When you call the president a facist, you've pretty much trashed not just the country, not just its leaders, but everything the country is about.
Your statement equates the President witht he country. The President (whichever person happens to be occupying the office at any point in time) is not the country nor is he everything the country is about. He is one man in a position of power, nothing more.
The defining characteristic of this country is the orderly transfer of power. When someone starts calling people "fascists" - intimating that they are dictators -- they are trashing the fundamental principle of this country.
I do not think the current President is a fascist. However, if someone occupied the office of the President started acting like a dictator why would I be "trashing the fundamental principle of this country" by pointing that out, especally if my intent was to point out that we in the US of A do not want a fascist running the country, seeing how not having fascists running the country is one of our fundamental principles?
Dissenting in a country where dissent is legal and respected doesn't make you special. You are not patriotic for doing it.
Its one thing to say that the act of dissenting does not make you a patriot. Its quite another thing to say that if you dissent you are unpatriotic (as some conservatives seem to suggest these days).
I agree, most of this is a political game.
Clearly, President Bush felt that there were good reasons for going to war in Iraq. Hoepfuly, he had many good, legitimate reasons for going, because I'm sure that it was not lost on him that at a minimum, there would probably be a happy coincidence that going to war would raise his political standing.
In either case, regardless of his true motivation, he told congress and he told the public that we were going to rid Iraq of WMDs. He built public support for a war based on this reason, and if that reason were untrue (and I don't think that's been established yet) but he did not know it to be untrue, I can forgive that. However, if he really did not have a good faith belief that the reason he gave us all was the truth, I have a BIG problem with that. I'd have a big problem with that if Jimmy Carter had done it, or Bill Clinton had done it, just the same as I'd have a big problem if Reagon or Bush #1 had done it.
When an American president goes to the American public and to Congress to justifying a war, he is going to them to justify the inevitable deaths of American servicemen and woman - our sons and daughters - not to mention innocent civilians and enemy lives. If we as Americans hold each life to be sacred, if the President holds each life to be sacred, he cannot go around justifying deaths with pretenses he knows to be false. The only thing political about this is the fact that the person who happens to be in the Presidency at this time and who may have done this happens to be a Republican. Well, shame on this Republican if this is what he's done, but shame on any Democrat who would have done the same.
Although I doubt it would have been 'diplomaticaly correct', given the speeds and altitudes involved, I imagine that none of the countries in question could have done much more than complained.
Useful things for the interstellar hitchhiker
on
Duct Tape Goes Minature
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I don't know about the rest of you, but with respect to Douglas Adams, I for one plan on keeping mine next to my towel:)
What if the 'soft wall' really had two zones, an outer zone and a more critical inner zone? The system would not allow the inner zone to be penetrated under any circumstances. The pilot could engage an override to allow penetration into the outer zone in an emergency (the override might be a switch / button or might simply be triggered by manipulating the flight controls past some 'emergency' threshold). However, doing so would (hopefuly) be such a rare occurance that it would provoke quite a response from ground controllers and other defensive elements protecting the inner zone (i.e., if you are going to engage your override, you darn well better be able to provide a good explanation in short order or you'll be in a world of trouble).
I think this might work a bit better as the need to avoid a mid-air collision could be accomodated, I think, by this approach.
what should be protocol for when an airport is in/next to a city?
This is a really good point. As I recall, after 9/11, there was a big ruckus over re-opening Reagan National Airport in DC due to the flight path's proximity to important government buildings. Could one really put a softwall around these buildings and yet still allow planes to takeoff / land from this airport?
A much better idea, I think, would be to suppliment this 'soft wall' system with a system where a plane could be programmed, for each flight, with a 'soft tunnel' based on the flight plan the pilot files, to prevent the pilot from deviating from said plan. The FAA or agents on its behalf would be the only ones who could program the device on the plane for each flight (this would be enforced via some form of strong cryptography). Obviously (or hopefuly) these agents would not approve flight plans that ended in large structures:) The system would allow for things such as the need to approach / land / takeoff in different directions based on the wind by having multiple allowable paths near the departure and takeoff airports. Anyway, just food for thought.
I agree here - if they won't abolish HOV lanes they ought to darn well enforce it much better than they do. In LA, the only people who don't get to use the carpool lanes are those who drive alone and who obey the law. Maybe driving alone is a 'bad' thing, but when I see others in the carpool lane who are also alone and willing to take the (very minimal) risk of getting a ticket it ticks me off to no end. Why (for example) can we enforce traffic lights with cameras and not make a better effort to enforce carpool lanes either with manpower or technology? I mean, not only do people abuse them by riding in them when there is only one person in the car, but the designated areas for entering and leaving the lanes are ignored by a lot of these people too.
