If the US had supported the Kurds in the past, then they could have overthrown Saddam. At one stage, the kurds thought that they had support and were about to launch an offensive when the US withdrew their support.
Saddam is a Sunni, Osama a shia. The two do not mix, in the "I want to kill each other" sort of mixing. Saddam ran a secular state, an anathema to Bin Laden. In a sense, Osama wanted the US to overrun Iraq. It gives a chance for the shia muslim to have a religious state.
Osama has got his first goal - the US military out of Saudi Arabia. Now all you have to do is suppress Iraq. And look how that's going. I think you need help. You need an expert. I think you need Saddam back in charge.
I reckon Saddam will be back in power in a years time and you lot will be eating crow. You heard it here first.
"I don't have google. I've got wanadoo" Wanadoo is an ISP.
"The internet won't come up" i.e. I can't log in to my computer.
"I've stored all my webpages in this drawer" i.e. she's printed all the webpages she's seen. Why? I have no idea.
Most people don't even know what a browser is. The internet *is* the PC as far as my mothers concerned. There is no difference.
Mind you, you *tell* them that IE is the unsafest thing since skating on thin ice, they tend to listen. Mind you, you've then got to hand hold to help them install it...LOL
I just can't see what relevance this has to anything these days. It's painfully obvious that organisations just don't care. Or the message isn't getting through. I give you this as an example:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/08/nhs_ms_d ea l_analysis/
The NHS is about to become the biggest single monoculture of all time. And yet, in all that happy fluffery of content ministers, there's little consideration of security. One unsecure laptop let loose in that environment and it all falls down - life-vital equipment, records and the PPT diagram for next years rolling lockin.
In other words, end-users buy software that's buggy if they think they're getting a good deal, and that doesn't always include risk-management. As a result, we (and I use that term advisedly) in the commercial world become bug-writers. OTOH, in this market-place, OSS, or code which could reasonably called more secure and I believe that most OSS code is, doesn't seem to have much of a niche. This USP is ignorable when standardisation is all that's called for.
The waste isn't just fuel. It's everything contaminated by the fuel which has a limited life span. Containers, transport and the like. There's an awful lot of that stuff around as well, and the more reactors, the more that pile of residual will grow.
it's business risk versus technical risk. Business risk includes securing ip issues, maintenance contracts, goodwill etc. You speak of technical risks.
But what if you've a huge installation of Lotus Notes? How do you migrate from Notes to Wikis? And cheaply?
Maybe someone could describe a migration path project...as "here's legacy A, this is what you do to get to legacy B with minimal fuss"? I'm sure (sic!) that someone has done this for windows to linux, how about from Notes to, say, mediawiki?
Apologies. I was referring to the time-honoured "cascade" method of software dev. The one where *all* the requirements are written *before* embarking on software product dev. That makes my statement a little clearer. I've had several newbies say "oh, if you wrote all the requirements first then you wouldn't be in this mess". Ummm. This assumes that the client knows all the requirements first - quite often, they don't know the requirements until the first working draft has been done and suddenly they want x, y and z...
Yes, there is always some requirements at the start. Some requirements are almost a "statement of intent" and so the dance begins. The requirements zig-zag all over the place and the software development follows until something is built. And sure, these have to written somewhere because, yes, they do clarify your thinking. This I think is the standard way of working for most companies, whether or not they formalise these procedures.
A more refined version gets the programmer to find out the requirements that meet their client's needs the soonest. Some requirements are more essential than others. Of course, this changes over time, which is why programmers should liase with clients as often as possible, even though the y may not have completed the latest deliverable. The one weakness of this method is deciding on completeness. What state of functionality is complete enough? Probably not a big deal as I suppose the 80% rule must apply here as it always does.
I believe this methodology is called Evolutionary or Iterative development - http://www.phptr.com/articles/article.asp?p=102256 The place where I work is a firm believer in this and it's kept us going for the past 10 years.
Uh, does anyone truly, outside of NASA, write the requirements first? No one does that anymore. The requirements change so rapidly. Has no one heard of Evolutionary programming? Often, requirements stem from code being written...so I'm in violent agreement with you. It's just code that code is being is being used for design here.
There is one solid case where yo write the tests first: bug fixing. Find the bug, write the test for the bug, fix the bug.
