Bush not only doesn't attend, he doesn't even allow the funerals to be mentioned by the media.
1. If he did attend a funeral, I am damn sure he would be accused of grandstanding.
2. Your second point is B.S. You may be thinking of the rules developed during the Clinton administration regarding limiting press access to off-loaded caskets. This has nothing to do with funerals being "mentioned by the media," nor does it preclude families from inviting the press to a funeral if they so desire.
I'm thinking of the cases where autodetect DOES find something, but it's not what I expected or wanted. Making suggestions is fine, but I don't want my machine limiting my choices -- at least not when it comes to selecting available print queues. Sometimes (usually, in fact) it works, but when it doesn't it's infuriating.
I hate the CUPS UI also, but the writer lost me here:
If the designers were half-smart about UI issues (like, say, Windows programers) they'd probe the local network neighborhood and omit the impossible entries.
This is exactly what I would expect from Windows, and what I don't want in Linux. Because eventually a) something will be greyed out when I know it shouldn't be, or b) something will be greyed out when I think it shouldn't be, or c) I know something SHOULD be impossible, but I want to select it anyway for troubleshooting or experimentation. Who's to say I don't want to configure my print queue before I go down the elevator to bring the printer host online?
Not quite. D.C. doesn't have any delegates to contribute to the party nominations, so their "primary" is symbolic only. However, D.C. residents do vote for president:
D.C. residents have a limited Presidential vote equal to the smallest state regardless of their population, and have only had the right to vote for the President since the 1964 election.
That's pretty much exactly what I'm talking about. I challenge you (and you should challenge yourself) to find authoritative resources dealing with aviation in general, and military aviation in particular, that back up these theories. Good luck...I don't think they exist. Here's a list of the people from that site who are going to explain to you what the procedures are for intercepting domestic aircraft who turn their transponders off:
George Soros, (billionaire philanthropist)
Mary Schiavo (Aviation Disaster Attorney)
Mike Ruppert (Publisher: From the Wilderness)
Nafeez Ahmed (Author: The War on Freedom)
David McMichael (former CIA analyst)
Michel Chossudovsky (Author: War and Globalization)
Peter Dale Scott (Professor Emeritus, UC Berkeley)
Alex Jones (Editor: Infowars.com)
John Judge (Founder, C.O.P.A.)
Riva Enteen (Exec. Director, SF National Lawyer's Guild)
Hmmm..perhaps someone who works at, I dunno, the FAA or NORAD would be a good addition to the board?
Yet you seem to be implying that because you were a pilot for 8 years you know every security measure in place. Were you just a pilot, what was your rank that you presume to know know so much?
I flew tactical jets, the EA-6B. I was one of three radar-jamming-guys, and there was one pilot. In that jet, the ECMO, me, does all the radio talking and coordination with agencies in flight. I spent most of my time in North Carolina, so I did quite a bit of flying in and around the coast, the ADIZ, and the capital area, talking all the while to approach control, military controllers, and the air traffic control centers. For the last 4 years my duties, in addition to flying, included training other aviators to plan large scale missions, including coordination with other services, intelligence agencies, and foreign nations.
Your computer engineer and Norton analogy is a good one, and I would never claim that I know everything about any subject, but the military aviation community is not that big, and anyone who spends any serious time in it, as I did, will be exposed to most aspects of the various missions and organizations. A more apt analogy would be working as a network engineer at a large company for 8 years, then having someone who had never worked there tell you about a "standard procedure" at that company.
But, as I said, I would never claim to know everything about anything, and my jet would never have the mission of intercepting a wayward aircraft, so I looked for some hard print to share with you. And do you know what I found? Page after page after page of claims, many of them verbatim copies of each other, that "standard procedures and regulations" hadn't been followed. But there was not one official source of those procedures or regulations. Not a single one. It has become one of those "facts" that is "self-evident" to everyone who wants to believe it, because they see it all over the place. But it's all the same unfounded crap. Mind you, there are definitely procedures for dealing with uncommunicative aircraft. But launching an armed alert aircraft within ten minutes is not one of them (or wasn't on 9-11, at least.) If you want to see about the cost of real security, look into keeping armed alert aircraft ready to go.
Yeah, UBL. My bad. click here for the video and transcript.
(Transcript and annotations independently prepared by George Michael, translator, Diplomatic Language Services; and Dr. Kassem M. Wahba, Arabic language program coordinator, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. They collaborated on their translation and compared it with translations done by the U.S. government for consistency. There were no inconsistencies in the translations.)
I am not the only one that knows about the planes, found another comment below that knew of em too. If you want to disprove them, like I said dont just say its crap. Find out where this came from(since Im not the only one that has heard of it) and show that its a myth.
Whatever. It was my profession for eight years, but what do I know? If you want to believe other people who "knew of em too," go ahead.
As for your response to my examples: you are talking about improving the methods in use, which obviously makes sense. You would not, I presume, say that we should get rid of burglar alarms, seatbelts, and police officers. Yet from your philosophy stated above, it seems that you would have said to never start using them in the first place. "They'll never work!"