Why we use taxpayer dollars to build these lanes and then only "allow" certain people to use them is beyond me. If we then sold access to the lanes, I'd say that would amount to a publicly funded toll road, which if not illegal or unconstitutional certainly ought to be. As far as I'm concerned, build the lanes and then let everyone use them. Figure out another way to encourage people to ride together.
I'd also point out that, IMHO, these lanes are unsafe. Usually they are sandwhiched between a concrete barrier on one side and, often, a solid wall of unmoving cars on the other. When the carpool lane is flowing at 50 or 60 mph in such a situation, how does one even have the possibility of swerving safely to avoid an accident?
This is an excellent point. If it were possible to offer music in a format that had much higher fidelity than CD, so that even the average Joe would here a clear difference between the CD and the new format, perhaps the record company's fortunes would change (at least in the short term, until someone improves upon MP3 / OGG). I mean, I think right now most people would rather download an MP3 than pay for a CD is that the quality difference between them is not that significant - compared to a CD, for most people an MP3 is 'good enough'. Perhaps MP3 would not be 'good enough' for most people if the alternative was a audio format with a marked sound quality improvement over CDs.
This is a good point. Most of the big stores seem to stock pretty much all the same mainstream items taken straight from the playlist of the local ClearChannel station. I am much more likely to shop at stores that have the mainstream stuff along with a good selection of not so mainstream items.
Hear Music (which is a small chain actually owned by Starbucks) fits the bill pretty well, and their selling model focuses a great deal on their "Hear Recommends" items (these are items that the store / staff recommends). I really like this because I can go into their store, see what they recommend and get exposed to new artists / new types of music.
Tower records selection varies from store to store, but its usually pretty good and its prices are at least competitive with other 'real world stores' - they also at least attempt to make the customer feel at home in a place that represents music culture and not just corporate profit. Virgin is similar to Tower in my eyes, except the stores are nicer, are fewer and farher between and they have a consistently large selection of everything - and the prices are a bit higher than Tower on average.
Sam Goodie, on the other hand, is simply awful. The prices are higher than any other chain, and every time I walk into one I feel like I'm in a generic mall shop instead of a store that is part of the music culture. No thank you.
On the other hand, when I do buy CD's (which I do less and less these days) I buy at least half from Amazon and most of the rest from Hear or Virgin.
Amazon is cheaper that all of the physical stores I've mentioned on nearly every CD, selection is basically never an issue with them and I never have to leave home to make my purchase. In the end, the only reason I don't use Amazon exclusively is that at Hear or Virgin, I get instant gratification (that is, not have to wait for Amazon to ship me my order).
This is a very good point. Even though all of these artistic works are lumped together in popular perception as music (and therefore no one company has a monopoly on music - though one could argue that the RIAA members effectively do), to a large degree whatever label Madonna (or other artist) is signed to effectively has a monopoly on Madonna music.
But, imagine if the big name artists, when their current deals expire, simply allow their next album to be published by whoever wants to publish it, provided that the artist gets some marginally larger share of the take than they get today in their record company contracts. No exclusitivity for the publisher This would probably transform the record industry. I mean, all the big name labels would want to publish Madonna's album and get their piece of the sales. Moreover, the record companies would probably be tripping over each other to make their version of Madonna's albumn better than the competition's.
First a quick question - obviously the FAA has very strict rules about bringing firearms aboard commercial airplanes. Do these rules also apply to private airplanes?
Second, while I have no problem with people's right to bear arms, I think that this right is not absolute (in the same manner that the right to free speech does not prevent yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater from being illegal). You should not be prohibitted from owning a weapon, but the types of weapons you can own and the places you can take them ought to be limitted. Would you really want to fly on a 747 if everyone on board was allowed to bring along a.45?
In addition the 2nd ammendment is a bit outdated, IMHO, as it seemed to be primarily intended to provide the citizens with some level of defense against the army / government. Even if there were no laws today preventing citizens from owning any type of firearm they pleased, given the cost of modern military weapons how could the citizens ever hope to effectively resist the military if it ever came down to it?
IMHO, E-Voting will not be pratical in the near future, at least w/o having the existing voting mechanisms in place as a backup.
