Yes, but that's the point. That will never happen again. It's too late, technology already does isolate us, allowing us to let our leaders get away with waging war remotely, killing thousands, with so much detachment that we let it happen.
All battles should be fought face to face, or not at all. Then it actually means something. There's no way in hell we'd be in Iraq if it was costing us as many casualties as we are causing.
This is NOT the first conflict since WWII where guard,reserves in large numbers have been called to duty. You're like 20 or so aren't you? Ever heard of Vietnam? Korea? Iraq 1 & 2? On and On.
But you are right that we have to remember the cost of war, that was my point. Also noting that we've gone in the wrong direction for that to happen. We kill more now with less direct feedback. War is a freaking video game/tv show now. No wonder we're fighting a war in Iraq that is baseless and unfounded, because we can't see it for what it really is.
Oh really? And which war do you have the most brutal images of in your mind? (Taking into account your impressions of an entire war, not just a single bomb going off on CNN)
I don't know about you, but I've got so many images of first/second world war horrors in my head that it doesn't matter if CNN shows a few dozen bombs going off in Iraq, it still doesn't even remotely compare. Why? Because war has been made into a media event that we don't actually take part in, even though it's our country at war.
When we were involved in the first/second world wars, even if you weren't there, you damned sure were involved. You felt it. You were part of it.
Now we let our elected leaders push buttons. Heck, even the soldiers doing the actual killing hardly ever see who they kill. And that's civilized?
Killing will always be killing, and never be right. However, when war must be waged, there most certainly are 'civilized' ways to go about it. Just being on the winning side does most certainly NOT make it civilized.
I wasn't suggesting that knives are the primary combat weapon. I was countering the suggestion that a knife is useless in combat, only even thought of if ammo and support are spent. Everyone knows not to bring a knife to a gun fight. But there are certain fights that can be better won with a knife.
Yes, but think about the differences in waging war with melee weapons vs. waging war with modern ranged weapons.
Look at how many times battles have been fought now where one side never had to look in the eyes of a SINGLE enemy, and yet thousands of the 'enemy' are dead. It used to mean something to go to war. You really had to think hard and long about doing it because you had to go into it FACE TO FACE. You had to live with consequences of your actions. Even to win, you had to loose. That alone made it very VERY unlikely that battles would be fought on a whim.
Now what do we do? We push buttons. People whom are personally responsible for killing dozens or more, never once have to actually deal with those deaths. In my opinion, that is unacceptable, uncivilized, and entirely pathetically cowardly.
I'd rather a world with no war, but I'd take real battles over video game deaths any day.
Just imagine if Bush had to go personally battle all those people in the mid east whose lives he is responsible for ending. Shit, imagine if his soldiers had even had to do that.
Think about it, compare world war 1&2 with every major conflict in the past 25 years. Were the world wars gruesome and horrible? Yes, of course. We took a HUGE toll in those wars. We know EXACTLY what that war cost, and I don't mean financially. What about the more modern battles like the war in Iraq? Nah, no where near as bad right? Bullshit. We just don't hold ourselves accountable for those actions because...well...we're not even there! Out of sight, out of mind.
We will most certainly be the end of ourselves. We're so blind we can't see.
You may wish to inject your morals into that argument, but that does not make the parent's post a double standard.
The opinion that eating meat is murder has no bearing on whether kidney/liver etc is as healthy as flesh.
That's the biggest problem with most people that share your point of view on this topic. You tend to be elitist about it and end up alienating everyone that doesn't share your position, leaving you with pretty much absolutely NO recourse to actually share your point of view.
You do notice how extremely close you came to calling the parent a murderer directly? Not exactly the way to open doors.
I strongly suggest you look up 'raster' and 'vector' in a dictionary and get up to speed before you continue on with that argument, you're showing your slip as it may be.
BTW, Windows XP icons are a special file format that can hold _many_ different _raster_ images in one file. They don't scale because they are raster images. Vector based icons would be different. These do not exist in Windows XP.
You're being overly semantic in a way that is confusing the issue.
A jpg is a file format for storing a raster image. A bmp is a file format for storing a raster image.
Both, when rendered, will display a raster image. Both can contain a _similar_ representation of the same raster image. A jpg happens to store that info in a lossy, compressed format.
Other Raster Image file formats you may know: gif png
They _all_ produce raster images, some closer to the original image than others.
