...That would have made a better title. It's like somebody took away his special-effects dept. and so he had to make do with things like bad matte paintings and the oh-so-clichéd alien-appears-as-human device.
The coolest thing about this episode were the commercials the Sci-Fi Channel ran. That mutant kid with the wings and the suction-cup fingers almost made me spill my beer. Little fucker.
I'll tune in tonight, just to see if there are new commercials.
No effort to explain why my site would appear and then disappear. No effort to explain why so many news stories before and after 911 were taken down. All you do is tell us of two pages they do archive, despite my never suggesting the contrary.
You must be one of these retards I keep hearing about. Tell me, how long did it take you to develop this ability, or are you naturally gifted?
Try accessing news stories immediately prior to and after the September 11 attack and you'll see just how valuable this website is... or rather, isn't.
I have also personally ran a website which contained fairly controversial material (based on this story) that I saw listed on their website and then removed shortly thereafter. Tell me, why would a service like this ever have occasion to remove material once it's been archived, especially if there are *NO* copyright issues and the webmaster of the archived site never asked them to remove it?
The answer is simple: the powers-that-be saw how dangerous it was to make all this information available to anyone on demand so they took control. It would be a great service were it allowed to operate unfettered, but the reality is quite different.
And I'm the first to mention this here so far? You should all be modded down -1 for naiveté.
No, the story is always that "Israel retaliates." It's never "The Palestinians retaliate." It's always "Israel retaliates", the subtle suggestion being that it is the Palestinians who are the aggressors, and that is simply not the case.
Since the fat man took his crap on the Temple Mount the ratio of dead has been 1,665 Palestinians vs. 639 Israelis. It is the Israelis who are invading what should be Palestine, not the other way around.
I agree... the label of anti-semite is overused, even when conceivably on-topic (as in confusing anti-Zionism or anti-Jewish-Supremicism with anti-semitism.) As used here it is at best a lame troll.
ha-ha... Where exactly Israel could have done this ? Look at the map !!! Try to find Israel. If you succeed - try to find a place to make a nuclear test !
If you could bother yourself to actually read the article, you'd learn that the tests, three in all, were conducted in the Indian Ocean.
Look on the map. It's that big blue thing to the south and east of Israel.
I don't know which part of my post it is you are trying to respond to. No effort was made to impugn the Israeli capacity to make war.
But, since you bring up the question of Israeli nukes, you might find this article interesting. Prepared by the U.S. Military, it details how Israel engaged in theft to acquire both the enriched uranium and the technology necessary to first produce nuclear weapons, items that if the Iraqis for instance were able to acquire would guarantee them a nuclear arsenal of their own.
In any case, even if there is controversy over where the technology is being developed, no such controversy exists as to who is paying for it all.
Assuming that we actually get to employ this weapon system in a war we are justified in fighting, I am very concerned about Israeli participation in this project.
The Israelis have a history of taking our weapon technologies and putting them on the market, often without consulting us in advance. An excellent example is the AWACS capabilities we've recently provided them that have found their way into the arsenal of the Chinese and which could end up costing the lives of American servicemen if the Taiwan strait heats up.
This would be particularly damaging with this weapon system, given its ability to dull the effectiveness of the mainstay of our military capability, that is, dropping and/or launching projectiles at otherwise defenseless adversaries.
Might this be a case of a weapon system whose chief expense was in its design? Now that it is understood how to create these things, is it possible that they might be produced inexpensively, and by nations that normally aren't capable of fielding hi-tech weaponry?
Instead of working to enhance our security, I can envision a scenario where exactly the opposite takes place.
But then again, if we continue to engage in immoral campaigns like Serbia, Afghanistan and Colombia, perhaps it's all for the best.
You're in a car! No need to listen to the idiots sitting next to you unless you were fool enough to invite them along!
You can bring beer, food and drugs and have sex by yourself or with others, all without inconveniencing others or being inconvenienced yourself!
Tickets are (were) cheap, and you could also pack the skinny people in the trunk for further savings!
Of course, drive-thrus are a thing of the past. A shame really. Here is a piece of Americana that really made sense I think.
Perhaps a revival of some kind can be had, yes? As I recall, the only downside to the drive-thru experience were those crappy speakers they had you put in your car. Well, with today's technology, couldn't we do something better? Some kind of short-range FM transmission? Or maybe streaming MP3's via WiFi?
