Anyone ignorant enough to dispute Al Qaeda's responsibility for 9/11 shouldn't be voting.
Hey now, I'm sorry but I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that anyone ignorant enough to believe what they've been told about this situation without actually calling for *standard* Justice and investigation techniques, performed in full view of the facts, simply deserves what they're getting.
Americans are being bullied by their own government, using terrorism as the anvil and economic depression as the hammer, into accepting things that are utterly preposterous.
*2* hours after the planes smashed into the buildings, there were 'official mugshots'... where the hell did these come from so fast, and why were Federal investigators prevented from pursuing their own investigation into the attacks?
One thing is for sure: the U.S. Constitution has been *Destroyed* by 9/11 and its political aftermath, no matter the 'terrorism' justifications. More people died on 9/11 from cancer than in the WTC - the Stigma of this event is where the *true* damage lays, but Americans are too corn-fed by TV to see this for themselves.
That you let GWB2 run amok without having *any* public oversight of it all is just too much to bear.
Good luck with your New World Order, I'll go and live in the 'Old' one for a while... All those scary conspiracy theories in the 80's about how this was going to happen in the US *have actually finally come true*.
If irritation over globalization(wtf?), McDonalds, Britney and all the other wonderful machinations of The American Way prevents you from understanding that we've got terrorists flying airplanes into our buildings, then the German capacity for the creative interpretation of justice is just as it was in the '30s.
I don't remember seeing an actual American investigation into this incident. 2 hours after the planes crashed into the building, we had pictures of 'terrorists' on television.
Where's the forensic evidence? Why was the FBI prevented from actually investigating this case?
Unless my history books deceive me about some heretofore unknown Jewish/Polish terrorist conspiracy resulting in the deaths of thousands of German citizens, your hopeless analogy of the examples of the evils of your own country holds little bearing on the modern reality of most Americans, or upon the actions of the American government.
I am not German. I'm Australian. I lived in the US for 15 years before 9/11. I moved here after 9/11 because I did not like what was happening in America as a result of this 'incident', which I do not believe has been thoroughly investigated, nor properly treated according to American Law.
Your government is fooling you.
I realize that you Germans find it economically inconvenient that our attempts to redress this situation might threaten your supply of oil and your investments in Iraq's infrastructure, but I simply believe that the safety and well being of 300 million Americans is worth your economic discomfort, regardless of how many of them are Britney Spears fans.
I realize you Americans are scared. You have no-one to blame but yourselves.
"Run this Method with this Object, send the results Here"
I'm sure there's a much... cooler... Objective-C style way of writing that, but I'm sure you see what I'm getting at...
"Pop-Pop" could just as easily have gotten itself a list of servers to hand an object to for processing... Rendezvous can provide that degree of negotiation.
The problem with Beowulf-style design has always been in setting things up for code propagation - among *big* computer networks, sure, it's easy and the API's/programming models support large-scale 'cooperative computing initiatives', but it's also cool to write code where additional processors and resources can come online, run code, etc. moderately stochastically.
Only, it's been difficult to manage. Ask any P2P network designer, she'll tell you.
Rendezvous is an attempt to solve that issue of service negotiation (and, consequently, propagation), finally, and Objective-C's amazing navel-gazing capabilities makes it feasible...
So I guess this was the 'threat' to Microsoft, whose.NET strategy clearly has extreme weaknesses, in this front. Client server is cool and all, but dynamic p2p-style networks are all the vogue... and this is only going to extend into the Applications sphere soon enough. Rendezvous will help with that.
For example: you fire up iVideo, and need some extra resources for Rendering abilities, so it gets a Rendezvous list of machines on your network currently idle and willing to participate in the processing. iVideo uses this list, and some pretty cool features of the Objective-C language, to propagate work out to these computers. This can be done seamlessly, without requiring any user interaction.
And it puts an *awful* lot more computing power in the hands of folks that need it, such as the those that work in the visual/graphic arts, where its not uncommon to have an entire network of Photoshop stations in active use... albeit, collectively, wasting lots of idle time.
However, given the hardware numbers, it won't take much for MS to 'catch up' to the notion of trusted, distributed computing and steer away from the client/server tendencies of.NET... some would say they're well on their way, but the point with Apple is that it's happening with Rendezvous today, using open specs.