I would hope rather that that makes you a big believer of _backups_, rather than tape. It is nice to hear that you have successfully employed tape technology in your backup system.
True that, but what does a civil union mean anyways when not backed by a political acknowledgement of marriage, and/or a religious acknowledgement of marriage.
A civil union in this case is no different than any 2 people making this union simply between themselves.
In other words, it doesn't matter that civil unions are banned as well, as if marriage itself is banned what is the point of said civil union anyways?
What I don't get about this is the stupid political position on this. I may not agree with the religious standpoint, but I at least understand it. (Just one example of why I cannot stand organized religion) The problem is, politically, it is in a governments best interest to not only allow, but to promote marriage between any 2 people. Can you say 'mo money'?
The only explanation that makes any sense at all is the obvious: There is no separation of church and state in the US at all. The political decision to ban gay marriage and gay civil union is not backed by any kind of rational political decision making, but is rather backed by a religious fundamentalist stance. There really is no other answer that fits.
You're openly admitting that you've been in the industry for 18 years, and have never read Dr. Dobbs Journal? (Nor apparently have any clue as to what it is)
I can see that if you just entered the industry this millenium, but to be old school and not know about this publication is bordering on sacraligeous. One of the best technical programming journals there is.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, pull out an actual globe sometime dude.
Now, find the good ol' u s of a on there.
Now, note that it does NOT include Canada, Mexico, the North Pole, Greenland or any of those other large masses of land around it.
Now try to make that statement again with a straight face.
World Geography 101.
I feel like I'm missing something...what's that from?
All I can think of is that that's a bad rip of the classic Spinal Tap joke..."But...these go to eleven!"
Anyone care to fill me in on the joke?
Q: What's the difference between a dissident and a terrorist?
A: Only your point of view.
Yes, but that's the point. That will never happen again. It's too late, technology already does isolate us, allowing us to let our leaders get away with waging war remotely, killing thousands, with so much detachment that we let it happen.
All battles should be fought face to face, or not at all. Then it actually means something. There's no way in hell we'd be in Iraq if it was costing us as many casualties as we are causing.
What are you going off about?
This is NOT the first conflict since WWII where guard,reserves in large numbers have been called to duty. You're like 20 or so aren't you? Ever heard of Vietnam? Korea? Iraq 1 & 2? On and On.
But you are right that we have to remember the cost of war, that was my point. Also noting that we've gone in the wrong direction for that to happen. We kill more now with less direct feedback. War is a freaking video game/tv show now. No wonder we're fighting a war in Iraq that is baseless and unfounded, because we can't see it for what it really is.
Um, whoosh?
(Sound of the point flying past over your head)
That would be my point.
Oh really? And which war do you have the most brutal images of in your mind? (Taking into account your impressions of an entire war, not just a single bomb going off on CNN)
I don't know about you, but I've got so many images of first/second world war horrors in my head that it doesn't matter if CNN shows a few dozen bombs going off in Iraq, it still doesn't even remotely compare. Why? Because war has been made into a media event that we don't actually take part in, even though it's our country at war.
When we were involved in the first/second world wars, even if you weren't there, you damned sure were involved. You felt it. You were part of it.
Now we let our elected leaders push buttons. Heck, even the soldiers doing the actual killing hardly ever see who they kill. And that's civilized?
Killing will always be killing, and never be right. However, when war must be waged, there most certainly are 'civilized' ways to go about it. Just being on the winning side does most certainly NOT make it civilized.
I wasn't suggesting that knives are the primary combat weapon. I was countering the suggestion that a knife is useless in combat, only even thought of if ammo and support are spent. Everyone knows not to bring a knife to a gun fight. But there are certain fights that can be better won with a knife.
Yes, but think about the differences in waging war with melee weapons vs. waging war with modern ranged weapons.
Look at how many times battles have been fought now where one side never had to look in the eyes of a SINGLE enemy, and yet thousands of the 'enemy' are dead. It used to mean something to go to war. You really had to think hard and long about doing it because you had to go into it FACE TO FACE. You had to live with consequences of your actions. Even to win, you had to loose. That alone made it very VERY unlikely that battles would be fought on a whim.
Now what do we do? We push buttons. People whom are personally responsible for killing dozens or more, never once have to actually deal with those deaths. In my opinion, that is unacceptable, uncivilized, and entirely pathetically cowardly.