I mean, the tech support challenge in a large scale national election would be enormous. You either have to provide technical support for millions of voters and (since I can conceive that this might involve a combination of users voting from home or going to polling places if they do not have computers, or maybe even everyone goes to a polling place) possibly thousands of polling places around the country who all need help on the same day.
Screw up and large blocks of voters get disenfranchised. I mean, you can't have someone walk into a polling place and say to them "Oh, I'm sorry sir, the computers are down and they won't be back up for three hours". The chaos from the resulting court battles would make Bush v. Gore look like two good freinds having lunch.
Ok, if they can figure out what I want to listen to and write a plugin for my MP3 player to manipulate my playlists so that I hear what I want, that's great. But why can't they make this thing a plugin for Kaaza or WinMX so that it automatically DOWNLOADS what I want?
Imagine this (and RIAA's reaction):
1. User downloads the plugin
2. User spends a couple of hours a day over the next few days listening to music
3. Plugin determines user's tastes and automatically goes out on WinMX or Kaaza to download just about everything the user would ever want to listen to.
Will the federal regulators (not to mention regulators in the EU and elsewhere) actually let MS combine with Vivendi?
I realise of course that the White House is now controlled by Dubyah, but it would be awfully two-faced for the Feds to sue Microsoft for anti-trust violations and then turn around and put their seal of approval on this sort of deal.
I also wonder, is MS's interest in this deal related to the opportunity they see for themselves, or the opportunity to deny Apple?
I'm not familiar with the details of the television business, but how much revenue can a show bring in per viewer? I bet its orders of magnitude less than the profit on each copy of a season pack of DVD's (which, considering that they tend to sell for $75-$100, probably means at least $20-$25 profit for the studio, though I'm just guessing). Ergo, probably only a small percentage of viewers would need to buy the DVD packs for the studio to make more money than they would producing another season, and this way they don't have to risk the cost of producing another season.
Can VisiCalc replace Excel at NASA?
on
Implementing VisiCalc
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Maybe this can be NASA's new, low cost orbital debris analysis program instead of Excel. Heck, it might even save a shuttle or two.
Just an observation, but, unfortunately, when we find WMD in Iraq, Americans who support the war will believe its legit. Americans out protesting will think its fabricated, as will the Germans, French, and all of the Arab world. The military war will be easy, but in the PR war we are outgunned.
I agree with this, but how much more is the average Iraqi soldier who is supposed to be getting "shocked" and "awed" really going to see than the camera on CNN is showing us?
when un's "authority and jurisdiction" are convenient they are quoted. when they are inconveneint, they are ignored
I have to agree with this. Its mighty hypocritical of us to want the UN's support in Gulf War 1 and then ignore their refusal to give it and start Gulf War 2.
On the other hand, I think it was a huge mistake by Bush 41 to go to the UN in the early 90's. It established a precendent that the US would ask the UN for permission in the future. Big mistake. Since when did the US need the UN's permission for anything?
We'd have been better off ignoring the UN and ignoring the UN now than we would have been getting UN permission then and UN permission now.
First, I want to say I am for the war. We should have gotten rid of Saddam a long time ago. The bottom line is that in 91, as a condition for not giving Hussein even more of an ass-kicking than we did, he agreed to certain conditions, and he did not live up to his part of the bargain. We should have immediately went back in and finished him, instead of waiting 12 years. Why? Because people have short memories. Just because we are doing it 12 years too late doesn't mean its not legitimate.
On the other hand, this statement bothers me:
This makes a lot of sense once you get by your hatred of GWB.
Why is it nearly everone who is in favor of the war seems to think that a person can't be against the war for any other reason than some hatred of Dubyah? Or, for that matter, that no one can be against GWB without being against the war?
I respectfully suggest to anyone who thinks that anti-bush automatically means antiwar, that your position has no more merit than if I were to say that anyone who is for the war must only be so out of some blind devotion to GWB rather than legitimate reasons.
Furhter, I rather think that if GWB had done much of anything so far with his presidency other than 9/11 and the War on Iraq, people who are legitimately against the war might be able to find other things that they *would* support Bush for. Granted, of course, that GWB did not ask for 9/11 to happen and obviously he has to give it a lot of attention, but IMHO his effort in other areas are rather lacking.
Its not as if Microsoft has never been hypocritical in the past, but this sets a new level.
If you believe logic that says anything that aids terrorism in any way, shape, or form should be outlawed (which would apparently be Microsoft's own position), then the FBI should raid Bill Gates's home today, arrest him, and shutdown Microsoft immediately.
