I'd take anything AICN's Moriarty says about a Star Wars script with a grain of salt, considering how much praise he lavished over the Episode I script. Here's an excerpt:
Let go of your ideas of what the film is going to be, everyone. You can't be like Jeffrey Wells and walk into this ready to hate it. You can't possibly know how textured and wonderful the story Lucas has to tell is going to be. The thing that makes THE PHANTOM MENACE possibly my favorite STAR WARS story so far (on paper, mind you) is the details. The time off has done something unexpected to Lucas as a storyteller -- it made him better. Considering how he's always doubted himself as a writer, I think it showed remarkable confidence in not putting this script through another writer, someone who might have diluted our return to this place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Even the wonderful Frank Darabont would have diluted it, simply because what we got wouldn't be pure Lucas anymore. It's remarkable to read the actual words Lucas put on paper. There's just enough on the page to get the actors moving, but he doesn't really describe the world. What's there is just raw STAR WARS, straight from the tap -- the characters and how they relate. That's enough, though, because these are real characters that are instantly iconic, but also truly human.
Let me put the final nail in the coffin. Here's what he had to say about Jar Jar:
I am delighted to report that Jar Jar not only works, but that the Gungans are, as a whole, a welcome addition to the mythology of the STAR WARS universe. Jar Jar is an exile from the other Gungans because he's clumsy. Not just a little, either, but monumentally so. Once Jar Jar meets the Jedi, though, that trait begins to pay off, with Jar Jar mistakenly bumbling his way out of danger and up the chain of command until he ends up a general in the film's final battle. This works well in the script. Jar Jar is funny, but the humor in 1977's A NEW HOPE is one of that film's strong points. This script balances the humor with honest, direct writing that gives Jar Jar (dare I say?) a soul. He may be a sidekick, but here's betting that Jar Jar Binks becomes one of the biggest EPISODE I stars once audiences get their real introduction.
You can read the rest here. I'll believe Lucas has actually made a good movie when I see it finished and on the big screen.
Someone brought a bomb into the US Capitol in 1915. Going back to WWII, there were German agents that set a harbor on fire which contained an ammo depot. In 1954, Puerto Rican seperatists opened fire in the House chambers. There was another Capitol bombing in 1971. We had the SLA back in the seventies who robbed banks and planned to place bombs under police cars. There was a rash of skyjackings in the early 70s which lead to the original sky marshal program. There was the Oklahoma City bombing perpetrated by local nutjob Timothy McVeigh. Someone took a machine gun into the Capitol building a couple years ago. Someone tried to fly a light plane into the White House a few years ago but missed and hit the lawn (was that inspiration for the terrorists of 9/11?) Another person opened fire on the White House with an automatic weapon about a couple years ago. We've also had the Unabomber who sent bombs through the mail and the Army of God who like to blow up abortion clinics, and who may be responsible for the Atlanta Olympics bombings.
If you count overseas bombings, there was the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the Khobar Towers in Africa, the African Embassies and the USS Cole.
Political assassinations are as old as history. We've had three presidents assassinated (by my count) and a couple others shot at. Not to mention the civil rights leaders killed during the 60's.
And this is all just off the top of my head. Looks like ignorance isn't just an American phenomenon.
Yahoo.fr, the server farm that resided in France, complied with French law. It's not Yahoo!s fault French people went to Yahoo.com, whose server farm resided States-side.
If the French wanted to prevent French people from seeing Nazi auctions, they would have told French ISPs to block yahoo.com. Oh, but wait, that would have been an imposition on French businesses.
I agree, that part was pretty silly. Unless there's something about webcams that they haven't been telling us. Could X10.com simply be a front for the NSA?
There's an interesting article in the Washington Post about how to attack a decentralized network of terrorists and how most of the tactics aren't really all that new. Check it out
here.
Christ, anybody who has any inside knowledge to what goes on in the State Department will tell you that foreign policy is making a decision which bad choice out of 100 bad choices is the least bad choice, with "doing nothing" frequently one of the worst. It's time to stop thinking of the world in absolutes, that all people can be reasoned with, and that we won't be hated if we just shut up and mind our own business.
