I think people are forgetting that a change in market share does not mean a loss in installed base... Simply looking at market share doesn't tell you anything except for relative adoption with respect to the overall market, and that may or may not even be a useful measurement. It depends on if you care about relative share or absolute adoption, really.
The installed base / absolute adoption question is a bit trickier than market share. Downloads do not equal users, counting the absolute number of firefox users is questionable like the absolute number of Linux users. A lot of guesswork is required. I've downloaded Firefox for several personal computers. I've downloaded complete installers to update to a new revision. So that's 9 download for me personally. Unlike Linux I don't cart a CD to friends and family who want to give it a try. I download it, it's icons sit's there on the desktop next to Internet Explorer. Some members of the household that share the computer continue using IE. Things are terribly complicated. Regrettably marketshare is probably the best measurement available.
It's not really the electricity that is the problem as others have just pointed out. The real problem is that batteries are a pretty nasty thing to dispose of. That needs to be factored in.
If you heard someone in any other context - say, a juror in court for some trial, and the juror said "The prosecution failed to prove their case.", you would interpret that to mean that the juror believes that the defendant is likely innocent. It's a basic english phrase we're talking about here.
Not necessarily, it would depend on circumstances, some circumstance carry more suspicion. As was the case with Iraq, with Iraq's years of cheating and interference one would naturally lean towards "he may have something hidden". If you think there is something inconsistent with "not guilty" and "he may have really done it" visit the OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson trials, both are extremes but then again so is Sadaam and his insane antics.
"You confuse what was known at the time the decision was made with what was know a year or more after the decision. That is quite revisionist."
You called the viewpoint that there were no/were likely no WMDs "revisionist", as if almost nobody held it. I took great affront to this, because almost everyone in the American antiwar movement, and the general European populate took this view. Heck, don't you even remember all of the stupid "No blood for oil!" (stupid, inaccurate slogan that I worked to stop locally) chants from the American antiwar crowd, that were shared by the general populace? Check more on that BBC poll: Even in Britain, our ally, the general public believed that we were invading Iraq for oil and that WMDs were just an excuse.
"Likely no WMD" was not the common belief. Your citiation indicated 60% of Britons believed the US/UK had failed to prove the WMD case. Now relax the survey question from "proved" to "likely to have it", now relax it again to "may have it" (my position), now relax it again to "it's a tossup", now relax again to "he might have gotten rid of it", and now relax it yet again to "likely to have gotten rid of it", the position you claim to be the norm. You think after 5 relaxations of the question 60% would not drop to well below 50%, don't be rediculous.
Since you worked to tone down the more rediculous slogans I apologize for my political fringe comment. I was getting the wrong impression from some of your posts.
However the survey regarding going there because of the oil is fraught with peril. It's all in the wording of the questions. I'm sure nearly everyone would agree that if it were not for the oil we would not give a damn what happens in that part of the world.
Calling this widespread belief "revisionist", as if it didn't exist beforehand, really got my goat - I hope you understand.
I understand that you may not have personally revisised your position but the position you advance is the same position advanced by politically inspired revisionists, and the latter are far more numerous.
You mentioned jet-powered craft, but neglected to mention that the project was a failure, was terminated, and the US accepted it as such.
Yet the jets existed and no one was really sure until they got there and look underneath and found camera ports. Also my point is that a failed project does not mean zero capability. That is why I often used the word "improvised". A reusable drone aircraft is one thing, an expendable drone is something else. That fact that something can take off and be maneuvered makes it a threat. Whether it can be easily landed, accurately maneuvered for photo recon, etc is not really relevant. The old Migs were a threat even if the photo recon project was a failure. That is my point, that is why fixation on the one wood and duct tape aircraft is silly. That one aircraft would only be relevant if it were the most capable.
"if you doubt that Putin was a leading opponent of the invasion"
You just changed your words from "lead anti-war spokesman" to "leading opponent of the invasion"
Sure, they are synonymous in the context of a pre-invasion timeframe. It's only after the invasion that he t
("three out of every five Britons think the UK and US governments have failed to prove their case that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" - Feb 12, 2003). Need more?
No, that is sufficient to prove that you have a pathological tendancy to reshape the positions of others into a misrepresentative form when you have no rebuttal to their actual position. You refer to a survey about whether the case was "proven", my position has always been that there was doubt as to whether he still had them or not. OK, perhaps I am being harsh. Perhaps you merely skimmed the article and read into it things that were not there, or you are not familiar with survey methodology and are unaware that careful phrasing of the question can vastly change the outcome. It's not uncommon for the headline of an article to say something like "people doubt he has it" when the survey actually asked "has it been proven he has it".