After all, when we arrest KSM and these other guys and start taking stuff off of their computers, I'd bet 99% of them are running Windows, the terrorists are probably e-mailing each other with Outlook and keeping track of the funds with Excel.
Is it just me, or would the explosion of a ballistic missle carrying a nuclear warhead, either caused by the laser described in this article, or a physical interception (Patriot missle or Bush's missle defense shield), turn in to a ready made dirty bomb?
I mean, the radioactive material in the bomb would hardly be vaporized I imagine, and instead would disperse down from whatever altitude the intercept occured at to contaminate the underlying area. Ok, it seems that we want to destroy the missle in the ascent phase of flight and thus the contaminated area might not be anywhere in the US, but still....
If I'm not mistaken this does not involve Richard Hatch. Considering the effort he's put in over the years to a Galactica (and his own career) revival, I'd bet he's quite pissed.
Slashdot Mirror
Your statement equates the President witht he country. The President (whichever person happens to be occupying the office at any point in time) is not the country nor is he everything the country is about. He is one man in a position of power, nothing more.
The defining characteristic of this country is the orderly transfer of power. When someone starts calling people "fascists" - intimating that they are dictators -- they are trashing the fundamental principle of this country.
I do not think the current President is a fascist. However, if someone occupied the office of the President started acting like a dictator why would I be "trashing the fundamental principle of this country" by pointing that out, especally if my intent was to point out that we in the US of A do not want a fascist running the country, seeing how not having fascists running the country is one of our fundamental principles?
Dissenting in a country where dissent is legal and respected doesn't make you special. You are not patriotic for doing it.
Its one thing to say that the act of dissenting does not make you a patriot. Its quite another thing to say that if you dissent you are unpatriotic (as some conservatives seem to suggest these days).
I agree, most of this is a political game.
Clearly, President Bush felt that there were good reasons for going to war in Iraq. Hoepfuly, he had many good, legitimate reasons for going, because I'm sure that it was not lost on him that at a minimum, there would probably be a happy coincidence that going to war would raise his political standing.
In either case, regardless of his true motivation, he told congress and he told the public that we were going to rid Iraq of WMDs. He built public support for a war based on this reason, and if that reason were untrue (and I don't think that's been established yet) but he did not know it to be untrue, I can forgive that. However, if he really did not have a good faith belief that the reason he gave us all was the truth, I have a BIG problem with that. I'd have a big problem with that if Jimmy Carter had done it, or Bill Clinton had done it, just the same as I'd have a big problem if Reagon or Bush #1 had done it.
When an American president goes to the American public and to Congress to justifying a war, he is going to them to justify the inevitable deaths of American servicemen and woman - our sons and daughters - not to mention innocent civilians and enemy lives. If we as Americans hold each life to be sacred, if the President holds each life to be sacred, he cannot go around justifying deaths with pretenses he knows to be false. The only thing political about this is the fact that the person who happens to be in the Presidency at this time and who may have done this happens to be a Republican. Well, shame on this Republican if this is what he's done, but shame on any Democrat who would have done the same.
Perhaps NASA should start looking at new designs with[out] potentially fatal flaws.
Yes, perhaps the builders of the Titanic can build us an unsinkable space shuttle.
Any conceivable design to transport humans into space would pretty much have potentially fatal flaws by definition.
Although I doubt it would have been 'diplomaticaly correct', given the speeds and altitudes involved, I imagine that none of the countries in question could have done much more than complained.
I don't know about the rest of you, but with respect to Douglas Adams, I for one plan on keeping mine next to my towel :)
What if the 'soft wall' really had two zones, an outer zone and a more critical inner zone? The system would not allow the inner zone to be penetrated under any circumstances. The pilot could engage an override to allow penetration into the outer zone in an emergency (the override might be a switch / button or might simply be triggered by manipulating the flight controls past some 'emergency' threshold). However, doing so would (hopefuly) be such a rare occurance that it would provoke quite a response from ground controllers and other defensive elements protecting the inner zone (i.e., if you are going to engage your override, you darn well better be able to provide a good explanation in short order or you'll be in a world of trouble).
I think this might work a bit better as the need to avoid a mid-air collision could be accomodated, I think, by this approach.
This is a really good point. As I recall, after 9/11, there was a big ruckus over re-opening Reagan National Airport in DC due to the flight path's proximity to important government buildings. Could one really put a softwall around these buildings and yet still allow planes to takeoff / land from this airport?