Re:Still not easy to use for C programmers...
on
XML Turns 5
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, I was pretty obtuse.
What I meant was, after 5 years there is still no easy way to just take your struct's from.h, pipe them through some tool, and get some sorta code generated that does the necessary streaming/'introspection' to get everything back into C-struct land with a few function calls and an open fd...
XML is great. I use it all the time in the other languages I use.
But its just not so easy in C... and we ought to keep that in mind with stuff like data and archive formats (which is what XML is a system for providing, fundamentally).
These sort of specs can have that sort of effect on language, it seems...
I dunno how I didn't manage to say that in the original post, I guess I should've previewed.
Still not easy to use for C programmers...
on
XML Turns 5
·
· Score: 1
... there's still no easy way for XML to be used in C apps, frankly.
Seems to me this would've been good from the beginning. Sure, we've got things like libexpat, etc. but there's no really easy way to say, convert your C-style structs directly to XML constructs for easy streaming...
Of course I can tell the difference between binary image and library. Seems you can't tell the difference between irony and hypocracy, though.
The.NET runtime, unlike the Java runtime, will not have any problem becoming commonplace across Microsoft's own OS.
You honestly think, though, that.NET is going to be *so* static (in the movement sense, not linking) that you won't have to upgrade.NET along with all your other new fancy.NET apps floating around?
Oh, wait, MS do that for you automagically, so it doesn't count...
I for one am extremely happy with the.NET framework. It is a comprehensive box of functionality that all.NET applications can make use of. Many useful applications I've written in.NET have been under 200K in size. Comparable programs I've written in Linux are all over 200K in size.
If your app needs a 20 meg framework to just run, then your installed app size would be 20megs + 200k in size.
What is it with programmers these days...
C programmer since '81, and still going strong... And I know how to calculate my binary size, thanks very much.
Celebrity status is also what keeps you chained to your television set for hours and hours every day, idly wasting away your life, doing nothing but focusing exclusively on the content that corporate entities want you to focus on...
Your point of view fits in perfectly with the wild accusations that Scientologists level against their detractors. ... and isn't, incidentally, too far off from Mr. Ashcrofts point of view.
You walk into a bank that needs this sort of thing, and they don't necessarily *like* the fact that their tools are open and free for everyone in the world to use.
Yes, there are customers - and a big market - for encryption. But there are other reasons for obscurity than implied security! Sometimes you just don't want people to know the tools you're using.
Either way, I believe Phil need only get himself 3 or 4 relatively big customers - the kind for whom an included security surcharge per-transaction is a *welcome* one - and away he goes. His license is pretty tight - he can set pretty good terms at corporate levels.
So, we've got Filecrypt vs. gnupg vs. E-Whateve(pgp)... Here's how that meeting goes:
CEO: "What do you recommend?"
CTO: "Play it safe, go with Phil - good name strength - and throw a few hundred thousand at his company for good measure... and occasional 'tweaks' for our own purposes. Plus, their licensing is better, and he's not code-bound like all these other junkies. At this point he's done this twice."
Damn, its like you didn't even read past the first paragraph.
The point is this:
1. PGP was *once* a freakin' good tool for protecting ones privacy - and still is, only moderately shrouded in bullshit marketing making it inaccessible to most people, because
2.... encryption products that need to do things like generate entire keysets per-transaction, sign/double-sign/triple-sign (again, per transaction), etc... are being used by big industry. Oh, that's not interesting enough to nerds:
3. Phil Zimmerman has achieved delta vee from PGP, and has found a new orbit. Good for him - he was a hero in the 90's!
I've had this idea off and on for the past 8 years or so.
This is where music is going: live recordings of *real* gigs. No more processing, time-bending shifts of reality in the studio. The public at large are *sick* of music made for them by machine, generally.
As for this whole concert-recording idea, first of all, media is dead. Long live wireless.
Second of all, what's the #1 device *most* people have on them at a gig? Their damned cell phones.
1Gig of RAM in a cell phone is de rigeur. At least, here in Europe. I've got multiple SmartMedia cards for mine, and its even old'ish!
So, on the way out from the gig, you pick up your phone, dial the 0900 #, and the MP3 or MPG movie (we hope) of the gig you just witnessed is stashed on your card for later playback...
Maybe with your photo in it, too? Why not...