Oh and to continue my rant: Why do we not question Osamas guiltyness? If I remember correctly he said he was not responsible.
Transcript from a video of Saddam:
UBL: (...Inaudible...) we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.
I am not trying to just spew out opinions here, but to get to the truth.
The system is that if at any time a plane flies out of its designated flight path it has 10 minutes to make radio contact before F18s are scrambled and are sent to take the plane down. The orders to scramble the planes come directly from the Pentagon, and to stop them from lifting off would take a direct order from someone very high up.
Take it from someone who flew military jets for 8 years, and who has owned and flown private aircraft: this statement is an out-and-out falsehood. It's so utterly lacking in any foundation that I will forego my usual detailed debate and state simply: IT. IS. CRAP. Any conclusion derived from this falsehood is also crap.
As for the rest of your analysis, I can sum it up this way: intelligence, security, and law enforcement are more about trends than absolutes. Ask yourself: Do burglar alarms prevent burglaries? Do seatbelts prevent traffic fatalities? Do police officers prevent crime? The answer to each, of course, is no, but a clear-thinking observer can see that each provides a move in the direction of the desired end.
A friend of mine pointed out recently that today's case modders are the equivalent of guys who tinkered with cars in the fifties and sixties.
New tech support lingo
on
AOL's $299 PC
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Great. Until now, when a client told me that their "aol wasn't working", I understood that to mean that they were having trouble with their internet connection. Now, it might mean trouble with their hard drive, cd, monitor, office suite, keyboard,...
...Praise You...Now this song is pretty different from most of the other stuff on the album.
Have you seen him live? I bought one Fatboy album and liked the whole thing, so I hauled my wife and another couple to see him live. He spun discs the whole time, a non-stop megamix like you'd hear at any other dance club. Not a single snippet from any of his recorded music. My wife said, "If he's going to sample for an hour and a half, couldn't he at least sample a few seconds from some of his hits?"
Slashdot Mirror
Bush not only doesn't attend, he doesn't even allow the funerals to be mentioned by the media.
1. If he did attend a funeral, I am damn sure he would be accused of grandstanding.
2. Your second point is B.S. You may be thinking of the rules developed during the Clinton administration regarding limiting press access to off-loaded caskets. This has nothing to do with funerals being "mentioned by the media," nor does it preclude families from inviting the press to a funeral if they so desire.
The only thing that surpasses it is "restarted windows".
Usually I would settle for just shutting down Windows, but I can rarely get that to work either.
I'm thinking of the cases where autodetect DOES find something, but it's not what I expected or wanted. Making suggestions is fine, but I don't want my machine limiting my choices -- at least not when it comes to selecting available print queues. Sometimes (usually, in fact) it works, but when it doesn't it's infuriating.
I hate the CUPS UI also, but the writer lost me here:
If the designers were half-smart about UI issues (like, say, Windows programers) they'd probe the local network neighborhood and omit the impossible entries.
This is exactly what I would expect from Windows, and what I don't want in Linux. Because eventually a) something will be greyed out when I know it shouldn't be, or b) something will be greyed out when I think it shouldn't be, or c) I know something SHOULD be impossible, but I want to select it anyway for troubleshooting or experimentation. Who's to say I don't want to configure my print queue before I go down the elevator to bring the printer host online?
Not quite. D.C. doesn't have any delegates to contribute to the party nominations, so their "primary" is symbolic only. However, D.C. residents do vote for president:
D.C. residents have a limited Presidential vote equal to the smallest state regardless of their population, and have only had the right to vote for the President since the 1964 election.
(source)
Doesn't even rhyme.
That's pretty much exactly what I'm talking about. I challenge you (and you should challenge yourself) to find authoritative resources dealing with aviation in general, and military aviation in particular, that back up these theories. Good luck...I don't think they exist. Here's a list of the people from that site who are going to explain to you what the procedures are for intercepting domestic aircraft who turn their transponders off:
George Soros, (billionaire philanthropist)
Mary Schiavo (Aviation Disaster Attorney)
Mike Ruppert (Publisher: From the Wilderness)
Nafeez Ahmed (Author: The War on Freedom)
David McMichael (former CIA analyst)
Michel Chossudovsky (Author: War and Globalization)
Peter Dale Scott (Professor Emeritus, UC Berkeley)
Alex Jones (Editor: Infowars.com)
John Judge (Founder, C.O.P.A.)
Riva Enteen (Exec. Director, SF National Lawyer's Guild)
Hmmm..perhaps someone who works at, I dunno, the FAA or NORAD would be a good addition to the board?
Yet you seem to be implying that because you were a pilot for 8 years you know every security measure in place. Were you just a pilot, what was your rank that you presume to know know so much?
I flew tactical jets, the EA-6B. I was one of three radar-jamming-guys, and there was one pilot. In that jet, the ECMO, me, does all the radio talking and coordination with agencies in flight. I spent most of my time in North Carolina, so I did quite a bit of flying in and around the coast, the ADIZ, and the capital area, talking all the while to approach control, military controllers, and the air traffic control centers. For the last 4 years my duties, in addition to flying, included training other aviators to plan large scale missions, including coordination with other services, intelligence agencies, and foreign nations.
