yeah, and much like our current president you won't give a fuck that this technological milestone was brought to you by good ol' outsourced technology!
jesus. what will it take for America to wake the fsck up?
well i guess it didn't go as smoothly as they had thought it would
"In 11 days, coalition forces have taken control of most of western and southern Iraq," Mr. Bush said to cheers from Coast Guard employees at the port of Philadelphia. "Day by day, we are moving closer to Baghdad. Day by day, we are moving closer to victory."-George Bush, April 1, 2003
the only reason i was arguing in the 1st place (look back at the thread) was that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and the Iraq War is a tragic meaningless quagmire for the reasons stated (no wmd's, no 9/11 link.)
I could send you a bunch of links linking Bin Laden and/or Al-Qaida to the leaders or government representatives of Saudi Arabia, Syria, pretty much every nation in the middle east (and with more importance as well)...
so yeah... there was a tenuous connection at best. I'm an idiot.
What you have here is a "phyrric victory"... I mispoke and you proved me wrong- yet the war in Iraq which the parent seemingly supports (and uses the "link" to justify it) is a tragic, costly, utterly senseless war that is quickly draining the US monetarily, morally, and militarily.
it suggests vague al-qaida ties to Iraq and a meeting or two, much less of a connection than that of many other middle east countries. Not really a cause for war.
In addition, while meetings between Al-Qaida representatives and Iraqi government officials had taken place, the panel had no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had assisted al-Qaida in preparing for or carrying out the 9/11 attacks. The Report notes in Chapter 2 that "Bin Laden had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army."
wow.. since when has ignoring a problem been the best path ?
wow... since when is unilaterally invading a soveriegn foreign nation against the will of nearly the entire planet, and with false claims (9/11 connections, WMD "mushroom cloud" on our shores) the best path?
funny. I never even implied ignoring the problem was a solution.
by the way,the article you posted showing a link between Al-Queda and Saddam Hussein was 2 years old, and COMPLETELY disproved by the republican appointed 9/11 Comission.
yeah. that worked for the Crusades, didn't it. Or the communists during the cold war... too bad we didn't nuke half the planet (many of whom constitute the 'coalition of the willing' in our current clusterfuck war) back to the stone age when we had the chance.
just remember- the US supported Hussein in my lifetime, with full knowledge of what as going down in Iraq. The US supported the mujahideen, from which Osama Bin Laden draws his fame and ideologies. Maybe the solution isn't to 'kill them all', so much as it is to take the correct actions in the first place.
you obviously have not studied history very much... either that, or you are exceedingly bad at it.
no- i disagree. Invading Iraq (no connections to 9/11, Al-Quada) was the worst thing to do. This administration losing focus on afghanistan and Bush telling the nation that he didn't care about Osama Bin Laden was the worst thing to do. Spreading our military so thin to fight a pointless war in Iraq that destabilized the entire region, and let Iraq become an open border den of terrorist activity, with extremists pouring in from nearly every country in the region was the worst thing to do.
claiming a "war on terror" with no tangible goal, no exit strategy, no fundamental way to achieve victory was the worst thing to do.
And we never really left "them" alone. Who is "them" anyway? Every single militant group who threatens us? there's probably tens of thousands of "those". Al Zarquawi had NO ties to Al-Quada untill we invaded Iraq... we are creating enemies faster than we can kill them.
Well it certainly didn't stop you from trying to pre-emptively defend yet another scientifically void move by the Bush administration either...
"lets plan a theoretical multi-billion dollar manned trip to mars while we neglect/scrap some of our most interesting short term projects that cost a tiny, tiny fraction of the Mars trip"
Looking at your posting history, it seems like you are quite on the defensive, and respond with one-liners like that quite a bit... with a republican majority in congress, Bush in the White house, and a centrist to rightest Supreme Court, its a shame you have nothing but biting rhetorical defensive statements such as the one above to make.
I dunno... probably the same reason parents aren't exerting their authority over their children and forbidding them from drinking/smoking/shoplifting/doing drugs/skipping school/etc.
Again, folks, this is about funding a study to gauge the effects of violent video games on children, and no one in TFA is proposing or even implicitly suggesting that the federal government assume a parental role in raising a child.
we have funded study after study to calculate the effects of lead, drugs/alcohol, school breakfast programs and the like on children over the past quarter century +. why are you so opposed to "wasting" a little more time and money (relatively speaking) on studying the effects of violent video games on children?