Anyway, whatever ClearChannel are up to is completely irrelevant - in my opinion - until they get Nokia/Siemens/Motorola involved in this market.
When you actually look at one person's beliefs, it's quite easy to see how someone can believe that abusing the GPL license like Castle has done is naughty, and at the same time believe that the RIAA, MPAA, and CSS are evil also.
Actually, its not really news that the Japanese government is doing this. They've been doing this for years - trying to get a globally accepted embedded device-control operating system widely adopted among the industry.
There used to be a project, headed up by one of Japans most respected computer scientists, called TRON.
This was pre-Hollywood "TRON" movie, which actually had some basis in its script and 'ideology' on the Japanese ideals put forth by the TRON project; which were, simply, to create a global networked computer 'system', accessible throughout the world, out of the embedded OS in consumer devices. In other words, put chips *everywhere* and have them all function as part of a global computer system.
I guess the end result would be so that the phrase "imagine a Beowulf of that!" could be applied to *anything*, in actual fact there would be nothing *but* Beowulf clusters of everything, and its name would be "TRON".
TRON was a project to try and define this OS and how these devices would communicate with each other - in 1978!!
(It may also be referred to as the "E-TRON" project, I seem to remember there being some move to change the name at one point...)
Anyway, just wanted to point out that the move of the Japanese government to promote OSS is probably based on an even older ethos among the Japanese techno/industrial zaibatsu's...
1. War bankrupts America. 2. Space Industry becomes Next Big Thing. 3. Competition from Europeans and Chinese gives the... next... American President some heat he probably doesn't need. 4. We get and Industrialized Space Program - which, incidentally, could pull off your dream in a matter of about... oh... 5 - 10 years, no holds barred. 5. ??? 6. Profit!
Re: the no-holds-barred: I mean, of course, economic holds. Not scientific ones.
If oil was the true problem they'd be digging up the artic at full blast.
For starters: that's highly illegal (to dig up oil in the Arctic) and extraordinarily difficult.
Second, Iraq is bang squat right in the middle of the world, in case you didn't notice it.
It's in a *perfect* position to ship its ultra-high quality oil to *any* spot on the planet cheaply... oh, except... one.
The U.S., which happens to be a long fucking way away to ship oil to and from, and especially longer if you consider this one slight fact: the *demand* for American Oil will hit rock bottom if Iraq is available to ship its oil anywhere, because its *BLOODY EXPENSIVE* to ship oil from the USofA to its customers.
So why is the U.S. working so hard to stop this? Because Iraq's oil is better than Texan Grade, and closer to every single customer (except one), and, here's the rub, they're *WILLING* to fuck Americas economy by selling it at.02/barrel to Russia, $50/barrel to USofA.
America will be *bankrupt* if Iraq is allowed to sell its oil on the free market, don't you white-bread eating Citizens understand this? Your economy is based on your ability to sell oil on the world market. Iraq is a *serious* threat to that ability, so your self-elected 'government' - where's the armed millitia now, eh? - is sending in the troops to fight it off.
This is a War of Economy, and *nothing* else. This war is *nothing* but a cover operation to protect American Oil sales abroad for the foreseeable future.
War on Iraq is USofA's 'Internet Explorer', if you like.
The 'war for oil' thing doesn't make one shred of sense - so say the Americans win tommorrow, the oust Saddam. Okay so now magically all of the oil problems are solved?
What oil problems? Don't tell me you believe that there's a shortage of oil on this planet? Dude, the energy 'problem' is another one of those wonderful "diamonds are a girls best friend" campaigns that the Imperial 60's gave us, and hey... guess what? It's not true.
What's problematic about oil is not *having* it, it's shipping it to the people you want to sell it to...
If it were truly about oil, the best way to get the oil flowing would be to buddy up with Saddam and turn a blind eye to his crimes - a man who has actually used Chemical weapons against his own citizens, but hell who cares it's just about oil anyways.
Yeah, coz you know the United Nations report on this so-called 'chemical weapons' attack on his citizens, you know... it says that this incident never happened.
But the U.S. reports say... ? I'll leave you to read about it on CNN.
(we could ask Hussein to open the floodgates and out it would come.)
Here is where you are dead wrong. Saddam will sell oil to the U.S. - but for 200x more than he'll sell it (and is selling it) to the Russians!
