Where is the hard evidence to back this "real reason" up? I even went back and read the article just to make sure I didn't miss something. There was little in the way of facts, and much in the way of speculation, unwillingness to name sources, and accusation. Not to mention the obvious anti-Bush leftist slant...always good for the ol' credibility.
What kind of hard evidence would you like? I doubt Bush or his advisors are exactly posting their thoughts on the oil economy switching to the Euro on usenet, so we have to infer their strategies from their actions. Before I read this particular piece, I was truly baffled by the concept of going to war with Iraq again. There are certainly more dangerous regimes around the world (N. Korea for example - who both are actively developing nukes and were just recently caught shipping missiles to the middle east) who are more likely to either attack us directly or give their weapons to terrorists. I mean, Saddam didn't even use those chemical weapons against us in the first gulf war, and there was no question about him having them then. From all appearances, Iraq has grudgingly complied with everything the UN has asked of them. From allowing the searching of 'presdiential palaces' to the destruction of those missiles. It just seems like the Bush administration wanted this war regardless of what Iraq did. So what *has* Iraq done recently that could threaten the US in any way? Nothing that I can see besides threatening the strength of the dollar.
Of course, the "real story" is "being supressed" by the government and the media, so we have to take W. Clark's word for it. Ahh, the good old "they don't want you to know" tactic.
If you watch any international news, you will see that there are many, many stories that are either not reported at all or are spun to put the US in the best possible light by our media. How much have you heard about the bugging of the security council's offices by the CIA in the US news? How much has been said about the size of the protests around the world?
Go over to newsmax.com [newsmax.com] and you'll see them pulling the same routine.
Actually, I do read both Newsmax and Worldnetdaily pretty regularly too. Most of what they write is crap, but some truth does manage to sneak through once in a while.
And yes, I'm trying to act in the interest of fairness. Even though I do lean moderately conservative (maybe more libertarian, actually), I do believe that a large portion of what Newsmax puts out is contrived garbage.
I'm almost a textbook libertarian. I think it frees us from being blinded by the 'team thought' that infects the two big parties in the US.
That being said, I considered this article, as you suggested, based on the merits of the article, and found those merits to be severely lacking.
For instance?
Yes, the article is slanted left, but the author isn't just pulling his facts out of thin air.
I'm also unclear as to how being a healthcare manager at a "well-known east coast university" gives W. Clark inside access to the Bush administration's foreign policy initiatives.
Does being in healthcare somehow keep one from writing a well-documented article?
I would consider it based on the merits of the article, not where it originated.
It is a fact that Iraq switched to the Euro in 2000. It is also a fact that the dollar derives a great deal of its value because it is the de facto world oil currency. Is this particular reason for war any more outlandish than the administration's claims about Iraq's weapons or ties to Al Qaeda?
"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)
"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."
You see, the United states cannot allow the oil economy to be based upon anything but the US dollar. To do so would mean that the government could no longer operate with such an astounding defecit (almost 40% of the annual GDP). The United States would go bankrupt if this happened.
The cows are primarily being used to produce milk. Generating power is just a benefit of recycling their shit. Either way, the same amount of wast is produced, but one way we are doing something useful with it.
The methane is being generated no matter how you look at it. So the question is do we just let it escape into the atmosphere or do we burn it, producing energy + H2O + CO2.
I think this is a great way for these farmers to make some extra cash.
Probably would be better to buy up all the common business names. You know, like "bank.com", "news.com", or "shop.com". You could have sold any of them for a huge wad of cash at the height of the dotcom bubble.
No, I buy my software. I walk into a store, pay my money, and walk out with my newly purchased product. The company I work for licenses their software. They sign an actual contract for a certain number of licenses for a certain period of time - so does the company doing the licensing. See the difference? In one case something is sold and in the other something is licensed. I no more license my retail software than I license a book or cd I've bought.
> I'll make a worthless analagoy that will get me flamed and down modded
OK.
>If i can pick you car locks and steal your car I should be able to right, and the law shoudln't stop me, because your locks weren't good enough
There is no law against picking the locks on my own car. Neither is there anything wrong with my having my own server for playing my legally-bought games with my friends on the internet.
>Also, the product wasn't yours to use as you saw fit, it was a beta limited in scope to a few thousand people, don't like that? tough
That one game, that *wasn't* supported by bnetd without modifications, is no justification for shutting down all of the other games that were supported legally.
