Great conspiracy theory. You chase UFO's too? There don't have to be al Queda *IN* Iraq for Iraq to *collaborate* with them toward a common end. Yes, bin Laden has condemned Iraq as a secular nation, but that doesn't mean they both don't consider us enemy #1 - and therefore willing to work together.
You're describing a conspiracy between Queda and Iraq that has *zero* evidence to support it. Who's chasing UFOs?
Your assumption that "we would have already invaded" doesn't fly.
By "doesn't fly" do you mean "established a precedent in Afghanistan, Yemen and the Philipine Islands?" Did we get UN approval to destroy Queda in those areas?
So don't tell me we need it in Iraq. If Powells pictures of "Queda" bases were really bases, we would have destroyed them already. It's what we do everywhere else.
Yeah, the UN was weak - but had Clinton done something about it in '92 when Saddaam sensed weakness and started blocking inspectors, we wouldn't have the problem we have today.
What problem? The problem is terrorists flying airliners into buildings. Iraq hasn't been part of that.
Put it this way - you can't blame Bush Jr. for not solving the problem without blaming Clinton at least as much.
And we can follow that logic right up to Bush Sr.
You're being a bit generous with "fairly westernized" - they don't seem to have any of the characteristics unless you consider a military dictator as opposed to a religious dictator "western."
Besides Turkey, the most westernized nation in the region is Iraq. There is a strong seperation of church and state. They do not have the religious prohibitions that you see in the Saudi states relating to many things western. You see western style clothing, food, and entertainment.
That it's run by a military dictatorship has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is a westernized culture.
And you don't have to be a damned genius to realize that if he'll use them on his own people, he'll use them on anyone else.
This is pure bullshit. History shows otherwise. He could have used them during Gulf War I, but didn't. No terrorist attacks have used Iraqi WMD, or Iraqi's, for that matter. He's used them to suppres insurgents in Iraq, and against Iran. Iran used them too. Thats it. "He could use them anywhere" is pure conspiracy theory.
Yeah, and we are. For one, box cutters will never work again - didn't even work on the fourth plane. And there are only so many people you can kill with ammonium nitrate/diesel oil bombs, as they're pretty crude.
So show me the bodies. Show me the mountain of dead killed by terrorists using Iraqi WMD. You can't. I can show you the mountain of bodies killed with conventional explosives, though.
Want another 9/11?
Perhaps you could detail exactly what WMD and Iraqi's were involved in 9/11. The whole point is that destroying Iraq ISN'T GOING TO PREVENT ANOTHER 9/11. You don't have to be a damn genious to see that.
And since Oklahoma City, ammonium nitrate (and other oxidizers) are HIGHLY controlled.
I can walk into a feed store and buy ammonium nitrate fertilizer by the bag right now.
Claims of conspiracies and fabricated evidence?
The only claims of conspiracy are those that come from those who think Bin Laden is hiding out in Saddam's closet. This whole war is desperate dog wagging. If Queda were in Iraq, we'd be in Iraq right now. We've established that already. We did it in Afghanastan, Yemen, and we're about to do it in the PI. Those are the facts. The only conclusion we can make about our farting around with the UN regarding Iraq is that Queda isn't there.
A lot of the evidence regarding an Iraq/Al Queda link is classified, but other non-Germany/France countries seem fairly compelled by it when they see it.
It isn't classified, it's fabricated. If there were al Queda in Iraq, we would have already invaded Iraq. We have established that we don't need UN approval to destroy al Queda.
Queda is a fundamentalist Islamic group, and will be where it finds sympathy. Iraq is a secular state. The only power in Iraq is Hussein. He doesn't share it with the mullas or the imams.
he inherited this situation after 8 years of Clinton and the UN allowing Saddaam to blatantly violate terms of the treaty with no consequences.
Blaming Clinton, the typical republican excuse, doesn't carry any water. Clinton inherited the situation from Bush Sr. His excuse wasn't "humanitarian," but "no UN mandate" for a regiem change. Just like we have now.