Whatever djinni that was in the bottle is out now. Restricting cryptography and crypto research in the US will do nothing to prevent its further development abroad. The Congress' energies would best be spent elsewhere, I think.
Afghanistan has been much too unstable for the last 2 decades for oil companies to consider building pipelines across it. Even the most powerful multinational corporation wouldn't consider tryingf to build something during a civil war. They certainly aren't building anything now with the Taliban running things. Oh they want to build pipelines, but I doubt the US going to war with the Taliban will provide the stability the oil companies seek.
Afghanistan has almost no oil production. That is why they are so dirt poor, while countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are rolling in money. Please check your facts before posting.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Iran has F-14s because we gave them to the much friendlier Shah of Iran, who was overthrown by the time the Iran-Iraq war started. Although we did support Iran in their war I don't think North, Weinberger, Reagan et al tried to sneak F-14s past Congress. Maybe spare parts for the ones they already had.
A lot of Civ II was customizable. They left a lot of the configuration in plain text, and adding new art wasn't too difficult. Granted, probably not as flexible as FreeCiv, but Sid Meier and Brian Reynolds did recognize the value of the mod community.
Yahoo! Mail's POP3 service still exists. You just have to accept occasional commercial emails from them. Click Options, then POP access and forwarding.
Don't want ads in your inbox? Then do what I do - leave POP3 access off until the mailbox gets filled up, then turn on POP3 access, use you favorite mail client to download all your email, and finally turn POP3 access off again.
Ask yourself - does the world really need a global DMCA?
The question would be coming a little late. We made the DMCA to conform to the WIPO treaty. Practically the entire world signed on to it. The only country that I noticed didn't sign it was Iran, and I'm not about to move there.
Find out if your country's on the list (my guess is yes) at www.wipo.org.
Re:@Home not blocking port 80 yet
on
Code Redux
·
· Score: 1
If they haven't yet, they will. The customers they'd drive away by cutting off web server access probably doesn't outweigh the tech support nightmare they're facing now.
Of course, anyone intent on running a server will switch to port 8080 or something. Does Code Red port scan, or just connect to port 80?
Will America be safer in a post-NMD world? That is the big question that needs answering. I think a lot of the doubters of missile defense (I count myself as one of them) don't believe we will be any safer. For NMD to work, our enemies would have to stand still for 20 years while we test, build and deploy this system. Rather than continue to concentrate on the ICBM option, I think they will explore other avenues which will be more effective.
I would classify the nuclear threats the nation faces into five categories:
1. Attack from a large nuclear power (Russia)
2. Attack from a medium nuclear power (China)
3. Attack from a small nuclear power (North Korea, Iraq)
4. Isolated, accidental launch
5. Attack from a terrorist organization
We won't be any safer from a case 1 attack. Even in it's decrepit state, the Russian nuclear arsenal would easily overwhelm any NMD system that we would hope to deploy. And if Putin's threats to MIRV all his nation's missiles have any credibility, we're in deeper shit than we are now. The reason we can have MAD without an arms race is because we have a rough estimate of how many warheads the Russians based on the number of platforms they have to launch. The number of MIRV-capable platforms each nation can possess is limited by the START II treaty. Although not ratified, each nation has pledged to stay under the limit.
If Russia MIRVs all Russian missiles, or even says it's MIRVing all its missiles, US strategic planners have no idea how many warheads are in the Russian arsenal. Since we will have to plan for the worst case if we are to have a credible second strike, we would go MIRV. Now neither side knows how many missiles the other have and, boom! - another arms race. Arms races are bad for the safety of Americans. Not to mention we lose any protection we may have had from an accidental Russian launch. How many interceptors do you send up for a MIRV missile? How much more damage will an accidental MIRV launch do as opposed to a one warhead launch?
Now let's move on to case 2. The reason China doesn't have more missiles now is because it doesn't need to. China has the force it has now because as small as it is, it gives it more respect in Washington. And even though conceivably we could wipe out their nuclear capability in a first strike, there's no guarantee. It makes the United States think twice about bullying them around, like MacArthur tried to do in the Korean war.
