I remember thinking to myself, "This isn't the kind of game I'd want my kids playing." For me, it hit a little bit too close home. Having grown up in Long Beach, and seen gang life first hand, the game was uncomfortably realistic. As an adult, I could see it for the entertainment and escapism that it was. However I think that when you expose kids to that kind of content, you are in effect saying, "I approve." and I don't think that it is right to tell your children that you approve of the lifestyle being presented in a game like GTA:San Andreas.
Does anybody think that by watching "Scarface", you are approving of the lifestyle of cocaine trafficing? That by watching "Pirates of the Carribean" you're approving of piracy? etc.
I also think you're being a bit naive here. Is San Andreas going to be kids only, or even primary, exposure to the gangster lifestyle? Not hardly. What about music, television, movies, and most importantly, other kids and the world around them? I grew up in an elite suburb, but I still had exposure to the crips, the bloods, and skinheads. "Sheltering" kids doesn't work, it just strips them of the ability to aquire street smarts.
Maybe when you're in you're seventies and in searing pain you might find it more difficult.
Or maybe she was overly concerned with modesty to the point that she let herself get severely burned?
And I was using the high end of the two to five second threshold at which liquid at that temperature causes 3rd degree burns.
I call bullshit on this. I've had parts of my body IMMERSED in boiling water for longer than 5 seconds and I did not recieve 3rd-degree burns. 2nd-degree only, and no skin loss. So I am utterly convinced that her exposure was considerably longer.
That's the whole point. People make mistakes, but a dangerous product is one where the consequence of common mistakes like the exact same one you made yourself are not ridiculously out of proportion with what one would expect.
Virtually every product on the market has the potential to cause severe harm or death if used improperly. In my case I was sitting in the passenger side, and the driver took the cup of coffee, took the lid off and took a sip, then handed me the hot coffee cup, and then accelerated which caused the hot coffee to slosh all over me. I think would would be insane to blame the McDonald's Corporation for this incident. By your logic I would have grounds to sue for my minor injuries.
How about the recognition that this was a freak accident? Out of BILLIONS of cups served, millions presumably to elderly women, this is the only person who somehow managed to severely burn themselves. I more inclined to believe that this case was exceptional rather than McDonald's coffee cups being ticking time bombs.
It's like excusing the Ford Pinto because, well, you just shouldn't get in an accident!
The Ford Pinto case was probably BS too. Statistically, the Ford Pinto didn't really have more fires than other corparable vehicles. But the key difference is that that the Pinto lacked critical safety features common to cars of that era, so at least in terms of design the car was exceptionally unsafe. This is not the case with McDonald's coffee, though some have argued this.
There is a civil war in Iraq right now, sponsored and exacerbated largely by the United States. If the US forces left Iraq there is little doubt the civil conflict would abate.
What's the evidence for this?
The civil war in Iraq is roughly a 5-way conflict. The sides are, roughly:
1) Shi'te milita/"official" Iraqi army/"official" Iraqi police
2) Sunni guerillas/milita
3) Kurdish guerillas/milita
4) The Coalition forces (American, British, etc.) and milita
5) Islamist foreign insurgents
The Coalition forces are currently backing 2 sides of this conflict, the Shi'te and Kurdish milita. They are actively fighting the other 2 sides, the Sunni milita and Islamist insurgents (who are largely on the side of the Sunni).
The conflict would abate if the Coalition forces left simply because there would be fewer people fighting in the country. The Coalition would stop it's fighting against the Sunni and Islamists, and it's likely that most of Islamists would leave as they are in Iraq mostly to fight the Coalition forces.
Note that I said "abate", not "end". I'm merely saying the the situation would improve somewhat, not that the war would end if the Coalition forces left. It is likely the conflict will continue until Syria, Iran, and Iraq's other neighbors directly intervene.
First, off-the-shelf magstripe technology has neither the data density nor the durability required for this application.
I sharply disagree on the durability aspect, it's good enough for credit cards and other photo ID. And the data density is only a problem if you want the stripe to contain ALL of the data on the passport, including the photo, which I maintain is a terrible idea.
Your main pint of the other post was that privacy was not a design consideration of the contactless system even though this represents the primary object to such a system. So you're essentially validating that concern.
The chip is an additional security measure, in addition to all of the other security measures implemented in the passport (microprinting, laser perforation, holograms, etc., etc., etc.).
IN PRACTICE, it will be the sole security measure because no security staffer will ever actually look at the passport in detail. They will simply thumb open the back cover and scan the chip. If you have a fake chip all you will need, IN PRACTICE, is a passport cover. But it doesn't change the fact that it really is an all-eggs-in-one-basket approach.