Seriously, how on earth can you take this article as supporting your position? I really want to hear this! Because I can't even remotely picture how you're twisting the words to meet your viewpoint. The Air Force said "Not a chemical delivery system" - *before the war*.
It's easy, my position has never been he had a chemical delivery system. That is your morphed misrepresentation of my opinion. I've stated it several times that my position is merely that the aircraft you described was not the sole drone in Iraqi inventory. The article confirmed this. See, its quite simple.
Hold on a second here: since when is Putin "the general public"? And since when was he a "lead anti-war spokesman"? Of the people in the antiwar community that I've talked to about Putin, none of them have liked him, because while he opposed the Iraq war, he's engaged in the equally brutal conflict in Chechnya.
OK, if you doubt that Putin was a leading opponent of the invasion, which was my point not that he is some sort of pacifist, then your credibility has hit zero and your just on some fringe political trip. Enjoy.
The general belief in *America* and its allied *governments*. Not among the American antiwar populace nor the European general populace. If you had kept up on the European press at the time, you'd be bloody well aware of this simple fact.
You grossly overstate the general population's opinion (confusing a vocal minority with the mainstream), as evidenced by a lead anti-war spokesperson and one of Sadaam's "defenders" (in UN SC context) and business partners, Vladimir Putin:
"Russian President Putin said on February 9, 2003, that the main task facing the international community was ascertaining whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), not a regime change in Iraq" http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030217.htm
"Mr Putin said it was impossible to know whether the people who possessed weapons of mass destruction had been killed or whether they had just gone into hiding. "Perhaps their plan is to transfer these weapons to terrorist organisations," he said. "We simply do not know. Until we get answers to these questions we cannot feel safe and secure."" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2F
Look, if you're not going to read, don't bother to reply and waste my time. The article was about what the Air Force told the CIA before the bloody war
Actually the article was very illustrative of your cherry picking of "evidence" and tendencies to overstate. Pre-war there were merely doubts as to an operation chemical delivery system. Post-invasion there was confirmation that the adapted jets were configured for recon. I guess this leads us to your other tendancy, misrepresentaion. My point was always that he had far more capable aircraft than the one you fixated on, I was never limited to chem/bio. You attempt to rebut a point no one was making. Furthermore common sense would show that a well designed chem/bio delivery system is not really required. While a special purpose design would be more effective improvisation is still quite deadly, as Japan demonstrated in WW2. Using your illogic one would have to dismiss improvised suicide attack aircraft (convention fighters and such) and only focus on the special purpose designs. Things are far more complicated than you suggest. The special purpose design may be needed to attack troops in the field but an improvised solution (regular jet packed with chem/bio materials) would not have much trouble hitting a town or large scale encampment and wreaking havoc.
Well, how come? Mac clones were simply better, i.e. cheaper and more powerful. For example, the first quad-processor Mac came from Daystar and not from Apple.
Wrong, most Mac clones were merely cheaper, both in terms of quality and price. We tried a couple. Without a hardware lockin very few people are going to pay Apple's relatively high premium price. The Mini is a refreshing exception, the "premium" doesn't add much cost there. Introducing the Mini was a far better plan than Mac clones.
... not because they wouldn't ultimately sell more Macs, because they would...
It's been tried. When Apple allowed Mac clones in the mid 90s it did not grow the market, it canabalized their sales. It nearly killed them. And this was with them getting a royalty and having some control over the clones. If they had to support any piece of crap PC device the Mac would become far less reliable. So less money, more support, more work... that's a pretty poor plan.
I've noticed something: throughout your posts, you keep mixing up the concepts of "unlikely existance" and "certain in the absense of". European governements, European populace, and much of the American antiwar populace seriously doubted the existance of such weapons. That's why we wanted the inspections: to *verify* and *certify* Iraq as WMD-free.
I'll ignore your misrepresentation of my position and try to simplify it for you. At the time the general belief was that he is probably hiding something not that he probably rid himself of his WMD. For example, Putin's comments do not support your "seriously doubted" assertion:
"Russian President Putin said on February 9, 2003, that the main task facing the international community was ascertaining whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), not a regime change in Iraq"
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030217.htm [miis.edu]
"Mr Putin said it was impossible to know whether the people who possessed weapons of mass destruction had been killed or whether they had just gone into hiding. "Perhaps their plan is to transfer these weapons to terrorist organisations," he said. "We simply do not know. Until we get answers to these questions we cannot feel safe and secure.""