This war is *not* about some bullshit weapons of mass destruction. *Every* nation has weapons of mass destruction available to them - just buy from the Chinese!
This war is about control over Iraqs oil fields, and the American Peoples God-Given Right To Drive SUV's at less cost than the Russkies.
What American Court of Law designed on the principles of Justice and Democracy - presumably, there's still some of those around - would allow such 'evidence' to warrant the punishment about to be meted out?
None. But because this is some foreign nation, Americans feel perfectly justified in attacking Saddam.
I'm not a pacificst. War happens. Sometimes, you need to fight.
I just don't believe that America should be free to wage war wherever it sees fit. There's a *big* difference.
The U.S. is in *no* position to preach or enforce *any* of its doctrines with regards to:
a) Weapons of Mass Destruction b) Human Rights Violations c) Totalitarian Regimes under the control of a Dictatorship d) Religious Freedom
I'm sorry, but the sheeps wool is just too dirty at this point...
(Oh, and FYI, I'm not German, I just live here. I'm Australian, as if that even matters.)
Will you say you are wrong when we find these weapons?
At this point, I have no reason to 'trust' the United States to find anything. I watched Powell at the UN, and you know what? Iraq is right: it was a typical American show, complete with special effects and cheap stunts. Show me *ONE* thing that he presented that could not have been put together by some 12 year old with iMovie and Sound Forge...
If the U.N. weapons inspectors finds them based on intelligence received from the U.S., sure, I'll say I was 'wrong'.
But with regards to the U$ofA 'finding' anything, it's just Fox and The Chickens time.
Come on. You *know* this is only about oil so all yo' fat SUV's can keep rollin'... while the "Arab Class" suffer for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone ignorant enough to dispute Al Qaeda's responsibility for 9/11 shouldn't be voting.
... All those scary conspiracy theories in the 80's about how this was going to happen in the US *have actually finally come true*.
Hey now, I'm sorry but I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that anyone ignorant enough to believe what they've been told about this situation without actually calling for *standard* Justice and investigation techniques, performed in full view of the facts, simply deserves what they're getting.
Americans are being bullied by their own government, using terrorism as the anvil and economic depression as the hammer, into accepting things that are utterly preposterous.
*2* hours after the planes smashed into the buildings, there were 'official mugshots'... where the hell did these come from so fast, and why were Federal investigators prevented from pursuing their own investigation into the attacks?
One thing is for sure: the U.S. Constitution has been *Destroyed* by 9/11 and its political aftermath, no matter the 'terrorism' justifications. More people died on 9/11 from cancer than in the WTC - the Stigma of this event is where the *true* damage lays, but Americans are too corn-fed by TV to see this for themselves.
That you let GWB2 run amok without having *any* public oversight of it all is just too much to bear.
Good luck with your New World Order, I'll go and live in the 'Old' one for a while
I know its lame, but I don't get this.
If irritation over globalization(wtf?), McDonalds, Britney and all the other wonderful machinations of The American Way prevents you from understanding that we've got terrorists flying airplanes into our buildings, then the German capacity for the creative interpretation of justice is just as it was in the '30s.
I don't remember seeing an actual American investigation into this incident. 2 hours after the planes crashed into the building, we had pictures of 'terrorists' on television.
Where's the forensic evidence? Why was the FBI prevented from actually investigating this case?
Unless my history books deceive me about some heretofore unknown Jewish/Polish terrorist conspiracy resulting in the deaths of thousands of German citizens, your hopeless analogy of the examples of the evils of your own country holds little bearing on the modern reality of most Americans, or upon the actions of the American government.
I am not German. I'm Australian. I lived in the US for 15 years before 9/11. I moved here after 9/11 because I did not like what was happening in America as a result of this 'incident', which I do not believe has been thoroughly investigated, nor properly treated according to American Law.
Your government is fooling you.
I realize that you Germans find it economically inconvenient that our attempts to redress this situation might threaten your supply of oil and your investments in Iraq's infrastructure, but I simply believe that the safety and well being of 300 million Americans is worth your economic discomfort, regardless of how many of them are Britney Spears fans.
I realize you Americans are scared. You have no-one to blame but yourselves.
"Run this Method with this Object, send the results Here"
... cooler ... Objective-C style way of writing that, but I'm sure you see what I'm getting at ...