Blizzard just sucks. We should all send everyone we know a copy of this new version as soon as it's cracked.:)
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1)that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2)that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."
>Most places, if you work less than 40 hours, it comes out of your paycheck just as if you were an hourly employee. It's only overtime that's "free".
If you work for a company that's doing this, sue their asses off! They cannot legally treat you as exempt in one instance and hourly in the other. Actually, there is a huge lawsuit going on right now against WalMart because they were doing exactly that thing to their pharmacists.
If that is the case, then no commercial EULA will hold up either. After all, I've already paid for the software and I'm not getting anything in addition to what I've already bought by clicking 'agree'.
>When you go to the gas station you are entering into an implied contract to purchase gas.
Holy cow! You mean if I drive up to a gas station and then drive away without actually buying anything I can be sued? I'm gonna have to watch myself in the future in that case.
I *do not* have to agree to a EULA to use a piece of software that I have legally purchased. Once I've left the store, the transaction is complete. Any other terms the producer of the software wanted me to agree to should have been made before the purchase. Since I own (yes, own) that one copy of the software, it is mine to do with as copyright law allows.
The airwaves are a public resource. Right now, that public resource is concentrated in the hands of 2 companies who are completely unwilling to do anything for the benefit of the public. The government has every right to ensure that the public is being served by our airwaves.
Slashdot Mirror
Ack! I always do that and have to smack myself afterwards.
I meant the national debt, which is at $6.5 trillion right now.
Where is the hard evidence to back this "real reason" up? I even went back and read the article just to make sure I didn't miss something. There was little in the way of facts, and much in the way of speculation, unwillingness to name sources, and accusation. Not to mention the obvious anti-Bush leftist slant...always good for the ol' credibility.
What kind of hard evidence would you like? I doubt Bush or his advisors are exactly posting their thoughts on the oil economy switching to the Euro on usenet, so we have to infer their strategies from their actions. Before I read this particular piece, I was truly baffled by the concept of going to war with Iraq again. There are certainly more dangerous regimes around the world (N. Korea for example - who both are actively developing nukes and were just recently caught shipping missiles to the middle east) who are more likely to either attack us directly or give their weapons to terrorists. I mean, Saddam didn't even use those chemical weapons against us in the first gulf war, and there was no question about him having them then. From all appearances, Iraq has grudgingly complied with everything the UN has asked of them. From allowing the searching of 'presdiential palaces' to the destruction of those missiles. It just seems like the Bush administration wanted this war regardless of what Iraq did. So what *has* Iraq done recently that could threaten the US in any way? Nothing that I can see besides threatening the strength of the dollar.
Of course, the "real story" is "being supressed" by the government and the media, so we have to take W. Clark's word for it. Ahh, the good old "they don't want you to know" tactic.
If you watch any international news, you will see that there are many, many stories that are either not reported at all or are spun to put the US in the best possible light by our media. How much have you heard about the bugging of the security council's offices by the CIA in the US news? How much has been said about the size of the protests around the world?
Go over to newsmax.com [newsmax.com] and you'll see them pulling the same routine.
Actually, I do read both Newsmax and Worldnetdaily pretty regularly too. Most of what they write is crap, but some truth does manage to sneak through once in a while.
And yes, I'm trying to act in the interest of fairness. Even though I do lean moderately conservative (maybe more libertarian, actually), I do believe that a large portion of what Newsmax puts out is contrived garbage.
I'm almost a textbook libertarian. I think it frees us from being blinded by the 'team thought' that infects the two big parties in the US.
That being said, I considered this article, as you suggested, based on the merits of the article, and found those merits to be severely lacking.
For instance?
Yes, the article is slanted left, but the author isn't just pulling his facts out of thin air.
I'm also unclear as to how being a healthcare manager at a "well-known east coast university" gives W. Clark inside access to the Bush administration's foreign policy initiatives.
Does being in healthcare somehow keep one from writing a well-documented article?
Seriously. Watch international news and be amazed at how the American media is just a bunch of cheerleaders.
I would consider it based on the merits of the article, not where it originated.
It is a fact that Iraq switched to the Euro in 2000. It is also a fact that the dollar derives a great deal of its value because it is the de facto world oil currency. Is this particular reason for war any more outlandish than the administration's claims about Iraq's weapons or ties to Al Qaeda?