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2F news%2F2003%2F04%2F30%2Fwput30.xml [telegraph.co.uk]
Did you not bloody well read the links that I gave you that I prepared *BEFORE THE WAR*? How can you call something that I prepared before the war "revisionist"?
The focus on the absense of WMD and the downplaying of concerns that most people shared prior to the invasion is part of a revisionist movement. Whether or not you held these beliefs before or after the invasion is not relevant. Those beliefs have a widely used label, get used to the label.
I've probably read more pages of IAEA, UNSCOM, and UNMOVIC documents in the past four years than you've read newspaper pages.
You cherry pick citations, for example your post just focused on nuclear where conveniently a large infrastructure is required, and ignore the overall WMD concerns. The Putin quote above clearly demonstrates the overall concern of the time. This is why your position is not one of thorough analysis. You can't start with a belief and go looking for evidence that supports it and ignore evidence that does not. Well, in science you can't, it politics it is standard procedure.
According to Robert Boyd (mirror), The Air Force's senior intelligence analyst:
Odd that you would provide a link that proves my point, that the modest aircraft you described was not the whole of the Iraqi aerial drone program, that there was evidence of the adaptation of jets. The article also reinforces my overall argument by relying heavily on post-invasion information.
Actually there is more to be said. The fact that Ogg is 12% of audio files demonstrates that either
The study is flawed and is only monitoring a niche population not the general population.
Or
The record industry has been successful and mainstream users are not trading audio they way they used to, that only a niche population is engaging in large scale audio piracy.
Ogg is good technology but it has not been embraced by 12% of digital audio users.
Look, I've provided two links from reputable sources on what the Russian intelligence agencies thought. The count is 2 me, 0 you. Time for you to catch up, instead of saying "I saw Putin say..."
It may have only been an offhand comment on TV, but I saw it.
Your own citations prove my point that at the time of the invasion no one knew whether or not Sadaam had WMD:
"Russian President Putin said on February 9, 2003, that the main task facing the international community was ascertaining whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), not a regime change in Iraq" http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030217.htm
Also proving my point that no one knew Iraq was WMD-free until long after the invasion, including Russia:
"Mr Putin said it was impossible to know whether the people who possessed weapons of mass destruction had been killed or whether they had just gone into hiding.
"Perhaps their plan is to transfer these weapons to terrorist organisations," he said. "We simply do not know. Until we get answers to these questions we cannot feel safe and secure."" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2F news%2F2003%2F04%2F30%2Fwput30.xml
While googling I found this interesting little bit:
"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said, according to RIA Novosti, the Russian news agency. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A530 96-2004Jun18.html
The US and British were falsely accused of this
Falsely? Time after time they spouted bogus information, and were told by the rest of the world that it was nonsense.
Again, you use creative editing to misrepresent what I said, you conveniently omit "intelligence was under pressure to conform their analysis to current political positions". The false accusation was not, as you misrepresent, that US and UK intel was wrong. The false accusation was that US and UK intel falsified reports to serve their political masters. US and UK investigations, 3 in the UK, have debunked that myth.
How the heck can you possibly claim that I'm revising my own beliefs, when you don't even know me?
My claim is that the notions that you advance are revisionist. If you were certain Iraq had no WMD prior to the invasion then you were pretty much alone, even anti-war states like Russia were not so sure. You would seem to be merely be a closed minded individual who turned out to be correct not through analysis but by luck, a fluke of history. Unless of course you had better intel resources in Iraq than the Russians.
"Adapting an old Mig, with the aid of duct tape"
No, no, no. Not "adapting an old Mig"
Again misrepresentation of my point. Sure the one aircraft you offer may not be impressive but that was not Sadaams entire inventory. I recall in-flight video of a drone that was not the aircraft you describe, the aircraft was clearly jet powered. My point that drones can be easily created from obsolete aircraft stands. That said, your redicule of wooden wings and a wooden propeller strongly suggests that you are way out of your league. I suggest you do a little research on aircraft such as the British Mosquito of the 1940s.
I think I've more than documented that the Russian intelligence agency found it completely bogus...