If we built NMD, I'll guarantee China will build enough ICBM's to overcome it and put it right back where it is now - nowhere near competitive but still relevant. And keep in mind China does not operate in a vacuum. One of the two reasons India has a nuclear arsenal is as a check against Chinese hegemony. It will see China building up its arsenal, and build more as a response. Which will trigger Pakistan to build more nuclear missiles. End result - more nuclear missiles in the world. More nuclear missiles in the world is not in the United States' best interest. Besides, didn't Dubya say NMD wasn't directed towards China?
As for case 3, I think this an attack is not likely to come via ICBM from North Korea or Iraq. Dictators are obsessed with two things: power and survival. Why would they launch an unprovoked attack against the United States via 1 or 2 ICBMs, if the American response is certain to rob them of the things they value the most? The only reason any of them would launch a nuclear attack via ICBM against the US would be if we were about to rob them of both.
If they wanted to hurt the United States, they'd send over a bomb via truck, plane or boat. It's easier and less traceable. If they weren't planning to before, they will in a post-NMD world. Even with these delivery mechanisms, I think that the risk that someone would blab, that the United states would find out about it, and the response that would entail would deter these small nuclear states from launching a retaliatory attack would deter these smaller nuclear nations from trying this tactic.
Now case 4, accidental launches is where I think NMD has the most benefit. An accidental launch is most likely to come from Russia. The United States is safer if Russia doesn't MIRV its missiles, simply because I think the system will use overkill in order to defend against the launch. If Russia does MIRV its missiles, then it is likely that an NMD system would not shoot down all the warheads. If one warhead gets through, we're right back where we were. If more than one gets through, it's a worse situation than the status quo. I think it would be more cost-effective to give nuclear nations US PAL technology than to build NMD to defend against accidental launches.
Let's move on to case 5. I doubt terrorists are building ICBMs. The expertise required to build a system is rare, the expense prohibitive, and they can't just steal one and make it work. Any missile technology they are using is likely to be short to mid-range missiles, which NMD will have trouble defending against. Or they'll go with the truck/plane/boat option.
My conclusion: We're arguably much worse off with cases 1 and 2, and arguably a little better off with cases 3,4 and 5. In my mind, the world is a much more dangerous place for Americans with missile defense than the status quo, and our energies and money would be better spent on negotiating arms control agreements, increased funding for intelligence operations, and doing our best to increase good will towards our country around the world while maintaning our interests. Feel free to disagree with me if you like. The point I'm trying to make is that it's possible to feel that national missile defense is a bad idea and still be a patriot.
I am accounting for the data. I just don't have access to it. I won't be convinced that it works until they do more tests, or until they release the data for independent review.
As I said in my original posts, the scientists working at defense contractors have the data, and they're the only people who really know whether or not the decoy avoidance system actually works.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think that was bad, you should read his Blade II review.
Let me put the final nail in the coffin. Here's what he had to say about Jar Jar:
You can read the rest here. I'll believe Lucas has actually made a good movie when I see it finished and on the big screen.
The CDA was overturned 5 years ago as being unconstitutional. So the 1st Amendment is your only legal refuge right now.
For one, Hank is dead.
Not sure if that answers your question or not...
Campers' Corner: Hosts K111j0y and 14m3r talk about the best way to grief-play in Multiplayer FPS's like Q3A, UT, CS, etc...
Like I'd ever give away my 1337 secrets to you n00bs.
Nit pick: Microprose was bought by Hasbro Interactive, which in turn was bought by Infogrames.
And on top of all that, I forgot the FIRST WTC bombing...
Correction - Khobar Towers are in Saudi Arabia. Remember kids - always hit preview ;)
In the US you get one attack.
Um, you're so wrong it's incredible.
Someone brought a bomb into the US Capitol in 1915. Going back to WWII, there were German agents that set a harbor on fire which contained an ammo depot. In 1954, Puerto Rican seperatists opened fire in the House chambers. There was another Capitol bombing in 1971. We had the SLA back in the seventies who robbed banks and planned to place bombs under police cars. There was a rash of skyjackings in the early 70s which lead to the original sky marshal program. There was the Oklahoma City bombing perpetrated by local nutjob Timothy McVeigh. Someone took a machine gun into the Capitol building a couple years ago. Someone tried to fly a light plane into the White House a few years ago but missed and hit the lawn (was that inspiration for the terrorists of 9/11?) Another person opened fire on the White House with an automatic weapon about a couple years ago. We've also had the Unabomber who sent bombs through the mail and the Army of God who like to blow up abortion clinics, and who may be responsible for the Atlanta Olympics bombings.