Here's a question - what's your answer for terrorism? Because taking out governments that blatantly sponsor it seems to be the only recourse, other than just living with it.
The problem isn't one of government, its one of culture. We do for the House of Saud what we did for Japan after WWII. We park several armored divisions in downtown Mecca and change the culture with blue jeans, VCRs and constitutional government. To that end, Hussein could be an asset, as he already oversees a secular government and a fairly westernized society.
Saddaam has illegal weapons, and assuming he won't use them is dangerously naive - he's used them in every war he's engaged in, including genocide on Iraqis (Kurdish).
So he's used them in his own country's military actions. Big deal. To date, they havn't been used in *any* terrorist act.
Box cutters and ammonium nitrate seem to do the trick for most terrorists. We should be focusing our resources on that.
For the simple reason that Iraq isn't a terrorst threat. The terrorist tend to come from countries where there is little or no line between Islam and the government, i.e. Saudi, Egypt, etc...
The whole current Iraq fiasco was spawned by the 9/11 attacks. Yet there were no Iraqis or WMD on those aircraft. Same goes for The USS Cole, the first WTC bombing, or the embasy bombings. There are currently 0 Iraqis on the FBIs most wanted terrorist list.
The biggest threats to us come from terrorists, and the Iraqis just aren't players there.
I'm not opposed to war. We need to be killing some people. They just don't happen to be in Iraq.
of people taking for a given that this war is bad because that's what "good liberals" think. I'm not necessarily saying it's a great idea, as I haven't really made up my mind -
So, let me see if I understand your position.
You havn't made up your mind, but your sick of people that have? You havn't made up your mind, but you know enough about it to critique people that have thought about it, and made up their mind?
Are you waiting around until someone tells you what to think on the AM radio?
Personaly, I'm sick of people supporting the war in Iraq because it's the "good conservative" answer to terrorism. What has failed is Bush forign policy. He doesn't have an answer for terrorism, so he's got the sheep bleating "Iraq!" Apparently, it seems to be working.
It's a lengthy but engaging writeup of that chamber of horrors we call high school and why being smarter than the average bear is more of a liability than an asset during that stage in life.
The notion that you were "smarter" is absurd. The reality is that you were dumber. You got picked on because you didn't bathe, brush your teeth, and made fart jokes at every possible occasion. That doesn't make you smart, it makes you digusting, and worthy of contempt.
The smarter bears washed on occasion, and learned to carry on a conversation.
If the kids are raised where abstinence is the way to go, then you get teens that use abstinence.
Bullshit. What you get are kids that have sex and try to cover it up. You get kids that have unsafe sex because they are scared to death that someone at the drugstore might tell dad he was buying rubbers. You get girls that hide their pregnancies, give birth in bathrooms, and leave their babies in trash cans.
Where/when I went to high school, no body did anything except get drunk on the weekends.
Just because you couldn't get any, you shouldn't assume everyone else couldn't, too.
Well thats easy. In RMS Fantasyland, software professionals should starve, and live by via the generosity of others, while authors and other artistes should reap the fruits of their labors.
You're kidding, right? You can't possibly be this uninformed.
Do you have any idea how much laser power is needed to nail a geosynch sattelite?
Very little. 1500 mJ, specificaly. It's done every day.
let alone burn through the atmosphere and any possible cloud cover.
Uhhh... only if you're in the visible light spectrum. Some wavelengths will pass right through clouds (and other objects, like the earth) completely unphased.
Or how about the laser platform aiming and stability? a shake of less than 0.01mm in the sattelite will make the beam dance around on the planet over a 1 square mile area.
How about it? Do you know we bounce lazers off mirrors on the moon that are about a meter wide, and we bounce the same lazer off satelites all the time.
Not.. no way, no how... not sattelite.
Better call University of Texas and tell them to knock it off, because apparently, what they are doing can't be done.
Besides the technical problems, I really don't see much use for it.
Well I guess they just aught to scrap the whole program, then.