Now you might argue that it's easier to fake the rest of the passport, but you would be wrong. Tampering with the photo, text, special paper etc. represents a relitively complicated procedure that must be done for each passport, requiring some sophistication. But with this system all that really hard work of cracking the system only needs to be done ONCE, then the chips could be easily cloned, etc. with off-the-shelf tools in a very short amount of time. This is EXACTLY what we say with the EU system.
As for my naivete, you do realize that breaking RSA would be a significant mathematical breakthrough, right?
Cryptographic attacks are usually based on implementation rather than direct attacks on the algorithim, like the attacks on the EU epassport system. The EU system uses AES but you can clone a passport in 5 minutes. I'm sure the Europeans thought their implementation was perfect too.
Passports would likely (but not certainly) have to be reissued.
Invalidating and reissuing millions of passports is completely impractical. I'm just going to ignore this.
You do realize that the contactless smart chips in passports is not a US initiative, right? ICAO is an international organization and the initial impetus for the chips came from Europe.
Yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't pork-barrel nonsense. Look at Joint Strike.
And ITMS users had Harmony long before that thanks.
Harmony does not strip the Fairplay DRM off songs purchased off the iTunes store. The current tool seems to be QTFairUse6 which stips off Fairplay leaving a raw AAC file, playable in only a very few MP3 players. Of course, you can transcode to MP3, but that's a pain in the ass. Still, I wasn't aware that this was working at all.
Any screen recording software will record it - one such example s SnapzPro. I'm sure we'll have an equivilent program to strip the DRM off it soon anyway.
If you don't think manually re-recording your videos (in realtime) isn't a major hassle, you have a lot more free time than I do. Apparently QTFairUse doesn't work on the video.
It does not strip the file, it reads it - and altering the name is a choice you can configure. Learn to use software before you critize the abilities it offers
Then explain it to me. How do I import a MP3 file into iTunes AND put it onto an iPod without the name being changed on either the desktop OR the iPod? iTunes 6 for Windows changes the filenames when the tracks are loaded onto the iPod into gibberish. How do I copy ONE track from my iPod to my friend's Windows system using ONLY iTunes?
Of course Apple is not directly pressing for this - it is the pressure from them, that you admit to in your own writing, that drives the only response possible to break free of Apple - unprotected files being sold.
I think I understand your reasoning. Apple has their own proprietary DRM and refuses to implement Windows Media. Apple has a huge marketshare for MP3 players (80%). Therefore, Windows Media stores are forced to adopt uprotected MP3 files in order to sell to iPod owners. This will force the labels to either submit to Apple's monopoly or sell unprotected MP3s.
I disagree. Yahoo's offering MP3's is a desperation move driven by poor sales at that store, I don't think it reflects a general trend. Secondly, the situation is easily resolved by creating custom library software for your store that works with iPods (see: Real). The client software could convert protected WMAs to MP3 on the fly, the labels would me much more likely to accept this more limited solution.
Though it is even more likely that some stores will simply end up reverse-engeneering and ripping off FairPlay, relying on the labels to give them some legal cover.
Close the IRS and institute a fair flat tax then audits will become largely a thing of the past.
Or, roughly translated: "Let's have an armed revolution and a new consitution!"
That's what you'd need in order to implement a FAIR flat tax.
Point is, that heat isn't wasted, unless you're running an air conditioner at the same time.
Which is exactly the situation I'm in because I live in a hot climate. If I don't have AC running I get equipment failure.
And give up our cheap gasoline?
It's more like "give up cheap everything". The USA makes it's money through trade, and more specifically, by enforcing trade rules that benifet the United States at the expense of other nations. These rules are (ultimately) enforced through military action. If we don't "meddle" in other nations, those nations will try to get a better trade deal and the USA will lose lots of money, which will translate to a lower quality of life for Americans. There are plenty of other factors, but protecting economic interest is the main reason the USA "meddles" and the USA will continue to do so, as long as they want to keep making money.
How many would Saddam have killed if he'd remained in power?
A tiny fraction of those that are now dead. We don't have to speculate about this. It's a fact. It is quite easy to calculate what the death rate is in most nations, Iraq is not much of an exception even now. It's about 20x higher now than it was in early 2003 under Saddam Hussien. It's at least 5x what it was during the massive war with Iran. And since that war, Iraq's military capability (according to all accounts) had vastly degraded. Saddam Hussien didn't even have control of his own nation, with Northern Iraq effectively a seperate Kurdish state.