I'd rather a world with no war, but I'd take real battles over video game deaths any day.
Just imagine if Bush had to go personally battle all those people in the mid east whose lives he is responsible for ending. Shit, imagine if his soldiers had even had to do that.
Think about it, compare world war 1&2 with every major conflict in the past 25 years. Were the world wars gruesome and horrible? Yes, of course. We took a HUGE toll in those wars. We know EXACTLY what that war cost, and I don't mean financially. What about the more modern battles like the war in Iraq? Nah, no where near as bad right? Bullshit. We just don't hold ourselves accountable for those actions because...well...we're not even there! Out of sight, out of mind.
We will most certainly be the end of ourselves. We're so blind we can't see.
And what would a civilized way to kill an enemy be then? Fire and forget? Never see them at all?
Ahh, right, the crux of all of our civilizations current problems.
No wonder were doomed if that's our current running definition of civilized.
Talk to someone that has been trained with knives in the military and you may just learn something.
Or continue pretending to be the world authority on the current usefulness of knives in combat operations.
Whatever really.
You may wish to inject your morals into that argument, but that does not make the parent's post a double standard.
The opinion that eating meat is murder has no bearing on whether kidney/liver etc is as healthy as flesh.
That's the biggest problem with most people that share your point of view on this topic. You tend to be elitist about it and end up alienating everyone that doesn't share your position, leaving you with pretty much absolutely NO recourse to actually share your point of view.
You do notice how extremely close you came to calling the parent a murderer directly? Not exactly the way to open doors.
In this day and age, eating animal parts that are used to filter crap out of the animals system just doesn't seem like a very good idea.
Never mind the taste involved.
Many years ago?
I'm quite certain I have a book here that was purchased there within the last 18 months.
Thought it was still there myself.
You are guaranteed that from day one in Canada by law. That does not however guarantee you 2 weeks off.
You still haven't bothered to look up the definition of raster and vector have you?
Now that you've confirmed that you are indeed very much an idiot, I'm about to start calling you some other things.
I strongly suggest you look up 'raster' and 'vector' in a dictionary and get up to speed before you continue on with that argument, you're showing your slip as it may be.
BTW, Windows XP icons are a special file format that can hold _many_ different _raster_ images in one file. They don't scale because they are raster images. Vector based icons would be different. These do not exist in Windows XP.
You're being overly semantic in a way that is confusing the issue.
A jpg is a file format for storing a raster image.
A bmp is a file format for storing a raster image.
Both, when rendered, will display a raster image.
Both can contain a _similar_ representation of the same raster image. A jpg happens to store that info in a lossy, compressed format.
Other Raster Image file formats you may know:
gif
png
They _all_ produce raster images, some closer to the original image than others.
I would hope rather that that makes you a big believer of _backups_, rather than tape. It is nice to hear that you have successfully employed tape technology in your backup system.
It's a real shame when something so true hits so close to home that it immediately gets modded into oblivion as a troll.
Sad.
That's probably the most insightful post on this thread right now.
Yeah, because we all know what a greedy sellout John Cleese is.
Hint: You're not going to make any friends that way.
So how's about you focus your energy on fixing the system instead of promoting breaking it more.
True that, but what does a civil union mean anyways when not backed by a political acknowledgement of marriage, and/or a religious acknowledgement of marriage.
A civil union in this case is no different than any 2 people making this union simply between themselves.
In other words, it doesn't matter that civil unions are banned as well, as if marriage itself is banned what is the point of said civil union anyways?
What I don't get about this is the stupid political position on this. I may not agree with the religious standpoint, but I at least understand it. (Just one example of why I cannot stand organized religion) The problem is, politically, it is in a governments best interest to not only allow, but to promote marriage between any 2 people. Can you say 'mo money'?
The only explanation that makes any sense at all is the obvious: There is no separation of church and state in the US at all. The political decision to ban gay marriage and gay civil union is not backed by any kind of rational political decision making, but is rather backed by a religious fundamentalist stance. There really is no other answer that fits.
You're openly admitting that you've been in the industry for 18 years, and have never read Dr. Dobbs Journal? (Nor apparently have any clue as to what it is)
I can see that if you just entered the industry this millenium, but to be old school and not know about this publication is bordering on sacraligeous. One of the best technical programming journals there is.