I don't suppose a communication device not subject to the same sorts of interference, jamming, monitoring, and detection as your standard RF transmission would have a whole lot of military application, now, would it?
How about encouraging webmasters and web designers to avoid requiring them unless absolutely necessary?
Because webmasters and web designers generaly don't set requrements. The customers do, and customers aren't all that concerned with security, they are concerned with apealing to *their* customers.
If I lived in a perfect world, I'd spend my day lying in the sun.
It's no joke, and it's pretty common knowledge. I believe it was Beck or Fowler that coined the term "pattern density."
Any system can be abused. Patterns make system design relatively easy to convey. When "how does that work" question comes up in review, someone with knowledge of patterns will be able to provide a better solution than someone who just puts magic black boxes on the table.
This is like saying the more tools you take out of the toolbox the better carpentry job you do.
No it isn't. It's saying that you can't build a complex building without blueprints. Patterns represent known best practice designs. If you apply design patterns to all of your subsystems, you will end up with a superior design.
Proper application of any tool and abandonment of good design principals is obvious enough to where it doesn't (or shouldn't) have to be stated.
Misuse of anything will result in crap. Over compliating a system with unecessary farkles (whether they be patterns or not) is not a problem with patterns, it's a problem of poor design philosophy.
That being said, high pattern density in any system design will result in a better design than one with lower pattern densities.
High pattern density shows that the engineer anctualy sat down and thought about design. Most/. kiddies are apt to sit down and start banging code without any design though at all.
A system showing high density will, by defenition, be better designed that one without.
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright is implicit upon putting the work in tangible form.
You don't have to publish, you don't have to register, all you have to do is write it down.
Well, now it's free, and this is what you get.
I believe crackers should be beheaded in the public square.
In all matters other than religious, people expect proof for believing something to be true (or at least rational ones do.
True statement: I love my children. I do not require any evidence to know it. For you, it would be purely a matter of faith.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Can you prove the nonexistence of god?
You can't prove the non-existence of anything, there, Aristotle.
Can you prove that I am not God?
Great conspiracy theory. You chase UFO's too? There don't have to be al Queda *IN* Iraq for Iraq to *collaborate* with them toward a common end. Yes, bin Laden has condemned Iraq as a secular nation, but that doesn't mean they both don't consider us enemy #1 - and therefore willing to work together.
You're describing a conspiracy between Queda and Iraq that has *zero* evidence to support it. Who's chasing UFOs?
Your assumption that "we would have already invaded" doesn't fly.
By "doesn't fly" do you mean "established a precedent in Afghanistan, Yemen and the Philipine Islands?" Did we get UN approval to destroy Queda in those areas?
So don't tell me we need it in Iraq. If Powells pictures of "Queda" bases were really bases, we would have destroyed them already. It's what we do everywhere else.
Yeah, the UN was weak - but had Clinton done something about it in '92 when Saddaam sensed weakness and started blocking inspectors, we wouldn't have the problem we have today.
What problem? The problem is terrorists flying airliners into buildings. Iraq hasn't been part of that.
Put it this way - you can't blame Bush Jr. for not solving the problem without blaming Clinton at least as much.
And we can follow that logic right up to Bush Sr.
You're being a bit generous with "fairly westernized" - they don't seem to have any of the characteristics unless you consider a military dictator as opposed to a religious dictator "western."
Besides Turkey, the most westernized nation in the region is Iraq. There is a strong seperation of church and state. They do not have the religious prohibitions that you see in the Saudi states relating to many things western. You see western style clothing, food, and entertainment.
That it's run by a military dictatorship has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is a westernized culture.
And you don't have to be a damned genius to realize that if he'll use them on his own people, he'll use them on anyone else.
This is pure bullshit. History shows otherwise. He could have used them during Gulf War I, but didn't. No terrorist attacks have used Iraqi WMD, or Iraqi's, for that matter. He's used them to suppres insurgents in Iraq, and against Iran. Iran used them too. Thats it. "He could use them anywhere" is pure conspiracy theory.