If you count overseas bombings, there was the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the Khobar Towers in Africa, the African Embassies and the USS Cole.
Political assassinations are as old as history. We've had three presidents assassinated (by my count) and a couple others shot at. Not to mention the civil rights leaders killed during the 60's.
And this is all just off the top of my head. Looks like ignorance isn't just an American phenomenon.
Yahoo.fr, the server farm that resided in France, complied with French law. It's not Yahoo!s fault French people went to Yahoo.com, whose server farm resided States-side.
If the French wanted to prevent French people from seeing Nazi auctions, they would have told French ISPs to block yahoo.com. Oh, but wait, that would have been an imposition on French businesses.
I think it's safe to say that both major parties are willing to whore themselves and the nation's laws and resources out to the highest bidder.
Give us who cough up real money endless moderator points... something.
;)
Hmm, money earning certain viewpoints a louder voice. Sounds a lot like Congress to me
I agree, that part was pretty silly. Unless there's something about webcams that they haven't been telling us. Could X10.com simply be a front for the NSA?
There's an interesting article in the Washington Post about how to attack a decentralized network of terrorists and how most of the tactics aren't really all that new. Check it out here.
Christ, anybody who has any inside knowledge to what goes on in the State Department will tell you that foreign policy is making a decision which bad choice out of 100 bad choices is the least bad choice, with "doing nothing" frequently one of the worst. It's time to stop thinking of the world in absolutes, that all people can be reasoned with, and that we won't be hated if we just shut up and mind our own business.
Whatever djinni that was in the bottle is out now. Restricting cryptography and crypto research in the US will do nothing to prevent its further development abroad. The Congress' energies would best be spent elsewhere, I think.
Afghanistan has been much too unstable for the last 2 decades for oil companies to consider building pipelines across it. Even the most powerful multinational corporation wouldn't consider tryingf to build something during a civil war. They certainly aren't building anything now with the Taliban running things. Oh they want to build pipelines, but I doubt the US going to war with the Taliban will provide the stability the oil companies seek.
Afghanistan has almost no oil production. That is why they are so dirt poor, while countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are rolling in money. Please check your facts before posting.
Iran has F-14s because we gave them to the much friendlier Shah of Iran, who was overthrown by the time the Iran-Iraq war started. Although we did support Iran in their war I don't think North, Weinberger, Reagan et al tried to sneak F-14s past Congress. Maybe spare parts for the ones they already had.
A lot of Civ II was customizable. They left a lot of the configuration in plain text, and adding new art wasn't too difficult. Granted, probably not as flexible as FreeCiv, but Sid Meier and Brian Reynolds did recognize the value of the mod community.
Yahoo! Mail's POP3 service still exists. You just have to accept occasional commercial emails from them. Click Options, then POP access and forwarding.
Don't want ads in your inbox? Then do what I do - leave POP3 access off until the mailbox gets filled up, then turn on POP3 access, use you favorite mail client to download all your email, and finally turn POP3 access off again.
Find out if your country's on the list (my guess is yes) at www.wipo.org.
If they haven't yet, they will. The customers they'd drive away by cutting off web server access probably doesn't outweigh the tech support nightmare they're facing now.
Of course, anyone intent on running a server will switch to port 8080 or something. Does Code Red port scan, or just connect to port 80?
Will America be safer in a post-NMD world? That is the big question that needs answering. I think a lot of the doubters of missile defense (I count myself as one of them) don't believe we will be any safer. For NMD to work, our enemies would have to stand still for 20 years while we test, build and deploy this system. Rather than continue to concentrate on the ICBM option, I think they will explore other avenues which will be more effective.