The picture would often be faded as well, but couldn't that be tackled by putting a really, really bright bulb in the projector?
Objective-C was certainly novel back in the day of NeXT but today it is a dead language.
Why should I code anything in Obj-C? So that it can run on a Mac?
Why isn't Apple giving us a C++ API to Cocoa instead?
I'll tell you why. Because the NeXT developers who came over to Apple when NeXT was bought have some severe emotional problems. When BillG decided not to produce software for NeXT the world passed NeXT by, and that must've been incredibly frustrating given the superior work they had done up to that date.
Now that they're running Cupertino they are making developers and users both pay for our not seeing the light back in the '80s. The insistance on making us get on our knees to use Obj-C when it is clear to anybody that C++ is *the* language for shrinkwrapped product is but one example of this. Their stinginess with releasing details of how many of the API's done in Cocoa is another. Decimating the original Mac interface, refined over a period of over fifteen years in favor of what currently passes as a UI is still another.
Sure, Aqua is pretty, but killing the Apple and Process menus in favor of the Dock (a bastard UI hack that every classic Mac shareware programmer considered doing for all of five minutes before dismissing it as grotesque and immature) was without any doubt a hostile gesture to the existing Mac user base. Would it have been so difficult to simply give us the option of choosing between the two?
Up until Apple and OSX, the question as to how to treat a particular platform was one that could be made on objective criteria like access to the API's and marketshare. Now we have to consider things like personality and psychology.
Perhaps one day these guys will get over themselves, and maybe we can put some good code together for this machine. Until then I'll stick to the afternoon soaps for all my drama needs.
Why doesn't it focus on the ones that actually preoccupy peoples' minds?
I've never even heard of this business with the microbiologists.
But what about TWA-800? There are a lot of people who think a missile brought that plane down, so why doesn't the Times investigate this?
Here is an Executive Order Bill Clinton signed the day after Paris Match released the radar tapes showing that something else was in the sky and closing on TWA-800's position. The order removes members of the Naval Special Warfare Development Group from the Whistleblower statutes. It is quite clearly an attempt on the part of the administration to cover-up the events surrounding TWA-800.
Neither the New York Times nor any other corporate media outlet chose to publish this fact, however. To a man they all dismiss the notion that a Navy missile brought down TWA-800 as nothing more than conspiracy theory.
By exposing this rather silly theory about the microbiologists being murdered their intent is to throw doubt on the many other theories that do merit our attention... that still hold the rank of conspiracy theory only because papers like The New York Times refuses to publish the truth.
Story I submitted that got rejected follows. That slashdot refuses to carry this story tells me that the people who run it are whores. My karma here is worthless.
The New York Times tells us (after we register for free) that Gnutella developer Gene Kan has committed suicide. Let's see, he was young (25) and just over a year ago saw the company he started bought by Sun Microsystems. It would be wrong to jump to conclusions here. It would also be wrong to not start asking questions. Update: 07/11 23:45 GMT by corebreech: Missed this before, but news of his death was withheld until after the body was cremated.
I'm a little puzzled as to why your post was modded off-topic.
As am I.
I posted about this over in another forum that was not quite as related to the story as this one was, yet still managed to see the story modded up to 5 over the course of several hours. I had also posted several replies within the same thread.
In the space of under two minute I watched as all my posts were modded down to -1. It was like 4 AM EST.
Not only do they not want the story posted, they don't want us to talk about it. Sick bastards they are.
Slashdot Mirror
...That would have made a better title. It's like somebody took away his special-effects dept. and so he had to make do with things like bad matte paintings and the oh-so-clichéd alien-appears-as-human device.
The coolest thing about this episode were the commercials the Sci-Fi Channel ran. That mutant kid with the wings and the suction-cup fingers almost made me spill my beer. Little fucker.
I'll tune in tonight, just to see if there are new commercials.
Interesting with all the cool stuff Bond uses, Solaris isn't anywhere to be found.
Maybe it's McNealy who got humped by, er, jumped over the shark.
People at least are going to paying to watch Bond. Meanwhile, all they ever say about Sun is don't look at it.
Wow! So I can record CD's and play DVD's on this thing, is that really right?!?
And it might be able to work under Linux!!! Did I read that right???
http://www.holocaustnow.org/
:(
But it's been down for a month or so... waiting for a new server.
The Big Eye In The Pyramid?
And you call me delusional?