Yet I saw Putin say, in an interview a year or more after the invasion, that we were all fooled and all had faulty intelligence indicating Sadaam still had WMD to some degree. Again, believing that Sadaam probably has something and believing that an invasion is not warranted at a specific moment in time are not mutually exclusive ideas. Opposition to the invasion is not proof that a nation believed Sadaam to be WMD free.
... and that the German intelligence agency at the very least tried to tell the US that they were spouting bogus information several times...
Or intelligence was under pressure to conform their analysis to current political positions. The US and British intelligence agencies were falsely accused of this, perhaps some in the US feared, at the time, that a similar pressure existed in Germany with the difference that threats were downplayed rather than played up. Things only seem clear now, years later, and after extensive unfettered searches. I'm not saying that German intelligence was pressured, just that pressure can be exerted in both directions, and that things are only clear with 20/20 hindsight. More on this in a moment.
I can also attest that, as myself, I and those I knew, after reading the excellent reporting in the European press and the god-awful reporting in the US press, were convinced, like most Europeans, that there were no WMDs. It's not a "people believed something different then than now" - our stances haven't changed; we were just proven correct.
This displays the quintessential revisionist attitude. At the time there was no evidence that Sadaam was WMD free. The UN needed more time to make such a determination. People are taking credit for a fluke of history. Much of your evidence is similarly tainted, after gaining unfettered access we have a complete understanding of what equipment Sadaam had, be it aluminum tubes and aerial drones, but before the invasion if was so much guesswork. Intelligence analysts are supposed to be pessimistic. Much of your evidence is also subjective, yes its humorous if an aerial drone had duct tape but do you think all drones are advanced technology? Guess what, they are not. Remotely controlled aerial drones have been used since 1943, obsolete aircraft have been easily retrofitted to function as drones since the 1940s as well. Adapting an old Mig, with the aid of duct tape and other low technologies, would be a simple exercise.
And yes, I believe that attitudes have changed and hardened. At the time most Europeans being interviewed on TV, ranging from diplomats to common folk, were saying it's premature to invade and that the UN inspectors should be allowed more time to *complete* their work. I stress complete because it was *not* known at the time that Sadaam was WMD free. That was only determined long after the invasion. Now the story changes to suit political aims, revisionists start mispresprenting that we all *knew* Sadaam was WMD free. If we all *knew* that why did the UN need more time?
What I am referring to is the "intelligence failure", not an elected government's war/wait policy. The "intelligence failures" were not a US exclusive, they were not even a Republican exclusive, various anti-war countries honestly believed that Sadaam probably still had WMD and wanted to give the UN more time to find it, various Democratic politicians honestly belived that Sadaam probably still had WMD and wanted to give the UN more time to find it. The real argument was over go to war now or give the inspectors more time. Only much later, as part of various national and international political contests, including some in the US, did everyone jump on the current revisioninst bandwagon and declare that everyone new Sadaam was clean, regardless of what their intelligence agencies were saying a year or more earlier. Once the war began it became a political issue, no longer a security issue, and that guided all the posturing and positioning. Don't confuse politics with history. There is a reason the best histories are usually written long after the events described.
I even deliberately left it as an incomplete sentence so that anyone who didn't know what you wrote would know that it was truncated. What's next - are you going to insist that I quote your entire post?
The fragment of the sentence that you deleted contained "some of these agencies belonged to very anti-war governments, Germany for example" and then you attempted to misrepresent my post as only referring to "pro-war allies". That is either incompetence or intentional misrepresentation. Given your response I sadly can't rule out the latter. Please continue such behavior, it does wonders for your credibility.
"In truth numerous intelligence agencies were saying"
The intelligence agencies of our pro-war allies?
What a creative job of editing you have there. I actually wrote: "In truth numerous intelligence agencies were saying Sadaam still had WMD, some of these agencies belonged to very anti-war governments, Germany for example." I originally gave you the benefit of the doubt that you may have simply had a shallow understanding of events but now I am beginning to suspect that you simply have a political agenda. There are honorable and intelligent anti-war arguments, "we did not find WMD" is not one of them. That is armchair quarterbacking. A more intelligent argument would be one involving "imminent threat" not "WMD existence".
"The WMD question has not been discussed rationally in a while"
Perchance, since Bush's hand-picked inspector concluded that, and I quote, "We got it very, very wrong"?"