So IF Saddam Hussien were still in power, AND he decided to start a massive war with either Israel or Iran, AND he somehow completely reconsitituted his military to pre-Gulf War levels in the span of a few months, And he swiftly defeated the Kurdish forces, AND he set up concentration camps/death squads to kill huge numbers of Iraqis indiscriminately, he MIGHT have been able to match the current death rate. The chance of any of the above happening was/is ZERO.
He had gassed his own people, killing far more than have died in this current 'war'.
Wrong. The outside numbers of Iraqi civilians that died from poison gas (provided by the US government) is somewhere between 3,000 and 20,000. The number I've heard most often is 13,000. A far cry from the estimated 600,000 dead in the current conflict.
I doubt if you're going by strict numbers, you can say that more lives have been lost as a result of removing Saddam from power in this way than to leave him in power.
Again, you are wrong. Death rates in Iraq are currently at least 20x what they were in 2002/early 2003. Especially among young men.
Unless, of course, we bail out of Iraq. In that case, there will probably be a civil war which could cost hundreds of thousands more.
There is a civil war in Iraq right now, sponsored and exacerbated largely by the United States. If the US forces left Iraq there is little doubt the civil conflict would abate. However the deaths of hundreds of thousands more Iraqis is now inevitable. If you really want to do something to help them you should be encouraging the USA to stop pissing away billions on useless "security" expenses in Iraq and instead send that money directly to the (now millions of) Iraqi refugees crammed into Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, etc.
Therefore, even from a compassionate perspective, this was a mistake; not because we can't win, but because the American people don't have the testicular fortitude anymore to do what is necessary to win.
Define "win" and then describe in detail how we get there in Iraq. Explain to us how you plan to stop the sectarian violence in Iraq, stop the insurgency against Coalition forces, rebuild the shattered infrastructure of the country, and convince Iraqis to accept Western democracy, values, and economic policy. We constantly hear this drivel about "staying the course" and the need to "win" in Iraq without the slightest hint as to how we might do that or if it's even possible.
And no backpedaling. It is not fair to say "Well it COULD have gone perfectly, but Rumsfeld fucked it up." which is what you hear from a lot of necons today. You are saying that it is possible to "win" in Iraq NOW. I'd like to hear HOW.
You can't have military plans circulating weeks before an attack can you. Secrets are there for good reason.
While I hate to be snide, this is simply terribly naive. The military (for example) conceals MUCH more than is necessary for any practical sense of security. For example, why won't they give details about attacks AFTER they've occurred (like how many bombs were dropped and what kind and how many people were killed). Why are the financial details of military contracts kept hidden? How is national security compromised if it's revealed that the military spent $100 on a widget rather than the market proce of $10 a widget?
The fact is that "national security" is increasingly used as a way for government officials to conceal incompetence and corruption. This has gotten considerably worse during the Bush administration, widely regarded as the most opaque administration ever.
The public can't be trusted with everything.
I'm of the opinion that oversight by the public, flawed though it may be, is infinitely preferable to no oversight whatsoever. Look at Guantanamo Bay or the "rendition" program to see a total lack of oversight in action.
I happen to be 6'5" and in fairly good shape and I can just barely transport my 27" Trinitron single-handed. I believe a 32" would be impossible. This, more than anything, has prevented me from getting a new TV. I'm too cheap to shell out the money for a 32" LCD TV, but a bigger CRT would break my back. It's for this reason that I've been looking into a cheap projector. Though getting something that I would consider bright enough (2500+ lumens) and cheap enough has proved a bit of a problem.
The most basic acceptance test of any moral or social philosophy is whether it can be applied generally. Yours boils down to: I do what I think is correct.
ALL moral decisions are individual and ultimately arbitrary. He certainly CAN apply this moral principle universally: Do you think he would object to other people doing EXACTLY the same thing? (downloading a copy of purchased content in another format). He is saying that he "generally" believes the legal restrictions on the use of content are not "moral" and he chooses not to follow them, NOR DOES HE EXPECT OTHERS TO.
You, nor does anyone else in the world, do not seriously believe that you should slavishly follow every tiny aspect of the byzantine US legal system even assuming that were possible (it's not). Would you refuse to help somone that collapsed across the street because it would be jaywalking? Even better, in the US it's ALSO a crime to not help someone obviously in need. So in the above situation ther is LITERALLY NO WAY not to break the law. I could come up with a 1,000 more examples. It's very simple:
Law has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. Period.
Theonly use of which is for OS X to recognize it is running on Apple hardware - it IS NOT USED to prevent you from running Linux or any other OS, or adding your own OS X drivers, as Microsoft had been talking about.