No effort to explain why my site would appear and then disappear. No effort to explain why so many news stories before and after 911 were taken down. All you do is tell us of two pages they do archive, despite my never suggesting the contrary.
You must be one of these retards I keep hearing about. Tell me, how long did it take you to develop this ability, or are you naturally gifted?
less cheetos guys
Try accessing news stories immediately prior to and after the September 11 attack and you'll see just how valuable this website is... or rather, isn't.
I have also personally ran a website which contained fairly controversial material (based on this story) that I saw listed on their website and then removed shortly thereafter. Tell me, why would a service like this ever have occasion to remove material once it's been archived, especially if there are *NO* copyright issues and the webmaster of the archived site never asked them to remove it?
The answer is simple: the powers-that-be saw how dangerous it was to make all this information available to anyone on demand so they took control. It would be a great service were it allowed to operate unfettered, but the reality is quite different.
And I'm the first to mention this here so far? You should all be modded down -1 for naiveté.
They are?
Not in the American media. Not ever.
No, the story is always that "Israel retaliates." It's never "The Palestinians retaliate." It's always "Israel retaliates", the subtle suggestion being that it is the Palestinians who are the aggressors, and that is simply not the case.
Since the fat man took his crap on the Temple Mount the ratio of dead has been 1,665 Palestinians vs. 639 Israelis. It is the Israelis who are invading what should be Palestine, not the other way around.
And we pay for it.
I agree... the label of anti-semite is overused, even when conceivably on-topic (as in confusing anti-Zionism or anti-Jewish-Supremicism with anti-semitism.) As used here it is at best a lame troll.
At worst it is an example of hate.
is because if the government were to start debunking only the wacky conspiracy theories the remainder could be seen as being implicitly legitimate.
The label of conspiracy is too important for the powers-that-be to allow this to happen.
Just look at what The New York Times is doing with the term today.
ha-ha... Where exactly Israel could have done this ? Look at the map !!! Try to find Israel. If you succeed - try to find a place to make a nuclear test !
If you could bother yourself to actually read the article, you'd learn that the tests, three in all, were conducted in the Indian Ocean.
Look on the map. It's that big blue thing to the south and east of Israel.
BTW: That AWACS plane was purchased from Boieng as a special order 747. All of the radar equipment and hi-tech was added while IN Israel, by the IAI.
Wrong. The plane was produced in Russia, and the radar technology was developed and paid for by the U.S.
And what would be the problem if they did sell it?
Doh? We design and build weapon systems so that we can use them against our adversaries, not the other way around.
Try hard and think?
Track the results.
I don't know which part of my post it is you are trying to respond to. No effort was made to impugn the Israeli capacity to make war.
But, since you bring up the question of Israeli nukes, you might find this article interesting. Prepared by the U.S. Military, it details how Israel engaged in theft to acquire both the enriched uranium and the technology necessary to first produce nuclear weapons, items that if the Iraqis for instance were able to acquire would guarantee them a nuclear arsenal of their own.
In any case, even if there is controversy over where the technology is being developed, no such controversy exists as to who is paying for it all.
Assuming that we actually get to employ this weapon system in a war we are justified in fighting, I am very concerned about Israeli participation in this project.
The Israelis have a history of taking our weapon technologies and putting them on the market, often without consulting us in advance. An excellent example is the AWACS capabilities we've recently provided them that have found their way into the arsenal of the Chinese and which could end up costing the lives of American servicemen if the Taiwan strait heats up.
This would be particularly damaging with this weapon system, given its ability to dull the effectiveness of the mainstay of our military capability, that is, dropping and/or launching projectiles at otherwise defenseless adversaries.
Might this be a case of a weapon system whose chief expense was in its design? Now that it is understood how to create these things, is it possible that they might be produced inexpensively, and by nations that normally aren't capable of fielding hi-tech weaponry?
Instead of working to enhance our security, I can envision a scenario where exactly the opposite takes place.
But then again, if we continue to engage in immoral campaigns like Serbia, Afghanistan and Colombia, perhaps it's all for the best.
Maybe the Palestinians can build one.
The Screensavers were talking about this a week ago.
The slashdot editors should be more interested in an Aibo that fetches today's paper.
Maybe then we can get News for Nerds, while it still matters.
Wake me up when Earth's little sister is found, and you've got some decent JPEG's.
Too bad they're all gone, but consider...
You're in a car! No need to listen to the idiots sitting next to you unless you were fool enough to invite them along!