... Rendezvous can provide that degree of negotiation.
.NET strategy clearly has extreme weaknesses, in this front. Client server is cool and all, but dynamic p2p-style networks are all the vogue ... and this is only going to extend into the Applications sphere soon enough. Rendezvous will help with that.
... albeit, collectively, wasting lots of idle time.
.NET ... some would say they're well on their way, but the point with Apple is that it's happening with Rendezvous today, using open specs.
I'm sure there's a much
"Pop-Pop" could just as easily have gotten itself a list of servers to hand an object to for processing
The problem with Beowulf-style design has always been in setting things up for code propagation - among *big* computer networks, sure, it's easy and the API's/programming models support large-scale 'cooperative computing initiatives', but it's also cool to write code where additional processors and resources can come online, run code, etc. moderately stochastically.
Only, it's been difficult to manage. Ask any P2P network designer, she'll tell you.
Rendezvous is an attempt to solve that issue of service negotiation (and, consequently, propagation), finally, and Objective-C's amazing navel-gazing capabilities makes it feasible...
So I guess this was the 'threat' to Microsoft, whose
For example: you fire up iVideo, and need some extra resources for Rendering abilities, so it gets a Rendezvous list of machines on your network currently idle and willing to participate in the processing. iVideo uses this list, and some pretty cool features of the Objective-C language, to propagate work out to these computers. This can be done seamlessly, without requiring any user interaction.
And it puts an *awful* lot more computing power in the hands of folks that need it, such as the those that work in the visual/graphic arts, where its not uncommon to have an entire network of Photoshop stations in active use
However, given the hardware numbers, it won't take much for MS to 'catch up' to the notion of trusted, distributed computing and steer away from the client/server tendencies of
Sorry, I was pretty obtuse.
.h, pipe them through some tool, and get some sorta code generated that does the necessary streaming/'introspection' to get everything back into C-struct land with a few function calls and an open fd ...
... and we ought to keep that in mind with stuff like data and archive formats (which is what XML is a system for providing, fundamentally).
...
What I meant was, after 5 years there is still no easy way to just take your struct's from
XML is great. I use it all the time in the other languages I use.
But its just not so easy in C
These sort of specs can have that sort of effect on language, it seems
I dunno how I didn't manage to say that in the original post, I guess I should've previewed.
... there's still no easy way for XML to be used in C apps, frankly.
Seems to me this would've been good from the beginning. Sure, we've got things like libexpat, etc. but there's no really easy way to say, convert your C-style structs directly to XML constructs for easy streaming...
Of course I can tell the difference between binary image and library. Seems you can't tell the difference between irony and hypocracy, though.
.NET runtime, unlike the Java runtime, will not have any problem becoming commonplace across Microsoft's own OS.
.NET is going to be *so* static (in the movement sense, not linking) that you won't have to upgrade .NET along with all your other new fancy .NET apps floating around?
The
You honestly think, though, that
Oh, wait, MS do that for you automagically, so it doesn't count...
I for one am extremely happy with the .NET framework. It is a comprehensive box of functionality that all .NET applications can make use of. Many useful applications I've written in .NET have been under 200K in size. Comparable programs I've written in Linux are all over 200K in size.
... And I know how to calculate my binary size, thanks very much.
If your app needs a 20 meg framework to just run, then your installed app size would be 20megs + 200k in size.
What is it with programmers these days...
C programmer since '81, and still going strong
... dibs, for example, uses it:
http://freshmeat.net/projects/dibs/
The fact that you got these from a retail outlet shouldn't give you any less reason to fear Poindexter and his minions.
Retail purchase databases are pretty much the same thing as credit card reports to their system.
If you bought 2600, you'll still get a flag on your file that says 'hacker type'...
Well, duh.
Celebrity status is also what keeps you chained to your television set for hours and hours every day, idly wasting away your life, doing nothing but focusing exclusively on the content that corporate entities want you to focus on...
Geeze. How hard is it to think outside the box?
Your point of view fits in perfectly with the wild accusations that Scientologists level against their detractors.
... and isn't, incidentally, too far off from Mr. Ashcrofts point of view.
You walk into a bank that needs this sort of thing, and they don't necessarily *like* the fact that their tools are open and free for everyone in the world to use.