No one is going to pry GTA from your cold, dead fingers a la Charlton Heston/NRA, they just want to fund a study to see if there is detrimental effect to children. This does not seem to be unprecidented, nor abhorently unusual.
I think she is saying what every parent her age truely believes. Show me one parent that isn't absolutely mortified by GTA and I will provide you with a list of hundreds that will take the other side.
Maybe she is simply voicing her belief- a belief that she happens to share with the majority of her constituency (peers)?
maybe if the US gov't hadn't completely bailed out of the anti-trust case, microsoft- a company that makes operating systems, office productivity tools, databases and development platforms- wouldn't be the only obvious choice to oppose google (who has been less than receptive to this particular customer's wishes, as documented on slashdot many times before...
basically there's enough blame to go around I guess.
um, well... I never called in to question the integrety of the data, (and I strain to find where you came under that impression). That simple fact really invalidates your entire "rebuttal" if you could call it that...
What I did criticise was the website's author's reduction and interpretation of the numbers presented.
no. You were probably modded flamebait for not recognizing that a large part of the democrat's base consist of the elderly on fixed income, the retired, and the younger college age students who are not currently in their prime earning years - that is to say they are not "poor" just because their current wages are low (they are not necissarily the low income suburbanites that the article you linked to states they are- in a very insulting manner, I might add):
you probably got modded flamebait (as I would have modded you, had I had any points) for linking to a website that had a shameful hack type of "analysis" (can't really call it that though) and actually believing it without doing any due diligance on your part.
you can't believe everything you read on the internet, you know.
it was my poor analogy, this is true. So I won't even try to go in to a rebuttal.
but please note that the profit margins for anyone with a DSL/Cable modem connection (regardless of nationality or location) is so ridicously high with sending spam that if there is an opening, there WILL be someone desperate and ignorant enough to fill that void. Legislating 10+ year penalties in the US will make the immediate impact for sure, but the barrier to entry is so low that it won't be long before, say, nigerians graduate from the 409 scams to spam. Try China, Taiwan, th former soviet republics. What do you do when they REALLY start in on the act? The solution is technologcal, not legislative.
Look at it this way (in the eyes of your republican administration)- right now the US based spammers put the money back in to the US economy via taxes, purchasing large homes expensive cars etc. The largest spammers probably even benefit from your latest tax cut! This is trickle down economics at its finest. Cheers.
It's like saying "but one pickpocket doesn't do much harm on the whole, it's the group of them that's the problem, so let's not punish any one pickpocket." And that's, sad to say, so skewed it's not even funny.
do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth? Please read again:
You are suggesting that one person bear the responsability and pay the price for the possible future actions of tens of thousands of others, which is a form of "justice" that is quite counter to American ideals and principles, in my opinion.
So punish someone. yes. Punish one person for the future potential of many many others, no. Nice knee jerk reaction without reading my post though!
from my understanding (based on other posts), the compromised information was served up via url manipulation.
sorry, if I can crawl a site obeying robots.txt and using MY OWN ACCOUNT to get that info, its not a crime.
Amazing for some reason, rather than tarnish Harvard's reputation (imagine if this were a banking institution!!!), they turn it around and crucify the applicants (not saying they don't deserve it, but still...)
Where exactly is the accountability? And why does Harvard get a free pass? If this were the University of Phoenix we'd all be laughing... I sence some degree of hypocracy here...
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, and much like our current president you won't give a fuck that this technological milestone was brought to you by good ol' outsourced technology!
jesus. what will it take for America to wake the fsck up?
I found those cool 'validator' client side controls don't work on Firefox...
so what exactly is it that you... do?
Seriously, surely there are better resources (IT trade and industry mags, etc), than here? Its not like this is uncharted territory!
well i guess it didn't go as smoothly as they had thought it would
"In 11 days, coalition forces have taken control of most of western and southern Iraq," Mr. Bush said to cheers from Coast Guard employees at the port of Philadelphia. "Day by day, we are moving closer to Baghdad. Day by day, we are moving closer to victory."-George Bush, April 1, 2003
I am an idiot, but only for a typo.
the only reason i was arguing in the 1st place (look back at the thread) was that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and the Iraq War is a tragic meaningless quagmire for the reasons stated (no wmd's, no 9/11 link.)
