Here in Chicago, the Fox affiliate has been broadcasting FoxNews network since Tuesday AM non-stop. The only pause has been for local news.
Do I really need to see Barbara Olson's husband interviewed on FoxNews ONE MORE TIME? I heard the same interview three or four times after work last night. At 10pm, after local news, I wanted The Simpsons.
Guess what? Another idiotic edition of "The O'Reilly Factor".
It's a shame that Fox is attempting to use this crisis to promote their half-assed news operation. They essentially repeat the same content every two hours on FoxNews channel.
A better name for FoxNews channel would be "Republicans Talking about Killing Ay-Rabs".
Bin Laded suposedly moves three times a week (according some news report I saw). And according to your link he has no means of communicating with the outside world. Odd how some peripatetic (look it up), blind, deaf organization is able to coordinate such sophisticated and intricately organized terrorist attacks.
bin Laden helped the Taliban take control of Afghanistan in the first place. He was instrumental in winning the Battle of Kabul for them by committing troops to their effort.
He is protected by Pakistani commandos. The Taliban government is neither motivated to tell the truth about nor able to affect the circumstance of Osama bin Laden. There are many that say he continues to orchestrate favors for the Taliban in exchange for safety within Afghanistan's borders.
The idea isn't that we're going to hit terrorists individually, but states who sponsor terrorism.
What people often fail to realize is that sponsorship comes in many forms:
- Money
- Sanctuary
- "looking the other way" (ie. Yasser Arafat's "What terrorists?" face)
The point is that what happened in New York was a large, complex, expensive operation, and that more than likely there was another country involved giving either financial or actual help to the operation (training, etc). A country just participated in an attack where thousands of civillians were killed in the U.S. and you think we shouldn't do anything? The point is that any country that actively participates is the target, not just the terrorists.
In fact, it could be argued that the country is a more important target because it will become an example to Pakistan and Iraq, and anybody else that harbors terrorists.
Frankly, this is the right strategy, but we also need to change our diplomatic policies.
Translation: We can't walk around and talk like we own the place anymore, because we don't.
What Bush is doing with this coalition is the right course, but it needs to continue in other parts of our foreign policy.
The title "leader of the free world" is just an expression: You don't actually get to tell other countries what to do.
...Any backdoor will be cracked within five minutes and decrease the barely acceptable security on the internet now, and could kill the concept of e-commerce.
Do you really think some justice department drone can write a crypto algorithm just weak enough that it can be broken only by the government but not by guys who want to steal credit card info by sniffing out Amazon.com?
A known backdoor will be exploited by everybody but the government, who'll probably end up needing a warrant to go in through the back door.
Wait, let me guess, Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 removes the high encryption feature... Failure to install = 20 years prison.
To upgrade our society and make trolls like this Anonymous Coward obsolete?
Eliminate the need for "random stops"
on
Remote Breathalyzer
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
My favorite line...
"This would eliminate the need for law enforcement to do random stops as a means of catching drunk drivers."
This implies that if these devices are mandated, we can trade the tiny bit of privacy we have left for an end to intrusive, unconstitutional roadblocks...
...But there's no way in hell they'll ever stop the roadblocks without a Supreme Court rulinng. My neighbor is a cop and she said a good percentage of arrests at roadblocks (sometimes more than half) are for crimes besides DUI, usually because there's a warrant out for the person and they drive through the roadblock. They also target the vehicles of people they know of to be "Druggies" for dog-sniffs while they're at the roadblock.
The Police want their job to be "easier" at the expense of my individual liberties.
Whoever posted that Ben Franklin comment should get 1million karma points...
1) iTunes is a completely different beast than Windows Media player. There is no proprietary iTunes format that Apple is trying to force everybody to use. Although iTunes comes with OS9/X you can remove it if you don't want to use it (I did). Try uninstalling Windows Media from XP and let me know how far you get.
2) The leveraging isn't in including the Media Player, it's in the fact that the media player is crippled to slant music fans towards using the (proprietary) Windows Media format instead of MP3s, and you couldn't uninstall Windows Media player on a bet in XP.