After one year of unfettered access and crawling all over the place. If Sadaam had permitted such access in the first place, or something close to it, there would have been no war. Again, your argument fails because at the time of the invasion it was prudent and reasonable to believe that Sadaam may still have WMD, as anti-war nations such as Germany, Russia, and Jordam honestly believed. The argument at the time was really how much more time would the UN inspectors need to find out one way or the other, and whether the UN was able to do so at all.
1) Pro-war hawk, Bush appointee, former devout WMD believer, and head of the WMD search David Kay acknowleges that no such weapons existed at the time of the invasion. The search teams are no longer operating.
You confuse what was known at the time the decision was made with what was know a year or more after the decision. That is quite revisionist. In truth numerous intelligence agencies were saying Sadaam still had WMD, some of these agencies belonged to very anti-war governments, Germany for example. Believing that Sadaam had WMD was a quite reasonable and prudent thing to believe.
The IAEA and UNMOVIC heads themselves described good cooperation from the Iraqi government.
Excuse me, at one point the U.N. teams left because they were not permitted to do their job. You are referring to an exceptionally narrow timeframe and missing the big picture that Iraq sometimes cooperated and sometimes did not. The prudent interpretation would be that they interfere when the UN is on to something and they cooperate when the UN is on a dead end. You mentioned that Sadaam destroyed stockpiles. Why did he not do so under UN supervision? Clearly he wanted people to believe he still had WMD. He assumed it would enhance his ability to "negotiate" and provide a deterrent. Given the UN's spotty record, being suprised by his nuclear program and later his bio program, it was prudent to believe be a bit cautious with preliminary and politicised UN reports.
In general you confuse to separate issues: "Does Sadaam still have WMD?" and "Is an attack on the west imminent?". The WMD question has not been discussed rationally in a while, it had become a political wedge issue wield for political gain. Sometimes wielded by those who agreed Sadaam had WMD at the time, just like Bush, and some who even voted for force at the time. If you fail to consider the politics you will never truly understand events and will be easily manipulated. The left is as guilty as the right.
I just tried one. It feels and sounds as if it has two very conventional clicky switches and as far as left/right buttons go it feels completely natural. It has a flexible "unibody" shell that lets you press one switch and not the other. Unfortunately it also gives the mouse a flimsy feel. A $20 Microsoft or Logitech mouse feels better, and can't these be configured so that all buttons are left clicks? The scoll wheel is something you have to try, some will like it, some will hate it. It seems to take more strokes than a conventional wheel. It may have a rougher granularity but I'm not sure, I need more time on it. As far as aesthetics goes it can't be beat, it definitely matches the keyboard. This mouse is something you have to try before you buy.
no shit its cool - only apple could take the mouse and breathe life into it. I can't believe the nay-sayers here - the benefits are obvious - they can ship a single product that satifies 1 button 2 button and n button people! Beautiful - and no more clicking - I'm ordering 1 (or maybe 2 or maybe n) right now!
Try it before you buy it. It is not revolutionary. I just tried one. It has two very conventional clicky switches and as far as left/right buttons go it feels completely natural. It accomplishes this by having a flexible "unibody" shell that lets you press one switch and not the other. Unfortunately it also gives the mouse a flimsy feel. A $20 Microsoft or Logitech mouse feels better, and can't these be configured so that all buttons are left clicks? The scoll wheel is something you have to try as well, some will like it, some will hate it. It seems to take more strokes than a conventional wheel. It may have a rougher granularity but I'm not sure, I need more time on it. As far as aesthetics goes it can't be beat, it definitely matches the keyboard.
If you could choose any mouse to use with your Linux Lab, would you be interested in one with a revolutionary Scroll Ball and touch-sensitive technology concealed under a seamless top shell, to give the programability of a four-button mouse in a single-button design?
Perhaps you are too young to remember but trackballs inspired mice with scroll balls years, decades ?, ago. This is not an Apple innovation. Neither is many programmable buttons. What is new about the Apple mouse is the look and feel, not the functionality. With respect to mice, this is a rare area where Apple is playing catchup to Microsoft. What a weak troll you offer. If the future try not to be such an obvious kool-aid swiller. That said, I will buy this new Apple mouse for my Mini immediately, today if the local Apple store has them in stock.
My question is this: if you find a security vulnerability in linux, do you inform the linux community about it?
Yes, we immediately publish Linux vulnerabilities in our marketting literature and immediately distribute this literature widely to IT decision makers and other professionals.
The question was not "does Saddam have WMD?". The question was "does he *still* have WMD?". Syria said he did, Russia said he did, Germany said he did, it was not just the US. Actually not just the Republicans that is, some Democrats said he still had them as well.