I could send you a bunch of links linking Bin Laden and/or Al-Qaida to the leaders or government representatives of Saudi Arabia, Syria, pretty much every nation in the middle east (and with more importance as well)...
so yeah... there was a tenuous connection at best. I'm an idiot.
What you have here is a "phyrric victory"... I mispoke and you proved me wrong- yet the war in Iraq which the parent seemingly supports (and uses the "link" to justify it) is a tragic, costly, utterly senseless war that is quickly draining the US monetarily, morally, and militarily.
congratulations. feel better?
you must be new here...
i hate to be an asshat and reply to my own post, but a link to the full report is here:
1 050/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/05aug2004
it suggests vague al-qaida ties to Iraq and a meeting or two, much less of a connection than that of many other middle east countries. Not really a cause for war.
In addition, while meetings between Al-Qaida representatives and Iraqi government officials had taken place, the panel had no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had assisted al-Qaida in preparing for or carrying out the 9/11 attacks. The Report notes in Chapter 2 that "Bin Laden had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army."
o n_Report#Findings
source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commissi
wow.. since when has ignoring a problem been the best path ?
wow... since when is unilaterally invading a soveriegn foreign nation against the will of nearly the entire planet, and with false claims (9/11 connections, WMD "mushroom cloud" on our shores) the best path?
funny. I never even implied ignoring the problem was a solution.
The Al Queda #2 was Zawahiri, and if you do some googling you'll find reports that he met with Saddam Hussein in 1992
yeah. Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam in 1983. Maybe you would like to expand upon the United States' relationship with Saddam?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
by the way,the article you posted showing a link between Al-Queda and Saddam Hussein was 2 years old, and COMPLETELY disproved by the republican appointed 9/11 Comission.
you're pretty much an idiot at this point.
yeah. that worked for the Crusades, didn't it. Or the communists during the cold war... too bad we didn't nuke half the planet (many of whom constitute the 'coalition of the willing' in our current clusterfuck war) back to the stone age when we had the chance.
just remember- the US supported Hussein in my lifetime, with full knowledge of what as going down in Iraq. The US supported the mujahideen, from which Osama Bin Laden draws his fame and ideologies. Maybe the solution isn't to 'kill them all', so much as it is to take the correct actions in the first place.
you obviously have not studied history very much... either that, or you are exceedingly bad at it.
Leaving them alone was the worst thing to do.
no- i disagree. Invading Iraq (no connections to 9/11, Al-Quada) was the worst thing to do. This administration losing focus on afghanistan and Bush telling the nation that he didn't care about Osama Bin Laden was the worst thing to do. Spreading our military so thin to fight a pointless war in Iraq that destabilized the entire region, and let Iraq become an open border den of terrorist activity, with extremists pouring in from nearly every country in the region was the worst thing to do.
claiming a "war on terror" with no tangible goal, no exit strategy, no fundamental way to achieve victory was the worst thing to do.
And we never really left "them" alone. Who is "them" anyway? Every single militant group who threatens us? there's probably tens of thousands of "those". Al Zarquawi had NO ties to Al-Quada untill we invaded Iraq... we are creating enemies faster than we can kill them.
interesting, go try and find another job if you ever lose your current one. Sample size of one means like... um... nothing. Idiot.
"resurrection ecology" is completely at odds with the Christian concepts of Creationism and Intelligent Design.
o nism'
Do your own research:
'http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+creati
sorry, your logic is silly if you think its about embryos and not ideology.
Well it certainly didn't stop you from trying to pre-emptively defend yet another scientifically void move by the Bush administration either...
"lets plan a theoretical multi-billion dollar manned trip to mars while we neglect/scrap some of our most interesting short term projects that cost a tiny, tiny fraction of the Mars trip"
Looking at your posting history, it seems like you are quite on the defensive, and respond with one-liners like that quite a bit... with a republican majority in congress, Bush in the White house, and a centrist to rightest Supreme Court, its a shame you have nothing but biting rhetorical defensive statements such as the one above to make.
just my 2 cents...
haha.. yeah, and look at how tiger's endorsement of the Buick Roadmaster made it such a popular product ;)
I dunno... probably the same reason parents aren't exerting their authority over their children and forbidding them from drinking/smoking/shoplifting/doing drugs/skipping school/etc.