Probably, though, we should all discount your comments because your analysis of the Macintosh is "Mac sucks". I mean, I don't like Windows, but I have a better argument against it than "MS Blows"...
Slashdot Mirror
Here in Chicago, the Fox affiliate has been broadcasting FoxNews network since Tuesday AM non-stop. The only pause has been for local news.
Do I really need to see Barbara Olson's husband interviewed on FoxNews ONE MORE TIME? I heard the same interview three or four times after work last night. At 10pm, after local news, I wanted The Simpsons.
Guess what? Another idiotic edition of "The O'Reilly Factor".
It's a shame that Fox is attempting to use this crisis to promote their half-assed news operation. They essentially repeat the same content every two hours on FoxNews channel.
A better name for FoxNews channel would be "Republicans Talking about Killing Ay-Rabs".
bin Laden helped the Taliban take control of Afghanistan in the first place. He was instrumental in winning the Battle of Kabul for them by committing troops to their effort.
He is protected by Pakistani commandos. The Taliban government is neither motivated to tell the truth about nor able to affect the circumstance of Osama bin Laden. There are many that say he continues to orchestrate favors for the Taliban in exchange for safety within Afghanistan's borders.
To say we should let this go is absurd.
The idea isn't that we're going to hit terrorists individually, but states who sponsor terrorism.
What people often fail to realize is that sponsorship comes in many forms:
- Money
- Sanctuary
- "looking the other way" (ie. Yasser Arafat's "What terrorists?" face)
The point is that what happened in New York was a large, complex, expensive operation, and that more than likely there was another country involved giving either financial or actual help to the operation (training, etc). A country just participated in an attack where thousands of civillians were killed in the U.S. and you think we shouldn't do anything? The point is that any country that actively participates is the target, not just the terrorists.
In fact, it could be argued that the country is a more important target because it will become an example to Pakistan and Iraq, and anybody else that harbors terrorists.
Frankly, this is the right strategy, but we also need to change our diplomatic policies.
Translation: We can't walk around and talk like we own the place anymore, because we don't.
What Bush is doing with this coalition is the right course, but it needs to continue in other parts of our foreign policy.
The title "leader of the free world" is just an expression: You don't actually get to tell other countries what to do.
...Any backdoor will be cracked within five minutes and decrease the barely acceptable security on the internet now, and could kill the concept of e-commerce.
Do you really think some justice department drone can write a crypto algorithm just weak enough that it can be broken only by the government but not by guys who want to steal credit card info by sniffing out Amazon.com?
A known backdoor will be exploited by everybody but the government, who'll probably end up needing a warrant to go in through the back door.
Wait, let me guess, Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 removes the high encryption feature... Failure to install = 20 years prison.
Great plan.
To upgrade our society and make trolls like this Anonymous Coward obsolete?
My favorite line...
"This would eliminate the need for law enforcement to do random stops as a means of catching drunk drivers."
This implies that if these devices are mandated, we can trade the tiny bit of privacy we have left for an end to intrusive, unconstitutional roadblocks...
...But there's no way in hell they'll ever stop the roadblocks without a Supreme Court rulinng. My neighbor is a cop and she said a good percentage of arrests at roadblocks (sometimes more than half) are for crimes besides DUI, usually because there's a warrant out for the person and they drive through the roadblock. They also target the vehicles of people they know of to be "Druggies" for dog-sniffs while they're at the roadblock.
The Police want their job to be "easier" at the expense of my individual liberties.
Whoever posted that Ben Franklin comment should get 1million karma points...
Two comments:
1) iTunes is a completely different beast than Windows Media player. There is no proprietary iTunes format that Apple is trying to force everybody to use. Although iTunes comes with OS9/X you can remove it if you don't want to use it (I did). Try uninstalling Windows Media from XP and let me know how far you get.
2) The leveraging isn't in including the Media Player, it's in the fact that the media player is crippled to slant music fans towards using the (proprietary) Windows Media format instead of MP3s, and you couldn't uninstall Windows Media player on a bet in XP.
Probably, though, we should all discount your comments because your analysis of the Macintosh is "Mac sucks". I mean, I don't like Windows, but I have a better argument against it than "MS Blows"...