A much better idea, I think, would be to suppliment this 'soft wall' system with a system where a plane could be programmed, for each flight, with a 'soft tunnel' based on the flight plan the pilot files, to prevent the pilot from deviating from said plan. The FAA or agents on its behalf would be the only ones who could program the device on the plane for each flight (this would be enforced via some form of strong cryptography). Obviously (or hopefuly) these agents would not approve flight plans that ended in large structures
How is it that MS is going to go out and conquer spam and yet sees no need to abolish that bloody paper clip?
I agree here - if they won't abolish HOV lanes they ought to darn well enforce it much better than they do. In LA, the only people who don't get to use the carpool lanes are those who drive alone and who obey the law. Maybe driving alone is a 'bad' thing, but when I see others in the carpool lane who are also alone and willing to take the (very minimal) risk of getting a ticket it ticks me off to no end. Why (for example) can we enforce traffic lights with cameras and not make a better effort to enforce carpool lanes either with manpower or technology? I mean, not only do people abuse them by riding in them when there is only one person in the car, but the designated areas for entering and leaving the lanes are ignored by a lot of these people too.
Why we use taxpayer dollars to build these lanes and then only "allow" certain people to use them is beyond me. If we then sold access to the lanes, I'd say that would amount to a publicly funded toll road, which if not illegal or unconstitutional certainly ought to be. As far as I'm concerned, build the lanes and then let everyone use them. Figure out another way to encourage people to ride together.
I'd also point out that, IMHO, these lanes are unsafe. Usually they are sandwhiched between a concrete barrier on one side and, often, a solid wall of unmoving cars on the other. When the carpool lane is flowing at 50 or 60 mph in such a situation, how does one even have the possibility of swerving safely to avoid an accident?
This is an excellent point. If it were possible to offer music in a format that had much higher fidelity than CD, so that even the average Joe would here a clear difference between the CD and the new format, perhaps the record company's fortunes would change (at least in the short term, until someone improves upon MP3 / OGG). I mean, I think right now most people would rather download an MP3 than pay for a CD is that the quality difference between them is not that significant - compared to a CD, for most people an MP3 is 'good enough'. Perhaps MP3 would not be 'good enough' for most people if the alternative was a audio format with a marked sound quality improvement over CDs.
Hear Music (which is a small chain actually owned by Starbucks) fits the bill pretty well, and their selling model focuses a great deal on their "Hear Recommends" items (these are items that the store / staff recommends). I really like this because I can go into their store, see what they recommend and get exposed to new artists / new types of music.
Tower records selection varies from store to store, but its usually pretty good and its prices are at least competitive with other 'real world stores' - they also at least attempt to make the customer feel at home in a place that represents music culture and not just corporate profit. Virgin is similar to Tower in my eyes, except the stores are nicer, are fewer and farher between and they have a consistently large selection of everything - and the prices are a bit higher than Tower on average.
Sam Goodie, on the other hand, is simply awful. The prices are higher than any other chain, and every time I walk into one I feel like I'm in a generic mall shop instead of a store that is part of the music culture. No thank you.
On the other hand, when I do buy CD's (which I do less and less these days) I buy at least half from Amazon and most of the rest from Hear or Virgin. Amazon is cheaper that all of the physical stores I've mentioned on nearly every CD, selection is basically never an issue with them and I never have to leave home to make my purchase. In the end, the only reason I don't use Amazon exclusively is that at Hear or Virgin, I get instant gratification (that is, not have to wait for Amazon to ship me my order).
But, imagine if the big name artists, when their current deals expire, simply allow their next album to be published by whoever wants to publish it, provided that the artist gets some marginally larger share of the take than they get today in their record company contracts. No exclusitivity for the publisher This would probably transform the record industry. I mean, all the big name labels would want to publish Madonna's album and get their piece of the sales. Moreover, the record companies would probably be tripping over each other to make their version of Madonna's albumn better than the competition's.
First a quick question - obviously the FAA has very strict rules about bringing firearms aboard commercial airplanes. Do these rules also apply to private airplanes?
.45?
Second, while I have no problem with people's right to bear arms, I think that this right is not absolute (in the same manner that the right to free speech does not prevent yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater from being illegal). You should not be prohibitted from owning a weapon, but the types of weapons you can own and the places you can take them ought to be limitted. Would you really want to fly on a 747 if everyone on board was allowed to bring along a
In addition the 2nd ammendment is a bit outdated, IMHO, as it seemed to be primarily intended to provide the citizens with some level of defense against the army / government. Even if there were no laws today preventing citizens from owning any type of firearm they pleased, given the cost of modern military weapons how could the citizens ever hope to effectively resist the military if it ever came down to it?