Again, folks, this is about funding a study to gauge the effects of violent video games on children, and no one in TFA is proposing or even implicitly suggesting that the federal government assume a parental role in raising a child.
we have funded study after study to calculate the effects of lead, drugs/alcohol, school breakfast programs and the like on children over the past quarter century +. why are you so opposed to "wasting" a little more time and money (relatively speaking) on studying the effects of violent video games on children?
No one is going to pry GTA from your cold, dead fingers a la Charlton Heston/NRA, they just want to fund a study to see if there is detrimental effect to children. This does not seem to be unprecidented, nor abhorently unusual.
I think she is saying what every parent her age truely believes. Show me one parent that isn't absolutely mortified by GTA and I will provide you with a list of hundreds that will take the other side.
Maybe she is simply voicing her belief- a belief that she happens to share with the majority of her constituency (peers)?
maybe if the US gov't hadn't completely bailed out of the anti-trust case, microsoft- a company that makes operating systems, office productivity tools, databases and development platforms- wouldn't be the only obvious choice to oppose google (who has been less than receptive to this particular customer's wishes, as documented on slashdot many times before...
basically there's enough blame to go around I guess.
um, well... I never called in to question the integrety of the data, (and I strain to find where you came under that impression). That simple fact really invalidates your entire "rebuttal" if you could call it that...
What I did criticise was the website's author's reduction and interpretation of the numbers presented.
no. You were probably modded flamebait for not recognizing that a large part of the democrat's base consist of the elderly on fixed income, the retired, and the younger college age students who are not currently in their prime earning years - that is to say they are not "poor" just because their current wages are low (they are not necissarily the low income suburbanites that the article you linked to states they are- in a very insulting manner, I might add):
/ A35290-2004Nov8_2.html
the youth vote was the only age group the Democratic candidate won -- John Kerry got 54 percent, compared with Bush's 44 percent. (In 2000, Al Gore got 48 percent, Bush 46 percent.)
ref:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles
you probably got modded flamebait (as I would have modded you, had I had any points) for linking to a website that had a shameful hack type of "analysis" (can't really call it that though) and actually believing it without doing any due diligance on your part.
you can't believe everything you read on the internet, you know.
it was my poor analogy, this is true. So I won't even try to go in to a rebuttal.
but please note that the profit margins for anyone with a DSL/Cable modem connection (regardless of nationality or location) is so ridicously high with sending spam that if there is an opening, there WILL be someone desperate and ignorant enough to fill that void. Legislating 10+ year penalties in the US will make the immediate impact for sure, but the barrier to entry is so low that it won't be long before, say, nigerians graduate from the 409 scams to spam. Try China, Taiwan, th former soviet republics. What do you do when they REALLY start in on the act? The solution is technologcal, not legislative.
Look at it this way (in the eyes of your republican administration)- right now the US based spammers put the money back in to the US economy via taxes, purchasing large homes expensive cars etc. The largest spammers probably even benefit from your latest tax cut! This is trickle down economics at its finest. Cheers.
It's like saying "but one pickpocket doesn't do much harm on the whole, it's the group of them that's the problem, so let's not punish any one pickpocket." And that's, sad to say, so skewed it's not even funny.
do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth? Please read again:
You are suggesting that one person bear the responsability and pay the price for the possible future actions of tens of thousands of others, which is a form of "justice" that is quite counter to American ideals and principles, in my opinion.
So punish someone. yes. Punish one person for the future potential of many many others, no. Nice knee jerk reaction without reading my post though!
from my understanding (based on other posts), the compromised information was served up via url manipulation.
sorry, if I can crawl a site obeying robots.txt and using MY OWN ACCOUNT to get that info, its not a crime.
Amazing for some reason, rather than tarnish Harvard's reputation (imagine if this were a banking institution!!!), they turn it around and crucify the applicants (not saying they don't deserve it, but still...)
Where exactly is the accountability? And why does Harvard get a free pass? If this were the University of Phoenix we'd all be laughing... I sence some degree of hypocracy here...