Why are people surprised by this? Politicans that are for this sort of thing think they can use it to their advantage, to (Shock! Horrors!) cheat the system. There have been elections in the US where out and out voter fraud have occurred, (notably, Wisconsin and Missouri, and of course, Chicago), and all this will do is make it harder to detect, and harder to enforce.
Wait until someone breaks into this system and turns an election on it's ear... You'll see some mighty fast backpedaling to the old system.
First off, good job thinking of doing bonuses. Not enough companies do that.
Give out $500 this year, and bank the rest for next year in an account you won't touch. Unfortunately, some people that get this money might come to "expect" it next year, and grow resentful if they don't get it. (I know, I know...but some people are like that). Better to give a little less over a longer period of time.
I do like the "What would you buy yourself for the office" idea, but I'd do it well after the Christmas holidays, so it's more an "out of the blue" surprise.
Yes, you're right. He had actual WMDs, just like Clinton said, and he had already used those on his own people. If he didn't have them, what did he use on those people?
Again, Bush never used the phrase "imminent threat". If he did, and you can supply a pointer to it, by all means do so.
Good, then we agree that they both were right that they should attack the programs before the threat becomes imminent.
From Bushes speech:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Saying that Bush said there was an imminent threat has been discredited. A simple web search can show that: example [townhall.com], example [townhall.com], example [instapundit.com].
(added from above post)
And, if you can find a transcript where he said it was an imminent threat, and not someone's version of it, I'd be very interested in seeing it.
If you read the full quote, as posted, you can see it's not an exclusion. I tell people they should expand their views beyond sources like Moore, Franken and Limbaugh. That's not exclusion. Sorry, but you're just wrong.
Specifics? Expand to all the news sources you can read. If you choose to read books Moore, Franken, and Limbaugh, read the other sides too. Watch CBS, CNN, NBC, ABC and Fox. Read the papers or their websites. Read the NYTimes, Washington Post, Washington Times, LATimes, San Fran Chronicle. Read weblogs. Google News is a good place too.
Good, then we agree that they both were right that they should attack the programs before the threat becomes imminent.
From Bushes speech:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Saying that Bush said there was an imminent threat has been discredited. A simple web search can show that:
example, example,
example.
These days it seems like many many people have turned into raving lunatics, quoting the crazies like Moore and Franken, or buying into Rush 100% and getting their news from only from them, rather than getting news from a wide variety of sources and THEN making a decision.
CNN didn't paraphrase anything; he did actually say that in the speech he gave.
Bush stated that Iraq was NOT an imminent threat, so I'm not sure what your point is. Let those WMD programs continue because there's no "imminent threat"? That it was OK because they were just going to use more of it on their own people, which they'd already done in the past?
Using that logic, the terrorists that slammed into the towers were just flying around, and weren't an imminent threat until they made their final course corrections.
I chose that link because it's the original letter, not someone else's interpretation of it. In that, he admits he lied, the same thing he tries to take other people to task for in his book.
If that's the sort of person you choose to get your "news" from, that's up to you. Like I said in my original post on this topic, people need to expand their news sources, and not take kool-aid that Franken, Moore, and Limbaugh hand out, which apparently you've chosen to do.
Sorry, but Franken is
a self-admitted liar, so he's off the list of sources I consider reliable. Pretty ironic behavior, considering the title of his recent book.
I have to say, it's nice to see that there are some still some well-reasoned folks like you out there that can actually have a conversation about this stuff.
These days it seems like many many people have turned into raving lunatics, quoting the crazies like Moore and Franken, or buying into Rush 100% and getting their news from only from them, rather than getting news from a wide variety of sources and THEN making a decision.
The key these people miss is, if they agree 100% with the news they're hearing, they need to expand where they're getting their news from, or they'll start believing what anyone tell's 'em.
I think it's worse than politics: it's bureaucracy.
I think if it were politics I think there would be a chance of fixing it. I think it's just monumental incompetency, complete lack of understanding of why should or shouldn't be granting patents, and a bureaucracy that goes on and on.
The thing that worries me is that I think it's not just computers/software. It's kinda like being at the movies. We as computer folks see amazingly stupid hollywood versions of computers, and laugh at them. Who's to say that other professions don't see the same things?
I'd be willing to be that the other professions see idiotic patents being granted the same way we do in our profession.
The only way this is going to get attention is if something really big happens, or more likely that a senator gets screwed over by a patent in some way. Then politics will enter all this big time.
That's just more FUD. It's not like the guy running the show looks at every single patent that goes through that place.
The patent system for software has been screwy for more than twenty years, and you can't hang it all on one guy. Doing that just points out that you A) have an axe to grind or B) you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Believe me, there's no love lost on Eolas (or Microsoft for that matter), but to set the record straight, UofC had nothing to do with the lawsuit.
http://www.eolas.com/zmapress.htm
If they were involved directly with the lawsuit, I'd be interested in seeing a reference.