I mean, the tech support challenge in a large scale national election would be enormous. You either have to provide technical support for millions of voters and (since I can conceive that this might involve a combination of users voting from home or going to polling places if they do not have computers, or maybe even everyone goes to a polling place) possibly thousands of polling places around the country who all need help on the same day.
Screw up and large blocks of voters get disenfranchised. I mean, you can't have someone walk into a polling place and say to them "Oh, I'm sorry sir, the computers are down and they won't be back up for three hours". The chaos from the resulting court battles would make Bush v. Gore look like two good freinds having lunch.
Imagine this (and RIAA's reaction):
1. User downloads the plugin
2. User spends a couple of hours a day over the next few days listening to music
3. Plugin determines user's tastes and automatically goes out on WinMX or Kaaza to download just about everything the user would ever want to listen to.
Will the federal regulators (not to mention regulators in the EU and elsewhere) actually let MS combine with Vivendi?
I realise of course that the White House is now controlled by Dubyah, but it would be awfully two-faced for the Feds to sue Microsoft for anti-trust violations and then turn around and put their seal of approval on this sort of deal.
I also wonder, is MS's interest in this deal related to the opportunity they see for themselves, or the opportunity to deny Apple?
I'm not familiar with the details of the television business, but how much revenue can a show bring in per viewer? I bet its orders of magnitude less than the profit on each copy of a season pack of DVD's (which, considering that they tend to sell for $75-$100, probably means at least $20-$25 profit for the studio, though I'm just guessing). Ergo, probably only a small percentage of viewers would need to buy the DVD packs for the studio to make more money than they would producing another season, and this way they don't have to risk the cost of producing another season.
Just an observation, but, unfortunately, when we find WMD in Iraq, Americans who support the war will believe its legit. Americans out protesting will think its fabricated, as will the Germans, French, and all of the Arab world. The military war will be easy, but in the PR war we are outgunned.
I agree with this, but how much more is the average Iraqi soldier who is supposed to be getting "shocked" and "awed" really going to see than the camera on CNN is showing us?
I have to agree with this. Its mighty hypocritical of us to want the UN's support in Gulf War 1 and then ignore their refusal to give it and start Gulf War 2.
On the other hand, I think it was a huge mistake by Bush 41 to go to the UN in the early 90's. It established a precendent that the US would ask the UN for permission in the future. Big mistake. Since when did the US need the UN's permission for anything?
We'd have been better off ignoring the UN and ignoring the UN now than we would have been getting UN permission then and UN permission now.
On the other hand, this statement bothers me:
This makes a lot of sense once you get by your hatred of GWB.
Why is it nearly everone who is in favor of the war seems to think that a person can't be against the war for any other reason than some hatred of Dubyah? Or, for that matter, that no one can be against GWB without being against the war? I respectfully suggest to anyone who thinks that anti-bush automatically means antiwar, that your position has no more merit than if I were to say that anyone who is for the war must only be so out of some blind devotion to GWB rather than legitimate reasons.
Furhter, I rather think that if GWB had done much of anything so far with his presidency other than 9/11 and the War on Iraq, people who are legitimately against the war might be able to find other things that they *would* support Bush for. Granted, of course, that GWB did not ask for 9/11 to happen and obviously he has to give it a lot of attention, but IMHO his effort in other areas are rather lacking.
Its not as if Microsoft has never been hypocritical in the past, but this sets a new level.
If you believe logic that says anything that aids terrorism in any way, shape, or form should be outlawed (which would apparently be Microsoft's own position), then the FBI should raid Bill Gates's home today, arrest him, and shutdown Microsoft immediately.
After all, when we arrest KSM and these other guys and start taking stuff off of their computers, I'd bet 99% of them are running Windows, the terrorists are probably e-mailing each other with Outlook and keeping track of the funds with Excel.
Is it just me, or would the explosion of a ballistic missle carrying a nuclear warhead, either caused by the laser described in this article, or a physical interception (Patriot missle or Bush's missle defense shield), turn in to a ready made dirty bomb?
I mean, the radioactive material in the bomb would hardly be vaporized I imagine, and instead would disperse down from whatever altitude the intercept occured at to contaminate the underlying area. Ok, it seems that we want to destroy the missle in the ascent phase of flight and thus the contaminated area might not be anywhere in the US, but still....
If I'm not mistaken this does not involve Richard Hatch. Considering the effort he's put in over the years to a Galactica (and his own career) revival, I'd bet he's quite pissed.