Saddam was supposed to get rid of them under UN supervision, he did not do so. Furthermore he impeded UN teams try to determine if they were really gone. He wanted people to think he still had them believing it added to his clout and/or security. He guessed wrong.
That said, the question of what to do about the situation, going to war or not, is a different subject. Believing that Sadaam had WMD was a quite reasonable and prudent thing to believe. Believing that there was an imminent threat is something else and I expect that it will be decades before we know is the war in Iraq helped or hurt the war on terror.
Apparently someone mistook the response below for a troll. It's not, the author of the book admits it is crap, he admits he was a 19 year old kid who didn't know jack and merely cobbled together crap from the library and other sources. As for the book being a scam, well it is but a scam by the publisher not the author. The author sort has no rights to his work and wishes that he never wrote it and has asked the publishers to remove it from the market. They won't, they keep finding suckers who will buy it. Another poster has a link: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=157635&cid= 13210369
On another note, the best terrorist training manual is the American written "The Anarchist Cookbook".
"The Anarchist Cookbook" is crap. Maybe it seemed authoratative to pot smoking hippies in the early 70s but that speaks more to their ignorance than the book's quality. The book was basically a scam for paranoid early 70s hippies and high school chemistry students of the mid-late 70s and early 80s. Been there, done that, my high school chemistry class would be on a domestic terrorist list today.
The good manuals are by the government, military and CIA, and used to be readily available to the public, and no I'm not talking about some bomb shelter supply store in Montana, and no I'm not going to tell you where because I don't want to help dumb-ass kiddies hurt themselves. Almost been there, almost done that.
On another note, the best terrorist training manual is the American written "The Anarchist Cookbook".
"The Anarchist Cookbook" is crap. Maybe it seemed authoratative to pot smoking hippies in the early 70s but that speaks more to their ignorance than the book's quality. The book was basically a scam for paranoid early 70s hippies and high school chemistry students of the mid-late 70s and early 80s. Been there, done that, my high school chemistry class would be on a domestic terrorist list today.
The good manuals are by the government, military and CIA, and used to be readily available to the public, and no I'm not talking about some bomb shelter supply store in Montana, and no I'm not going to tell you where because I don't want to help dumb-ass kiddies hurt themselves. Almost been there, almost done that.
Slashdot Mirror
I think people are forgetting that a change in market share does not mean a loss in installed base ... Simply looking at market share doesn't tell you anything except for relative adoption with respect to the overall market, and that may or may not even be a useful measurement. It depends on if you care about relative share or absolute adoption, really.
The installed base / absolute adoption question is a bit trickier than market share. Downloads do not equal users, counting the absolute number of firefox users is questionable like the absolute number of Linux users. A lot of guesswork is required. I've downloaded Firefox for several personal computers. I've downloaded complete installers to update to a new revision. So that's 9 download for me personally. Unlike Linux I don't cart a CD to friends and family who want to give it a try. I download it, it's icons sit's there on the desktop next to Internet Explorer. Some members of the household that share the computer continue using IE. Things are terribly complicated. Regrettably marketshare is probably the best measurement available.
"double-high cost" ??? Not the Mac Mini.
It's not really the electricity that is the problem as others have just pointed out. The real problem is that batteries are a pretty nasty thing to dispose of. That needs to be factored in.
If you heard someone in any other context - say, a juror in court for some trial, and the juror said "The prosecution failed to prove their case.", you would interpret that to mean that the juror believes that the defendant is likely innocent. It's a basic english phrase we're talking about here.
Not necessarily, it would depend on circumstances, some circumstance carry more suspicion. As was the case with Iraq, with Iraq's years of cheating and interference one would naturally lean towards "he may have something hidden". If you think there is something inconsistent with "not guilty" and "he may have really done it" visit the OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson trials, both are extremes but then again so is Sadaam and his insane antics.
"You confuse what was known at the time the decision was made with what was know a year or more after the decision. That is quite revisionist."
You called the viewpoint that there were no/were likely no WMDs "revisionist", as if almost nobody held it. I took great affront to this, because almost everyone in the American antiwar movement, and the general European populate took this view. Heck, don't you even remember all of the stupid "No blood for oil!" (stupid, inaccurate slogan that I worked to stop locally) chants from the American antiwar crowd, that were shared by the general populace? Check more on that BBC poll: Even in Britain, our ally, the general public believed that we were invading Iraq for oil and that WMDs were just an excuse.