Are you going to argue any of the points raised or just shoot the messenger?
Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.
Well, it's not strictly about the oil. More about what currency is used to pay for the oil.
"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)
"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."
You see, the United states cannot allow the oil economy to be based upon anything but the US dollar. To do so would mean that the government could no longer operate with such an astounding defecit (almost 40% of the annual GDP). The United States would go bankrupt if this happened.
The cows are primarily being used to produce milk. Generating power is just a benefit of recycling their shit. Either way, the same amount of wast is produced, but one way we are doing something useful with it.
The methane is being generated no matter how you look at it. So the question is do we just let it escape into the atmosphere or do we burn it, producing energy + H2O + CO2.
I think this is a great way for these farmers to make some extra cash.
IBM owns several thousand patents on all sorts of OS components. They don't enforce most of them, but they are there just for cases like this.
Funny, I seem to remember having a Texas Instruments computer in 1982. I think it was a ti99/4a. I was 9 and not particularly rich.
Probably would be better to buy up all the common business names. You know, like "bank.com", "news.com", or "shop.com". You could have sold any of them for a huge wad of cash at the height of the dotcom bubble.
>Thousands and thousands of people marched last weekend to uphold the right of the authorities in Iraq to stay in power.
I think they were marching to keep our yahoo president from violating international law by attacking a soverign country who hasn't attacked first.
>atheism is "the disbelief that a diety exists", which can be stated as "the belief that no diety exists" then atheism is a religion.
Incorrect. Disbelief in any deity does not imply belief that no deity exists. Atheism is simply lack of religious beliefs.
No, I buy my software. I walk into a store, pay my money, and walk out with my newly purchased product. The company I work for licenses their software. They sign an actual contract for a certain number of licenses for a certain period of time - so does the company doing the licensing. See the difference? In one case something is sold and in the other something is licensed. I no more license my retail software than I license a book or cd I've bought.
>Battle.net is a value add service, you want it? you use theirs, real simple
Why bother when I can get the exact same service without subjecting myself to their ad-filled garbage?
> I'll make a worthless analagoy that will get me flamed and down modded
:)
OK.
>If i can pick you car locks and steal your car I should be able to right, and the law shoudln't stop me, because your locks weren't good enough
There is no law against picking the locks on my own car. Neither is there anything wrong with my having my own server for playing my legally-bought games with my friends on the internet.
>Also, the product wasn't yours to use as you saw fit, it was a beta limited in scope to a few thousand people, don't like that? tough
That one game, that *wasn't* supported by bnetd without modifications, is no justification for shutting down all of the other games that were supported legally.
Blizzard just sucks. We should all send everyone we know a copy of this new version as soon as it's cracked.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1)that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2)that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."
>But, you still have to distribute the pad.
How about using Quantum Key Exchange? Seems like the perfect solution.
>Most places, if you work less than 40 hours, it comes out of your paycheck just as if you were an hourly employee. It's only overtime that's "free".
If you work for a company that's doing this, sue their asses off! They cannot legally treat you as exempt in one instance and hourly in the other. Actually, there is a huge lawsuit going on right now against WalMart because they were doing exactly that thing to their pharmacists.
Copyright law specifically exempts the incidental copying done when installing a program or running it on your computer.
If that is the case, then no commercial EULA will hold up either. After all, I've already paid for the software and I'm not getting anything in addition to what I've already bought by clicking 'agree'.
>When you go to the gas station you are entering into an implied contract to purchase gas.
Holy cow! You mean if I drive up to a gas station and then drive away without actually buying anything I can be sued? I'm gonna have to watch myself in the future in that case.
I *do not* have to agree to a EULA to use a piece of software that I have legally purchased. Once I've left the store, the transaction is complete. Any other terms the producer of the software wanted me to agree to should have been made before the purchase. Since I own (yes, own) that one copy of the software, it is mine to do with as copyright law allows.
When did a contract become something other than a signed agreement between two parties?
There is no signature involved in a EULA.
The airwaves are a public resource. Right now, that public resource is concentrated in the hands of 2 companies who are completely unwilling to do anything for the benefit of the public. The government has every right to ensure that the public is being served by our airwaves.
Paying for someone to speak for you isn't equivalent to you speaking yourself?