You can bring beer, food and drugs and have sex by yourself or with others, all without inconveniencing others or being inconvenienced yourself!
Tickets are (were) cheap, and you could also pack the skinny people in the trunk for further savings!
Of course, drive-thrus are a thing of the past. A shame really. Here is a piece of Americana that really made sense I think.
Perhaps a revival of some kind can be had, yes? As I recall, the only downside to the drive-thru experience were those crappy speakers they had you put in your car. Well, with today's technology, couldn't we do something better? Some kind of short-range FM transmission? Or maybe streaming MP3's via WiFi?
The picture would often be faded as well, but couldn't that be tackled by putting a really, really bright bulb in the projector?
It's the best of all worlds if you do it right.
Objective-C was certainly novel back in the day of NeXT but today it is a dead language.
Why should I code anything in Obj-C? So that it can run on a Mac?
Why isn't Apple giving us a C++ API to Cocoa instead?
I'll tell you why. Because the NeXT developers who came over to Apple when NeXT was bought have some severe emotional problems. When BillG decided not to produce software for NeXT the world passed NeXT by, and that must've been incredibly frustrating given the superior work they had done up to that date.
Now that they're running Cupertino they are making developers and users both pay for our not seeing the light back in the '80s. The insistance on making us get on our knees to use Obj-C when it is clear to anybody that C++ is *the* language for shrinkwrapped product is but one example of this. Their stinginess with releasing details of how many of the API's done in Cocoa is another. Decimating the original Mac interface, refined over a period of over fifteen years in favor of what currently passes as a UI is still another.
Sure, Aqua is pretty, but killing the Apple and Process menus in favor of the Dock (a bastard UI hack that every classic Mac shareware programmer considered doing for all of five minutes before dismissing it as grotesque and immature) was without any doubt a hostile gesture to the existing Mac user base. Would it have been so difficult to simply give us the option of choosing between the two?
Up until Apple and OSX, the question as to how to treat a particular platform was one that could be made on objective criteria like access to the API's and marketshare. Now we have to consider things like personality and psychology.
Perhaps one day these guys will get over themselves, and maybe we can put some good code together for this machine. Until then I'll stick to the afternoon soaps for all my drama needs.
Why not make the space stuff work first? You know, rockets that don't go BOOM, cool pics, robots that do wheelies.
Etc.
It certainly has to work better than the cheese did.
Why doesn't it focus on the ones that actually preoccupy peoples' minds?
I've never even heard of this business with the microbiologists.
But what about TWA-800? There are a lot of people who think a missile brought that plane down, so why doesn't the Times investigate this?
Here is an Executive Order Bill Clinton signed the day after Paris Match released the radar tapes showing that something else was in the sky and closing on TWA-800's position. The order removes members of the Naval Special Warfare Development Group from the Whistleblower statutes. It is quite clearly an attempt on the part of the administration to cover-up the events surrounding TWA-800.
Neither the New York Times nor any other corporate media outlet chose to publish this fact, however. To a man they all dismiss the notion that a Navy missile brought down TWA-800 as nothing more than conspiracy theory.
By exposing this rather silly theory about the microbiologists being murdered their intent is to throw doubt on the many other theories that do merit our attention... that still hold the rank of conspiracy theory only because papers like The New York Times refuses to publish the truth.
This is a disgraceful story.
I will gather every EULA I can and send it in.
Great idea!
Story I submitted that got rejected follows. That slashdot refuses to carry this story tells me that the people who run it are whores. My karma here is worthless.
The New York Times tells us (after we register for free) that Gnutella developer Gene Kan has committed suicide. Let's see, he was young (25) and just over a year ago saw the company he started bought by Sun Microsystems. It would be wrong to jump to conclusions here. It would also be wrong to not start asking questions. Update: 07/11 23:45 GMT by corebreech: Missed this before, but news of his death was withheld until after the body was cremated.
Additional links:
CNN story
San Jose Mercury News stories: Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday
Kan's web log
JXTA
Free Republic discussion on Gene Kan
Google search
I'm a little puzzled as to why your post was modded off-topic.
As am I.
I posted about this over in another forum that was not quite as related to the story as this one was, yet still managed to see the story modded up to 5 over the course of several hours. I had also posted several replies within the same thread.
In the space of under two minute I watched as all my posts were modded down to -1. It was like 4 AM EST.
Not only do they not want the story posted, they don't want us to talk about it. Sick bastards they are.