"Likely no WMD" was not the common belief. Your citiation indicated 60% of Britons believed the US/UK had failed to prove the WMD case. Now relax the survey question from "proved" to "likely to have it", now relax it again to "may have it" (my position), now relax it again to "it's a tossup", now relax again to "he might have gotten rid of it", and now relax it yet again to "likely to have gotten rid of it", the position you claim to be the norm. You think after 5 relaxations of the question 60% would not drop to well below 50%, don't be rediculous.
Since you worked to tone down the more rediculous slogans I apologize for my political fringe comment. I was getting the wrong impression from some of your posts.
However the survey regarding going there because of the oil is fraught with peril. It's all in the wording of the questions. I'm sure nearly everyone would agree that if it were not for the oil we would not give a damn what happens in that part of the world.
Calling this widespread belief "revisionist", as if it didn't exist beforehand, really got my goat - I hope you understand.
I understand that you may not have personally revisised your position but the position you advance is the same position advanced by politically inspired revisionists, and the latter are far more numerous.
You mentioned jet-powered craft, but neglected to mention that the project was a failure, was terminated, and the US accepted it as such.
Yet the jets existed and no one was really sure until they got there and look underneath and found camera ports. Also my point is that a failed project does not mean zero capability. That is why I often used the word "improvised". A reusable drone aircraft is one thing, an expendable drone is something else. That fact that something can take off and be maneuvered makes it a threat. Whether it can be easily landed, accurately maneuvered for photo recon, etc is not really relevant. The old Migs were a threat even if the photo recon project was a failure. That is my point, that is why fixation on the one wood and duct tape aircraft is silly. That one aircraft would only be relevant if it were the most capable.
"if you doubt that Putin was a leading opponent of the invasion"
You just changed your words from "lead anti-war spokesman" to "leading opponent of the invasion"
Sure, they are synonymous in the context of a pre-invasion timeframe. It's only after the invasion that he t
("three out of every five Britons think the UK and US governments have failed to prove their case that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" - Feb 12, 2003). Need more?
No, that is sufficient to prove that you have a pathological tendancy to reshape the positions of others into a misrepresentative form when you have no rebuttal to their actual position. You refer to a survey about whether the case was "proven", my position has always been that there was doubt as to whether he still had them or not. OK, perhaps I am being harsh. Perhaps you merely skimmed the article and read into it things that were not there, or you are not familiar with survey methodology and are unaware that careful phrasing of the question can vastly change the outcome. It's not uncommon for the headline of an article to say something like "people doubt he has it" when the survey actually asked "has it been proven he has it".
Seriously, how on earth can you take this article as supporting your position? I really want to hear this! Because I can't even remotely picture how you're twisting the words to meet your viewpoint. The Air Force said "Not a chemical delivery system" - *before the war*.
It's easy, my position has never been he had a chemical delivery system. That is your morphed misrepresentation of my opinion. I've stated it several times that my position is merely that the aircraft you described was not the sole drone in Iraqi inventory. The article confirmed this. See, its quite simple.
Hold on a second here: since when is Putin "the general public"? And since when was he a "lead anti-war spokesman"? Of the people in the antiwar community that I've talked to about Putin, none of them have liked him, because while he opposed the Iraq war, he's engaged in the equally brutal conflict in Chechnya.
OK, if you doubt that Putin was a leading opponent of the invasion, which was my point not that he is some sort of pacifist, then your credibility has hit zero and your just on some fringe political trip. Enjoy.
The general belief in *America* and its allied *governments*. Not among the American antiwar populace nor the European general populace. If you had kept up on the European press at the time, you'd be bloody well aware of this simple fact.
F
You grossly overstate the general population's opinion (confusing a vocal minority with the mainstream), as evidenced by a lead anti-war spokesperson and one of Sadaam's "defenders" (in UN SC context) and business partners, Vladimir Putin:
"Russian President Putin said on February 9, 2003, that the main task facing the international community was ascertaining whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), not a regime change in Iraq"
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030217.htm
"Mr Putin said it was impossible to know whether the people who possessed weapons of mass destruction had been killed or whether they had just gone into hiding. "Perhaps their plan is to transfer these weapons to terrorist organisations," he said. "We simply do not know. Until we get answers to these questions we cannot feel safe and secure.""