Yeah, and we are. For one, box cutters will never work again - didn't even work on the fourth plane. And there are only so many people you can kill with ammonium nitrate/diesel oil bombs, as they're pretty crude.
So show me the bodies. Show me the mountain of dead killed by terrorists using Iraqi WMD. You can't. I can show you the mountain of bodies killed with conventional explosives, though.
Want another 9/11?
Perhaps you could detail exactly what WMD and Iraqi's were involved in 9/11. The whole point is that destroying Iraq ISN'T GOING TO PREVENT ANOTHER 9/11. You don't have to be a damn genious to see that.
And since Oklahoma City, ammonium nitrate (and other oxidizers) are HIGHLY controlled.
I can walk into a feed store and buy ammonium nitrate fertilizer by the bag right now.
Claims of conspiracies and fabricated evidence?
The only claims of conspiracy are those that come from those who think Bin Laden is hiding out in Saddam's closet. This whole war is desperate dog wagging. If Queda were in Iraq, we'd be in Iraq right now. We've established that already. We did it in Afghanastan, Yemen, and we're about to do it in the PI. Those are the facts. The only conclusion we can make about our farting around with the UN regarding Iraq is that Queda isn't there.
But we knew that.
A lot of the evidence regarding an Iraq/Al Queda link is classified, but other non-Germany/France countries seem fairly compelled by it when they see it.
It isn't classified, it's fabricated. If there were al Queda in Iraq, we would have already invaded Iraq. We have established that we don't need UN approval to destroy al Queda.
Queda is a fundamentalist Islamic group, and will be where it finds sympathy. Iraq is a secular state. The only power in Iraq is Hussein. He doesn't share it with the mullas or the imams.
he inherited this situation after 8 years of Clinton and the UN allowing Saddaam to blatantly violate terms of the treaty with no consequences.
Blaming Clinton, the typical republican excuse, doesn't carry any water. Clinton inherited the situation from Bush Sr. His excuse wasn't "humanitarian," but "no UN mandate" for a regiem change. Just like we have now.
Here's a question - what's your answer for terrorism? Because taking out governments that blatantly sponsor it seems to be the only recourse, other than just living with it.
The problem isn't one of government, its one of culture. We do for the House of Saud what we did for Japan after WWII. We park several armored divisions in downtown Mecca and change the culture with blue jeans, VCRs and constitutional government. To that end, Hussein could be an asset, as he already oversees a secular government and a fairly westernized society.
Saddaam has illegal weapons, and assuming he won't use them is dangerously naive - he's used them in every war he's engaged in, including genocide on Iraqis (Kurdish).
So he's used them in his own country's military actions. Big deal. To date, they havn't been used in *any* terrorist act.
Box cutters and ammonium nitrate seem to do the trick for most terrorists. We should be focusing our resources on that.
And that has what, exactly, to do with Iraq? Did he say "Reporting live from Bhagdad?" He said "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
For the simple reason that Iraq isn't a terrorst threat. The terrorist tend to come from countries where there is little or no line between Islam and the government, i.e. Saudi, Egypt, etc...
The whole current Iraq fiasco was spawned by the 9/11 attacks. Yet there were no Iraqis or WMD on those aircraft. Same goes for The USS Cole, the first WTC bombing, or the embasy bombings. There are currently 0 Iraqis on the FBIs most wanted terrorist list.
The biggest threats to us come from terrorists, and the Iraqis just aren't players there.
I'm not opposed to war. We need to be killing some people. They just don't happen to be in Iraq.
of people taking for a given that this war is bad because that's what "good liberals" think. I'm not necessarily saying it's a great idea, as I haven't really made up my mind -
So, let me see if I understand your position.
You havn't made up your mind, but your sick of people that have? You havn't made up your mind, but you know enough about it to critique people that have thought about it, and made up their mind?
Are you waiting around until someone tells you what to think on the AM radio?