Apple has used the "boot rom" and other techniques to prevent users from running MacOS on third-party hardware since it's inception. This is inherently more restrictive than the MS/Linux approach of alowing users to install their operating systems on commodity hardware.
That you can easily remove - even the video you can simply re-record with any number of video screen capture software. This is mandated by content providers, not Apple - remember Apple is the one that brought DRM to this loose state. Microsoft is the one giving you protected video paths with Vista.
I don't consider "manually re-recording all downloads" to be the same as "easily remove". Windows Media has hacks and tools to easily remove the DRM like FairUse4WM, and what THOSE tools do is actually strip off the DRM leaving you with an unprotected WMA file. And you're right, DRM is mandated by the content providers, just like with MS. The protected video paths are also mandated by content providers. If MacOS wants to play BlueRay or HD-DVD video Apple MUST implement something very similar.
You can't burn itunes tv shows to DVD
You can if you simply copy it.
I do not know what this means. You simply cannot convert a downloaded protected video to DVD-Video in iTunes and then burn it to a DVD. I do not know if there are third-party tools that allow you to do this.
Since iTunes recognizes ID3 tags it is childs play to copy a whole directory of music from any iPod you can mount into iTunes, and have the music all show up.
While iTunes recognizes ID3 tags, it actually strips them off MP3 files you import to iTunes and dumps the metadata into it's own proprietary database at the same time mangling the file names. All of this is done deliberately to make it hard to pull music off an iPod AND to make it completely incompatible with other MP3 players. The net effect is to make it a major hassle to copy a track to a friend's system because you have to A) Somehow figure out what random gibberish (SJDH23S.AAC for example) your track has been named and then manually re-naming and then re-tagging each file. This simply IS NOT a problem with every other MP3 player. Somehow EVERY OTHER MP3 vendor can manage to database music libraries without completely mangling the filenames and metadata. This is fucking terrible and anyone to defends it is just a desperate Apple fanboy.
People like you have been blasting Apple for DRM use for years when in fact Apple is the company that is slowly backing studios out of DRM use. the MP3 sales trial recently on Yahoo would never have been done if Apple had not locked up the popular use of DRM with Apple instead of an indsutry controlled company such as Microsoft.
The music industry hates Apple passionately because they percieve Apple as having "screwed them" on iTunes. Read some of my other posts on this issue. More importantly, the big labels are deathly afraid of one player (Apple) dominating the online music industry the way MTV dominates music videos. They (rightly) percieve this will put them at a financal disadvantage down the road, that's why the labels generally prefer the more "distributed" approach of Windows Media. The problem is that the diversity of products in Windows Media has created a somewhat less satisfying user experience, so the labels are trying various tricks and promotions to cajole users into the Windows Media camp, like the Yahoo! downloads.
If you have any solid evidence that Yahoo! developed this service due to pressure from Apple, I'd like to see it. Please explain why Apple isn't offering unprotected MP3s on their store if they are truly the ones pushing this.
Except the XPC/SFF luggables have the advantage for being actually able to upgrade or change components. Want a Dlue-Ray drive, you're SOL with the Dell. Want a decent video card? SOL again. Want a large, fast hard drive (the Dell uses notebook hard drives)? SOL again. etc.
As another poster mentioned, this system has all of the disadvantages of a laptop (proprietary, not expandable, expensive, etc.) and few of the advantages (battery, high portablity), which is exactly why luggables fell out of favor. Virtually everyone in this segment is MUCH better off with some sort of SFF system.
Clinton's Justice Department was noticably lackadaisical about prosecuting or enforcing certain accounting standards (depends on what your definition of 'profit' is, I guess.)
Anyway, when Bush comes into office, with a business background, 'fudging the numbers' is not cool. You either made a profit or you didn't, regardless of what shell offshore companies you bought.
Um, no. Bush's Justice Department didn't move one finger to increase prosecaution for bad accounting practices until after there was huge public outcry over Enron, Worldcom, and other companies and then dragged their feet on prosecutions. Bush is strongly associated with Enron because Bush is a former business partner of Bush, among other things. Enron is Bush's #1 lifetime donor and his biggest contributor in the 2000 campaign. Bush has called Ken Lay a personal friend. He was also a personal friend of Dick Cheney. and part of his "Energy Task Force". It has been confirmed that Ken Lay was poised to be named as Secretary of Energy before the Enron scandal broke.
Bush is tagged with fostering this corruption.
Largely because he did. But most people throw the lion's share of the blame at the corrupt Republican congress for passing legislation that fostered a culture of abuse.