1. You can be more confident when you begin refactoring mature code-bases. This for me is the clincher as code never stands still but the tests can be a constant. A permanent measure.
2. If it's an API, you have working examples to show people.
3. for years, I used informal, undocumented tests. Handing-over was always going to be bad. Now, hand-overs are a, uh, doddle.
4. Progress. Nothing like some concrete test results to show people. Most test suits show results as HTML. Put them on your intranet.
It's either us or them, kill or be killed. We were attacked on 9/11 and now it's time to kill everyone involved.
You've killed at least 10000 iraqis which, by my mind, kind of evens of the score. But none of them were Saudis. Bin Ladin is a Saudi. Most of the men on the hijacked airliners were Saudi. So, when are you going to invade Saudi Arabia? Why is the US letting the real culprits go?
BTW, one of Bin Ladin's demands was that US forces withdrew from Saudi Arabia. The US has cravenly caved in and acquiesed to that demand. There are now 14 permanent US bases in Iraq. Just when do you declare Iraq a US Protectorate?
Only Bush is man enough to attack other nations who support terrorists and give the UN, an evil socialist organization, the finger.
The US hasn't attacked Iran yet. Or North Korea. Oh, wait, they have nuclear weapons. They can defend themselves. Now theres a signal to send out to people across the world.
As for the UN, I believe the US starving them of funds is the equivalent of giving them the finger.
As for being "socialist", bits of the UN are rabidly capitalist. Isn't WIPO under UN auspices?
I used to like the US. I used to respect the US. No longer.
Nationalism and socialism is a peculiarly german bonding. Pre-1870, Germany was fragmented into kingdom, each furiously trying to maintain the status quo. Nationalism (the uniting of these kingdoms) and socialism (one of whose aims was the overthrow of the ruling elites) thus became fused into what proved to be a dangerous mixture.
The NSDAP had no rigorous political beliefs - the socialism bit was tacked in there to attract the workers. Unfortunately for the NSDAP, the workers kept joining the Zentrum (catholics) or the KPD (communists) during the interwar years
Christianity and socialism has an unhealthy (and long) relationship - e.g TB with his messianic brand of socialism which, frankly, has no place in a party dedicated to a modern socialism.
I think the debate has become centred around a strawperson, in that some one has *dared* to tell christians where to get off for one of the few times in a millenia and now the christians start whining. Puh-leeze. In most Anglo Saxon countries, christianity is ingrained, deeply, and is the predominant power structure. The US is the only beacon of hope in this dire scene, and even that is under attack.
There used to be a time when three people could meet in plain sight and not be accused of conspiracy. Seems to me this happened a lot before the advent of the means of surveillance.
Before the fall, most of the East German spies working in West Germany were secretaries.
plus
If the deathstar was that advanced, they would have droids to do the cleaning.
then
anyone working in personnel or communications - particularly Non Commissioned Officers with a grudge (I seem to recall quite a few USN personnel of this rank being suborned by the Soviets) - would be prime targets for subversion.
OTOH, you could always suborn then *before* they were recruited into the service - Philby, McLean etc.
What's your definition of a novel? Are you saying that every word in the bible is true? I'd say that the bible was part myth part fantasy part witness (and we all know how partial witness statements are) - there's something in here for everyone. And, yes, that stacks up like a novel for me...but then, I don't believe.
I think Firefox copied the tabs *and* the mouse-gestures from Opera (I can the flames revving up already...) but as I always say, steal from the best. I use Firefox because it's HTML rendering and plugin support is that much better. Plus it's Linux support is better IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
"publisher Philip Graham (owner of the Washington Post) described journalism as "the first draft of history.""
and slashdot? I can just imagine a researcher in years to come still cursing the decision not to comply with HTML 4...
h
If Schwartzenegger becomes POTUS...no, no, please!! For the love of humanity, no!
If the US had supported the Kurds in the past, then they could have overthrown Saddam. At one stage, the kurds thought that they had support and were about to launch an offensive when the US withdrew their support.
Saddam is a Sunni, Osama a shia. The two do not mix, in the "I want to kill each other" sort of mixing. Saddam ran a secular state, an anathema to Bin Laden. In a sense, Osama wanted the US to overrun Iraq. It gives a chance for the shia muslim to have a religious state.