... Here's how that meeting goes:
... and occasional 'tweaks' for our own purposes. Plus, their licensing is better, and he's not code-bound like all these other junkies. At this point he's done this twice."
Yes, there are customers - and a big market - for encryption. But there are other reasons for obscurity than implied security! Sometimes you just don't want people to know the tools you're using.
Either way, I believe Phil need only get himself 3 or 4 relatively big customers - the kind for whom an included security surcharge per-transaction is a *welcome* one - and away he goes. His license is pretty tight - he can set pretty good terms at corporate levels.
So, we've got Filecrypt vs. gnupg vs. E-Whateve(pgp)
CEO: "What do you recommend?"
CTO: "Play it safe, go with Phil - good name strength - and throw a few hundred thousand at his company for good measure
CEO: "Good idea. Do it."
Damn, its like you didn't even read past the first paragraph.
... encryption products that need to do things like generate entire keysets per-transaction, sign/double-sign/triple-sign (again, per transaction), etc... are being used by big industry. Oh, that's not interesting enough to nerds:
The point is this:
1. PGP was *once* a freakin' good tool for protecting ones privacy - and still is, only moderately shrouded in bullshit marketing making it inaccessible to most people, because
2.
3. Phil Zimmerman has achieved delta vee from PGP, and has found a new orbit. Good for him - he was a hero in the 90's!
I've had this idea off and on for the past 8 years or so.
This is where music is going: live recordings of *real* gigs. No more processing, time-bending shifts of reality in the studio. The public at large are *sick* of music made for them by machine, generally.
As for this whole concert-recording idea, first of all, media is dead. Long live wireless.
Second of all, what's the #1 device *most* people have on them at a gig? Their damned cell phones.
1Gig of RAM in a cell phone is de rigeur. At least, here in Europe. I've got multiple SmartMedia cards for mine, and its even old'ish!
So, on the way out from the gig, you pick up your phone, dial the 0900 #, and the MP3 or MPG movie (we hope) of the gig you just witnessed is stashed on your card for later playback...
Maybe with your photo in it, too? Why not...
Anyway, whatever ClearChannel are up to is completely irrelevant - in my opinion - until they get Nokia/Siemens/Motorola involved in this market.
Here in Germany, our washing machines take one, thats *ONE* water input, and it better be cold.
Beeecause: our washing machines heat their own water. And, they can be told how hot to make that water.
Tah-duh. Feel that? It's a clue...
When you actually look at one person's beliefs, it's quite easy to see how someone can believe that abusing the GPL license like Castle has done is naughty, and at the same time believe that the RIAA, MPAA, and CSS are evil also.
I'll burn karma just to agree.
.. as opposed to what, exactly?
You started it.
Actually, its not really news that the Japanese government is doing this. They've been doing this for years - trying to get a globally accepted embedded device-control operating system widely adopted among the industry.
There used to be a project, headed up by one of Japans most respected computer scientists, called TRON.
This was pre-Hollywood "TRON" movie, which actually had some basis in its script and 'ideology' on the Japanese ideals put forth by the TRON project; which were, simply, to create a global networked computer 'system', accessible throughout the world, out of the embedded OS in consumer devices. In other words, put chips *everywhere* and have them all function as part of a global computer system.
I guess the end result would be so that the phrase "imagine a Beowulf of that!" could be applied to *anything*, in actual fact there would be nothing *but* Beowulf clusters of everything, and its name would be "TRON".
TRON was a project to try and define this OS and how these devices would communicate with each other - in 1978!!
(It may also be referred to as the "E-TRON" project, I seem to remember there being some move to change the name at one point...)
Anyway, just wanted to point out that the move of the Japanese government to promote OSS is probably based on an even older ethos among the Japanese techno/industrial zaibatsu's...
Predictions:
... next ... American President some heat he probably doesn't need. ... oh ... 5 - 10 years, no holds barred.
1. War bankrupts America.
2. Space Industry becomes Next Big Thing.
3. Competition from Europeans and Chinese gives the
4. We get and Industrialized Space Program - which, incidentally, could pull off your dream in a matter of about
5. ???
6. Profit!
Re: the no-holds-barred: I mean, of course, economic holds. Not scientific ones.
- neck
of the woods, support the President and what he planning for Iraq.That'd be the red kind, right? Tell your cousin I said hi.