Why are people surprised by this? Politicans that are for this sort of thing think they can use it to their advantage, to (Shock! Horrors!) cheat the system. There have been elections in the US where out and out voter fraud have occurred, (notably, Wisconsin and Missouri, and of course, Chicago), and all this will do is make it harder to detect, and harder to enforce.
Wait until someone breaks into this system and turns an election on it's ear... You'll see some mighty fast backpedaling to the old system.
Why not spend the money on the grade-school kids that need an education? The money would be far more useful there.
Sounds like flamebait to me...
And this article shows what's really been going on with this whole "imminent threat" argument.
[quote]
if a critic of Jess were the author
[/quote]
if that were true, the book probably wouldn't have been published.
What's wrong with SCO? Do they think Linux is an MP3 file or something??
First off, good job thinking of doing bonuses. Not enough companies do that.
Give out $500 this year, and bank the rest for next year in an account you won't touch. Unfortunately, some people that get this money might come to "expect" it next year, and grow resentful if they don't get it. (I know, I know...but some people are like that). Better to give a little less over a longer period of time.
I do like the "What would you buy yourself for the office" idea, but I'd do it well after the Christmas holidays, so it's more an "out of the blue" surprise.
Good luck on your running business.
Again, Bush never used the phrase "imminent threat". If he did, and you can supply a pointer to it, by all means do so.
Good, then we agree that they both were right that they should attack the programs before the threat becomes imminent.
From Bushes speech:
Saying that Bush said there was an imminent threat has been discredited. A simple web search can show that: example [townhall.com], example [townhall.com], example [instapundit.com].(added from above post)
And, if you can find a transcript where he said it was an imminent threat, and not someone's version of it, I'd be very interested in seeing it.
If you read the full quote, as posted, you can see it's not an exclusion. I tell people they should expand their views beyond sources like Moore, Franken and Limbaugh. That's not exclusion. Sorry, but you're just wrong.
Specifics? Expand to all the news sources you can read. If you choose to read books Moore, Franken, and Limbaugh, read the other sides too. Watch CBS, CNN, NBC, ABC and Fox. Read the papers or their websites. Read the NYTimes, Washington Post, Washington Times, LATimes, San Fran Chronicle. Read weblogs. Google News is a good place too.
Good, then we agree that they both were right that they should attack the programs before the threat becomes imminent. From Bushes speech: Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. Saying that Bush said there was an imminent threat has been discredited. A simple web search can show that: example, example, example.
I never said anyone should be excluded.
You're the liar.
CNN didn't paraphrase anything; he did actually say that in the speech he gave.
Bush stated that Iraq was NOT an imminent threat, so I'm not sure what your point is. Let those WMD programs continue because there's no "imminent threat"? That it was OK because they were just going to use more of it on their own people, which they'd already done in the past?
Using that logic, the terrorists that slammed into the towers were just flying around, and weren't an imminent threat until they made their final course corrections.
so, you're saying this speech was a complete lie?
I chose that link because it's the original letter, not someone else's interpretation of it. In that, he admits he lied, the same thing he tries to take other people to task for in his book.
If that's the sort of person you choose to get your "news" from, that's up to you. Like I said in my original post on this topic, people need to expand their news sources, and not take kool-aid that Franken, Moore, and Limbaugh hand out, which apparently you've chosen to do.
Good to know you're fine with WMD programs, but not the WMDs themselves. That speaks volumes.
Thank you for admitting that Franken is a liar.
Sorry, but Franken is a self-admitted liar, so he's off the list of sources I consider reliable. Pretty ironic behavior, considering the title of his recent book.
I have to say, it's nice to see that there are some still some well-reasoned folks like you out there that can actually have a conversation about this stuff.
These days it seems like many many people have turned into raving lunatics, quoting the crazies like Moore and Franken, or buying into Rush 100% and getting their news from only from them, rather than getting news from a wide variety of sources and THEN making a decision.
The key these people miss is, if they agree 100% with the news they're hearing, they need to expand where they're getting their news from, or they'll start believing what anyone tell's 'em.
Quit drinking the Democrat Kool-aid and try to think for yourself, rather than spewing all this crapola.
I think it's worse than politics: it's bureaucracy.
I think if it were politics I think there would be a chance of fixing it. I think it's just monumental incompetency, complete lack of understanding of why should or shouldn't be granting patents, and a bureaucracy that goes on and on.
The thing that worries me is that I think it's not just computers/software. It's kinda like being at the movies. We as computer folks see amazingly stupid hollywood versions of computers, and laugh at them. Who's to say that other professions don't see the same things?
I'd be willing to be that the other professions see idiotic patents being granted the same way we do in our profession.
The only way this is going to get attention is if something really big happens, or more likely that a senator gets screwed over by a patent in some way. Then politics will enter all this big time.
That's just more FUD. It's not like the guy running the show looks at every single patent that goes through that place.
The patent system for software has been screwy for more than twenty years, and you can't hang it all on one guy. Doing that just points out that you A) have an axe to grind or B) you don't know what the hell you're talking about.