Osama has got his first goal - the US military out of Saudi Arabia. Now all you have to do is suppress Iraq. And look how that's going. I think you need help. You need an expert. I think you need Saddam back in charge.
I reckon Saddam will be back in power in a years time and you lot will be eating crow. You heard it here first.
h
h
Quotes from my mother:
"I don't have google. I've got wanadoo" Wanadoo is an ISP.
"The internet won't come up" i.e. I can't log in to my computer.
"I've stored all my webpages in this drawer" i.e. she's printed all the webpages she's seen. Why? I have no idea.
Most people don't even know what a browser is. The internet *is* the PC as far as my mothers concerned. There is no difference.
Mind you, you *tell* them that IE is the unsafest thing since skating on thin ice, they tend to listen. Mind you, you've then got to hand hold to help them install it...LOL
...just further lockin.
d ea l_analysis/
I just can't see what relevance this has to anything these days. It's painfully obvious that organisations just don't care. Or the message isn't getting through. I give you this as an example:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/08/nhs_ms_
The NHS is about to become the biggest single monoculture of all time. And yet, in all that happy fluffery of content ministers, there's little consideration of security. One unsecure laptop let loose in that environment and it all falls down - life-vital equipment, records and the PPT diagram for next years rolling lockin.
In other words, end-users buy software that's buggy if they think they're getting a good deal, and that doesn't always include risk-management. As a result, we (and I use that term advisedly) in the commercial world become bug-writers. OTOH, in this market-place, OSS, or code which could reasonably called more secure and I believe that most OSS code is, doesn't seem to have much of a niche. This USP is ignorable when standardisation is all that's called for.
h.
The waste isn't just fuel. It's everything contaminated by the fuel which has a limited life span. Containers, transport and the like. There's an awful lot of that stuff around as well, and the more reactors, the more that pile of residual will grow.
h
I think it's nearer "The Watchmen" in reverse. For those not au fait, the alien being that materialised in NY was meant to bring peace.
h
This seems fairly active:
http://gnv.sourceforge.net/
includes a port of bash to VMS. Not sure how good it is.
Having used and programmed DCL, it's not that bad.
h
it's business risk versus technical risk. Business risk includes securing ip issues, maintenance contracts, goodwill etc. You speak of technical risks.
h
But what if you've a huge installation of Lotus Notes? How do you migrate from Notes to Wikis? And cheaply?
Maybe someone could describe a migration path project...as "here's legacy A, this is what you do to get to legacy B with minimal fuss"? I'm sure (sic!) that someone has done this for windows to linux, how about from Notes to, say, mediawiki?
h.
http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php /2234821
Apologies. I was referring to the time-honoured "cascade" method of software dev. The one where *all* the requirements are written *before* embarking on software product dev. That makes my statement a little clearer. I've had several newbies say "oh, if you wrote all the requirements first then you wouldn't be in this mess". Ummm. This assumes that the client knows all the requirements first - quite often, they don't know the requirements until the first working draft has been done and suddenly they want x, y and z...
6
Yes, there is always some requirements at the start. Some requirements are almost a "statement of intent" and so the dance begins. The requirements zig-zag all over the place and the software development follows until something is built. And sure, these have to written somewhere because, yes, they do clarify your thinking. This I think is the standard way of working for most companies, whether or not they formalise these procedures.
A more refined version gets the programmer to find out the requirements that meet their client's needs the soonest. Some requirements are more essential than others. Of course, this changes over time, which is why programmers should liase with clients as often as possible, even though the y may not have completed the latest deliverable. The one weakness of this method is deciding on completeness. What state of functionality is complete enough? Probably not a big deal as I suppose the 80% rule must apply here as it always does.
I believe this methodology is called Evolutionary or Iterative development - http://www.phptr.com/articles/article.asp?p=10225
The place where I work is a firm believer in this and it's kept us going for the past 10 years.
h
Uh, does anyone truly, outside of NASA, write the requirements first? No one does that anymore. The requirements change so rapidly. Has no one heard of Evolutionary programming? Often, requirements stem from code being written...so I'm in violent agreement with you. It's just code that code is being is being used for design here.