Your computer engineer and Norton analogy is a good one, and I would never claim that I know everything about any subject, but the military aviation community is not that big, and anyone who spends any serious time in it, as I did, will be exposed to most aspects of the various missions and organizations. A more apt analogy would be working as a network engineer at a large company for 8 years, then having someone who had never worked there tell you about a "standard procedure" at that company.
But, as I said, I would never claim to know everything about anything, and my jet would never have the mission of intercepting a wayward aircraft, so I looked for some hard print to share with you. And do you know what I found? Page after page after page of claims, many of them verbatim copies of each other, that "standard procedures and regulations" hadn't been followed. But there was not one official source of those procedures or regulations. Not a single one. It has become one of those "facts" that is "self-evident" to everyone who wants to believe it, because they see it all over the place. But it's all the same unfounded crap. Mind you, there are definitely procedures for dealing with uncommunicative aircraft. But launching an armed alert aircraft within ten minutes is not one of them (or wasn't on 9-11, at least.) If you want to see about the cost of real security, look into keeping armed alert aircraft ready to go.
Yeah, UBL. My bad. click here for the video and transcript.
(Transcript and annotations independently prepared by George Michael, translator, Diplomatic
Language Services; and Dr. Kassem M. Wahba, Arabic language program coordinator, School of
Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. They collaborated on their translation
and compared it with translations done by the U.S. government for consistency. There were no
inconsistencies in the translations.)
I am not the only one that knows about the planes, found another comment below that knew of em too. If you want to disprove them, like I said dont just say its crap. Find out where this came from(since Im not the only one that has heard of it) and show that its a myth.
Whatever. It was my profession for eight years, but what do I know? If you want to believe other people who "knew of em too," go ahead.
As for your response to my examples: you are talking about improving the methods in use, which obviously makes sense. You would not, I presume, say that we should get rid of burglar alarms, seatbelts, and police officers. Yet from your philosophy stated above, it seems that you would have said to never start using them in the first place. "They'll never work!"
Video of UBL, dammit, UBL.
Oh and to continue my rant: Why do we not question Osamas guiltyness? If I remember correctly he said he was not responsible.
Transcript from a video of Saddam:
UBL: (...Inaudible...) we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.
I am not trying to just spew out opinions here, but to get to the truth.
Right.
The system is that if at any time a plane flies out of its designated flight path it has 10 minutes to make radio contact before F18s are scrambled and are sent to take the plane down. The orders to scramble the planes come directly from the Pentagon, and to stop them from lifting off would take a direct order from someone very high up.
Take it from someone who flew military jets for 8 years, and who has owned and flown private aircraft: this statement is an out-and-out falsehood. It's so utterly lacking in any foundation that I will forego my usual detailed debate and state simply: IT. IS. CRAP. Any conclusion derived from this falsehood is also crap.
As for the rest of your analysis, I can sum it up this way: intelligence, security, and law enforcement are more about trends than absolutes. Ask yourself: Do burglar alarms prevent burglaries? Do seatbelts prevent traffic fatalities? Do police officers prevent crime? The answer to each, of course, is no, but a clear-thinking observer can see that each provides a move in the direction of the desired end.
Bush should have followed up on the warnings by placing the FBI, State and INS on a higher state of alert...
Just curious...what were your thoughts when we were recently placed on "a higher state of alert"?
Help me out...the nerd said something spastic..."That's a ***! You can't ***!"
Then the geek told him to shut up.
A friend of mine pointed out recently that today's case modders are the equivalent of guys who tinkered with cars in the fifties and sixties.
Great. Until now, when a client told me that their "aol wasn't working", I understood that to mean that they were having trouble with their internet connection. Now, it might mean trouble with their hard drive, cd, monitor, office suite, keyboard, ...
"Reboot...again."
if you carry my tag to English today...
The tag will be implanted under the skin, at the base of the spine. With attachment ports for future enhancements.
Verisign hopefully complies, but I'd expect lots of legal wrangling...
Maybe they could get them under one of the terrorism statutes.
I just read the Terms of Service on the sitefinder site:
COST OF THE VERISIGN SERVICES.
The Verisign Service(s) are provided to you free of charge.
Hey folks, we're getting this service for free. Looks like we don't have a leg to stand on.
In the UK our bills have a short title...
Here in the U.S., our bills are required to have titles involving children, widows, or sick veterans.
...Praise You...Now this song is pretty different from most of the other stuff on the album.
Have you seen him live? I bought one Fatboy album and liked the whole thing, so I hauled my wife and another couple to see him live. He spun discs the whole time, a non-stop megamix like you'd hear at any other dance club. Not a single snippet from any of his recorded music. My wife said, "If he's going to sample for an hour and a half, couldn't he at least sample a few seconds from some of his hits?"
Whole foods wins out not only in quality but also in variety.
I've got one word that sums up why Whole Foods kicks ass.
Samples.
You have full permission to burn a music CD borrowed from a friend onto a music disk, by law.
Do you have any more details on this? This sounds suspiciously like the claim that, by law, income taxes are voluntary so I don't have to pay them.