Personaly, I'm sick of people supporting the war in Iraq because it's the "good conservative" answer to terrorism. What has failed is Bush forign policy. He doesn't have an answer for terrorism, so he's got the sheep bleating "Iraq!" Apparently, it seems to be working.
The notion that you were "smarter" is absurd. The reality is that you were dumber. You got picked on because you didn't bathe, brush your teeth, and made fart jokes at every possible occasion. That doesn't make you smart, it makes you digusting, and worthy of contempt.
The smarter bears washed on occasion, and learned to carry on a conversation.
Not Marianas, but you can certainly go explore SF Bay. PADI or NAUI should be able to connect you with the right people.
SCUBA is the best thing you'll ever do with your clothes on.
Archetecture 101:
Validate at system boundries. Once in the system, you no longer need to validate, as it's already been done.
Bullshit. What you get are kids that have sex and try to cover it up. You get kids that have unsafe sex because they are scared to death that someone at the drugstore might tell dad he was buying rubbers. You get girls that hide their pregnancies, give birth in bathrooms, and leave their babies in trash cans.
Where/when I went to high school, no body did anything except get drunk on the weekends.
Just because you couldn't get any, you shouldn't assume everyone else couldn't, too.
This sounds like action on thier Media Services group, which is basicaly a bunch of patent mongoring whore lawers.
..when you're dumb.
Uncle Darwin was telling you and your croaked squid friends something, and it wasn't "Bikes are dangerous."
See? It's simple!
Do you have any idea how much laser power is needed to nail a geosynch sattelite?
Very little. 1500 mJ, specificaly. It's done every day.
let alone burn through the atmosphere and any possible cloud cover.
Uhhh... only if you're in the visible light spectrum. Some wavelengths will pass right through clouds (and other objects, like the earth) completely unphased.
Or how about the laser platform aiming and stability? a shake of less than 0.01mm in the sattelite will make the beam dance around on the planet over a 1 square mile area.
How about it? Do you know we bounce lazers off mirrors on the moon that are about a meter wide, and we bounce the same lazer off satelites all the time.
Not.. no way, no how... not sattelite.
Better call University of Texas and tell them to knock it off, because apparently, what they are doing can't be done.
Here's a quarter, kid. Go buy a clue.
Well I guess they just aught to scrap the whole program, then.
I don't suppose a communication device not subject to the same sorts of interference, jamming, monitoring, and detection as your standard RF transmission would have a whole lot of military application, now, would it?
You're a visionary, dude.
Because webmasters and web designers generaly don't set requrements. The customers do, and customers aren't all that concerned with security, they are concerned with apealing to *their* customers.
If I lived in a perfect world, I'd spend my day lying in the sun.
But I don't.
The US Military was using this as late as 1994 for bolth NTDS and navigation. First units were delivered in 1958. God bless Seymore.
Any system can be abused. Patterns make system design relatively easy to convey. When "how does that work" question comes up in review, someone with knowledge of patterns will be able to provide a better solution than someone who just puts magic black boxes on the table.
This is like saying the more tools you take out of the toolbox the better carpentry job you do.
No it isn't. It's saying that you can't build a complex building without blueprints. Patterns represent known best practice designs. If you apply design patterns to all of your subsystems, you will end up with a superior design.
Proper application of any tool and abandonment of good design principals is obvious enough to where it doesn't (or shouldn't) have to be stated.
Misuse of anything will result in crap. Over compliating a system with unecessary farkles (whether they be patterns or not) is not a problem with patterns, it's a problem of poor design philosophy.
That being said, high pattern density in any system design will result in a better design than one with lower pattern densities.
High pattern density shows that the engineer anctualy sat down and thought about design. Most /. kiddies are apt to sit down and start banging code without any design though at all.
A system showing high density will, by defenition, be better designed that one without.
...for not stealing my music!
Imagin that.
It also doesn't say that magic pink elephants aren't fair use.
It specifies what fair use is. The fact that it doesn't say making personal copies means that it isn't fair use.