There is one solid case where yo write the tests first: bug fixing. Find the bug, write the test for the bug, fix the bug.
h
There are some more reasons:
1. You can be more confident when you begin refactoring mature code-bases. This for me is the clincher as code never stands still but the tests can be a constant. A permanent measure.
2. If it's an API, you have working examples to show people.
3. for years, I used informal, undocumented tests. Handing-over was always going to be bad. Now, hand-overs are a, uh, doddle.
4. Progress. Nothing like some concrete test results to show people. Most test suits show results as HTML. Put them on your intranet.
h.
You've killed at least 10000 iraqis which, by my mind, kind of evens of the score. But none of them were Saudis. Bin Ladin is a Saudi. Most of the men on the hijacked airliners were Saudi. So, when are you going to invade Saudi Arabia? Why is the US letting the real culprits go?
BTW, one of Bin Ladin's demands was that US forces withdrew from Saudi Arabia. The US has cravenly caved in and acquiesed to that demand. There are now 14 permanent US bases in Iraq. Just when do you declare Iraq a US Protectorate?
Only Bush is man enough to attack other nations who support terrorists and give the UN, an evil socialist organization, the finger.
The US hasn't attacked Iran yet. Or North Korea. Oh, wait, they have nuclear weapons. They can defend themselves. Now theres a signal to send out to people across the world.
As for the UN, I believe the US starving them of funds is the equivalent of giving them the finger.
As for being "socialist", bits of the UN are rabidly capitalist. Isn't WIPO under UN auspices?
I used to like the US. I used to respect the US. No longer.
h
Mostly because the UN aren't allowed to accomplish anything. Has the US paid it's bill recently?
h
Nationalism and socialism is a peculiarly german bonding. Pre-1870, Germany was fragmented into kingdom, each furiously trying to maintain the status quo. Nationalism (the uniting of these kingdoms) and socialism (one of whose aims was the overthrow of the ruling elites) thus became fused into what proved to be a dangerous mixture.
The NSDAP had no rigorous political beliefs - the socialism bit was tacked in there to attract the workers. Unfortunately for the NSDAP, the workers kept joining the Zentrum (catholics) or the KPD (communists) during the interwar years
Christianity and socialism has an unhealthy (and long) relationship - e.g TB with his messianic brand of socialism which, frankly, has no place in a party dedicated to a modern socialism.
I think the debate has become centred around a strawperson, in that some one has *dared* to tell christians where to get off for one of the few times in a millenia and now the christians start whining. Puh-leeze. In most Anglo Saxon countries, christianity is ingrained, deeply, and is the predominant power structure. The US is the only beacon of hope in this dire scene, and even that is under attack.
h.
Until Microsoft become a profit organisation rather than a tax-harvesting one, then they get all the stick they deserve.
Thankyou,
h
There used to be a time when three people could meet in plain sight and not be accused of conspiracy. Seems to me this happened a lot before the advent of the means of surveillance.
They're wasting our money.
h.
Before the fall, most of the East German spies working in West Germany were secretaries.
plus
If the deathstar was that advanced, they would have droids to do the cleaning.
then
anyone working in personnel or communications - particularly Non Commissioned Officers with a grudge (I seem to recall quite a few USN personnel of this rank being suborned by the Soviets) - would be prime targets for subversion.
OTOH, you could always suborn then *before* they were recruited into the service - Philby, McLean etc.
h.
What's your definition of a novel? Are you saying that every word in the bible is true? I'd say that the bible was part myth part fantasy part witness (and we all know how partial witness statements are) - there's something in here for everyone. And, yes, that stacks up like a novel for me...but then, I don't believe.
h
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040916. html
How about poisoning USB for linux?
h
I think Firefox copied the tabs *and* the mouse-gestures from Opera (I can the flames revving up already...) but as I always say, steal from the best. I use Firefox because it's HTML rendering and plugin support is that much better. Plus it's Linux support is better IMO.
h,
I use Hewlett Packard machines every day. They make quite good escapist reading. This is slashdot, news for nerds, right?
.sig is a BMW
h
my other
Ah yes. And only one of us can remember Pal's name...so I'm guessing Spielberg's future stock can't rate that highly.
There'll be a role for Will Smith and some dancing robots, don't you worry. Old Spielberg will *ensure* that baby.