If oil was the true problem they'd be digging up the artic at full blast.
... oh, except ... one.
.02/barrel to Russia, $50/barrel to USofA.
... guess what? It's not true.
...
... it says that this incident never happened.
... ? I'll leave you to read about it on CNN.
For starters: that's highly illegal (to dig up oil in the Arctic) and extraordinarily difficult.
Second, Iraq is bang squat right in the middle of the world, in case you didn't notice it.
It's in a *perfect* position to ship its ultra-high quality oil to *any* spot on the planet cheaply
The U.S., which happens to be a long fucking way away to ship oil to and from, and especially longer if you consider this one slight fact: the *demand* for American Oil will hit rock bottom if Iraq is available to ship its oil anywhere, because its *BLOODY EXPENSIVE* to ship oil from the USofA to its customers.
So why is the U.S. working so hard to stop this? Because Iraq's oil is better than Texan Grade, and closer to every single customer (except one), and, here's the rub, they're *WILLING* to fuck Americas economy by selling it at
America will be *bankrupt* if Iraq is allowed to sell its oil on the free market, don't you white-bread eating Citizens understand this? Your economy is based on your ability to sell oil on the world market. Iraq is a *serious* threat to that ability, so your self-elected 'government' - where's the armed millitia now, eh? - is sending in the troops to fight it off.
This is a War of Economy, and *nothing* else. This war is *nothing* but a cover operation to protect American Oil sales abroad for the foreseeable future.
War on Iraq is USofA's 'Internet Explorer', if you like.
The 'war for oil' thing doesn't make one shred of sense - so say the Americans win tommorrow, the oust Saddam. Okay so now magically all of the oil problems are solved?
What oil problems? Don't tell me you believe that there's a shortage of oil on this planet? Dude, the energy 'problem' is another one of those wonderful "diamonds are a girls best friend" campaigns that the Imperial 60's gave us, and hey
What's problematic about oil is not *having* it, it's shipping it to the people you want to sell it to
If it were truly about oil, the best way to get the oil flowing would be to buddy up with Saddam and turn a blind eye to his crimes - a man who has actually used Chemical weapons against his own citizens, but hell who cares it's just about oil anyways.
Yeah, coz you know the United Nations report on this so-called 'chemical weapons' attack on his citizens, you know
But the U.S. reports say
(we could ask Hussein to open the floodgates and out it would come.)
Here is where you are dead wrong. Saddam will sell oil to the U.S. - but for 200x more than he'll sell it (and is selling it) to the Russians!
This war is *not* about some bullshit weapons of mass destruction. *Every* nation has weapons of mass destruction available to them - just buy from the Chinese!
This war is about control over Iraqs oil fields, and the American Peoples God-Given Right To Drive SUV's at less cost than the Russkies.
What American Court of Law designed on the principles of Justice and Democracy - presumably, there's still some of those around - would allow such 'evidence' to warrant the punishment about to be meted out?
None. But because this is some foreign nation, Americans feel perfectly justified in attacking Saddam.
I'm not a pacificst. War happens. Sometimes, you need to fight.
I just don't believe that America should be free to wage war wherever it sees fit. There's a *big* difference.
The U.S. is in *no* position to preach or enforce *any* of its doctrines with regards to:
a) Weapons of Mass Destruction
b) Human Rights Violations
c) Totalitarian Regimes under the control of a Dictatorship
d) Religious Freedom
I'm sorry, but the sheeps wool is just too dirty at this point...
(Oh, and FYI, I'm not German, I just live here. I'm Australian, as if that even matters.)
"You are a bloody zealot." ... something a nation like yours is quite happy to produce, I might note ...
Will you say you are wrong when we find these weapons?
... while the "Arab Class" suffer for it.
At this point, I have no reason to 'trust' the United States to find anything. I watched Powell at the UN, and you know what? Iraq is right: it was a typical American show, complete with special effects and cheap stunts. Show me *ONE* thing that he presented that could not have been put together by some 12 year old with iMovie and Sound Forge...
If the U.N. weapons inspectors finds them based on intelligence received from the U.S., sure, I'll say I was 'wrong'.
But with regards to the U$ofA 'finding' anything, it's just Fox and The Chickens time.
Come on. You *know* this is only about oil so all yo' fat SUV's can keep rollin'