I would classify the nuclear threats the nation faces into five categories:
1. Attack from a large nuclear power (Russia)
2. Attack from a medium nuclear power (China)
3. Attack from a small nuclear power (North Korea, Iraq)
4. Isolated, accidental launch
5. Attack from a terrorist organization
We won't be any safer from a case 1 attack. Even in it's decrepit state, the Russian nuclear arsenal would easily overwhelm any NMD system that we would hope to deploy. And if Putin's threats to MIRV all his nation's missiles have any credibility, we're in deeper shit than we are now. The reason we can have MAD without an arms race is because we have a rough estimate of how many warheads the Russians based on the number of platforms they have to launch. The number of MIRV-capable platforms each nation can possess is limited by the START II treaty. Although not ratified, each nation has pledged to stay under the limit.
If Russia MIRVs all Russian missiles, or even says it's MIRVing all its missiles, US strategic planners have no idea how many warheads are in the Russian arsenal. Since we will have to plan for the worst case if we are to have a credible second strike, we would go MIRV. Now neither side knows how many missiles the other have and, boom! - another arms race. Arms races are bad for the safety of Americans. Not to mention we lose any protection we may have had from an accidental Russian launch. How many interceptors do you send up for a MIRV missile? How much more damage will an accidental MIRV launch do as opposed to a one warhead launch?
Now let's move on to case 2. The reason China doesn't have more missiles now is because it doesn't need to. China has the force it has now because as small as it is, it gives it more respect in Washington. And even though conceivably we could wipe out their nuclear capability in a first strike, there's no guarantee. It makes the United States think twice about bullying them around, like MacArthur tried to do in the Korean war.
If we built NMD, I'll guarantee China will build enough ICBM's to overcome it and put it right back where it is now - nowhere near competitive but still relevant. And keep in mind China does not operate in a vacuum. One of the two reasons India has a nuclear arsenal is as a check against Chinese hegemony. It will see China building up its arsenal, and build more as a response. Which will trigger Pakistan to build more nuclear missiles. End result - more nuclear missiles in the world. More nuclear missiles in the world is not in the United States' best interest. Besides, didn't Dubya say NMD wasn't directed towards China?
As for case 3, I think this an attack is not likely to come via ICBM from North Korea or Iraq. Dictators are obsessed with two things: power and survival. Why would they launch an unprovoked attack against the United States via 1 or 2 ICBMs, if the American response is certain to rob them of the things they value the most? The only reason any of them would launch a nuclear attack via ICBM against the US would be if we were about to rob them of both.
If they wanted to hurt the United States, they'd send over a bomb via truck, plane or boat. It's easier and less traceable. If they weren't planning to before, they will in a post-NMD world. Even with these delivery mechanisms, I think that the risk that someone would blab, that the United states would find out about it, and the response that would entail would deter these small nuclear states from launching a retaliatory attack would deter these smaller nuclear nations from trying this tactic.
Now case 4, accidental launches is where I think NMD has the most benefit. An accidental launch is most likely to come from Russia. The United States is safer if Russia doesn't MIRV its missiles, simply because I think the system will use overkill in order to defend against the launch. If Russia does MIRV its missiles, then it is likely that an NMD system would not shoot down all the warheads. If one warhead gets through, we're right back where we were. If more than one gets through, it's a worse situation than the status quo. I think it would be more cost-effective to give nuclear nations US PAL technology than to build NMD to defend against accidental launches.
Let's move on to case 5. I doubt terrorists are building ICBMs. The expertise required to build a system is rare, the expense prohibitive, and they can't just steal one and make it work. Any missile technology they are using is likely to be short to mid-range missiles, which NMD will have trouble defending against. Or they'll go with the truck/plane/boat option.
My conclusion: We're arguably much worse off with cases 1 and 2, and arguably a little better off with cases 3,4 and 5. In my mind, the world is a much more dangerous place for Americans with missile defense than the status quo, and our energies and money would be better spent on negotiating arms control agreements, increased funding for intelligence operations, and doing our best to increase good will towards our country around the world while maintaning our interests. Feel free to disagree with me if you like. The point I'm trying to make is that it's possible to feel that national missile defense is a bad idea and still be a patriot.
I am accounting for the data. I just don't have access to it. I won't be convinced that it works until they do more tests, or until they release the data for independent review.
As I said in my original posts, the scientists working at defense contractors have the data, and they're the only people who really know whether or not the decoy avoidance system actually works.