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2
Look, if you're not going to read, don't bother to reply and waste my time. The article was about what the Air Force told the CIA before the bloody war
Actually the article was very illustrative of your cherry picking of "evidence" and tendencies to overstate. Pre-war there were merely doubts as to an operation chemical delivery system. Post-invasion there was confirmation that the adapted jets were configured for recon. I guess this leads us to your other tendancy, misrepresentaion. My point was always that he had far more capable aircraft than the one you fixated on, I was never limited to chem/bio. You attempt to rebut a point no one was making. Furthermore common sense would show that a well designed chem/bio delivery system is not really required. While a special purpose design would be more effective improvisation is still quite deadly, as Japan demonstrated in WW2. Using your illogic one would have to dismiss improvised suicide attack aircraft (convention fighters and such) and only focus on the special purpose designs. Things are far more complicated than you suggest. The special purpose design may be needed to attack troops in the field but an improvised solution (regular jet packed with chem/bio materials) would not have much trouble hitting a town or large scale encampment and wreaking havoc.
Well, how come? Mac clones were simply better, i.e. cheaper and more powerful. For example, the first quad-processor Mac came from Daystar and not from Apple.
Wrong, most Mac clones were merely cheaper, both in terms of quality and price. We tried a couple. Without a hardware lockin very few people are going to pay Apple's relatively high premium price. The Mini is a refreshing exception, the "premium" doesn't add much cost there. Introducing the Mini was a far better plan than Mac clones.
... not because they wouldn't ultimately sell more Macs, because they would ...
... that's a pretty poor plan.
It's been tried. When Apple allowed Mac clones in the mid 90s it did not grow the market, it canabalized their sales. It nearly killed them. And this was with them getting a royalty and having some control over the clones. If they had to support any piece of crap PC device the Mac would become far less reliable. So less money, more support, more work
I've noticed something: throughout your posts, you keep mixing up the concepts of "unlikely existance" and "certain in the absense of". European governements, European populace, and much of the American antiwar populace seriously doubted the existance of such weapons. That's why we wanted the inspections: to *verify* and *certify* Iraq as WMD-free.
F news%2F2003%2F04%2F30%2Fwput30.xml [telegraph.co.uk]
I'll ignore your misrepresentation of my position and try to simplify it for you. At the time the general belief was that he is probably hiding something not that he probably rid himself of his WMD. For example, Putin's comments do not support your "seriously doubted" assertion:
"Russian President Putin said on February 9, 2003, that the main task facing the international community was ascertaining whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), not a regime change in Iraq" http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030217.htm [miis.edu]
"Mr Putin said it was impossible to know whether the people who possessed weapons of mass destruction had been killed or whether they had just gone into hiding. "Perhaps their plan is to transfer these weapons to terrorist organisations," he said. "We simply do not know. Until we get answers to these questions we cannot feel safe and secure."" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2
Did you not bloody well read the links that I gave you that I prepared *BEFORE THE WAR*? How can you call something that I prepared before the war "revisionist"?
The focus on the absense of WMD and the downplaying of concerns that most people shared prior to the invasion is part of a revisionist movement. Whether or not you held these beliefs before or after the invasion is not relevant. Those beliefs have a widely used label, get used to the label.
I've probably read more pages of IAEA, UNSCOM, and UNMOVIC documents in the past four years than you've read newspaper pages.
You cherry pick citations, for example your post just focused on nuclear where conveniently a large infrastructure is required, and ignore the overall WMD concerns. The Putin quote above clearly demonstrates the overall concern of the time. This is why your position is not one of thorough analysis. You can't start with a belief and go looking for evidence that supports it and ignore evidence that does not. Well, in science you can't, it politics it is standard procedure.
According to Robert Boyd (mirror), The Air Force's senior intelligence analyst:
Odd that you would provide a link that proves my point, that the modest aircraft you described was not the whole of the Iraqi aerial drone program, that there was evidence of the adaptation of jets. The article also reinforces my overall argument by relying heavily on post-invasion information.
Actually there is more to be said. The fact that Ogg is 12% of audio files demonstrates that either
The study is flawed and is only monitoring a niche population not the general population.
Or
The record industry has been successful and mainstream users are not trading audio they way they used to, that only a niche population is engaging in large scale audio piracy.
Ogg is good technology but it has not been embraced by 12% of digital audio users.
Look, I've provided two links from reputable sources on what the Russian intelligence agencies thought. The count is 2 me, 0 you. Time for you to catch up, instead of saying "I saw Putin say..."
F news%2F2003%2F04%2F30%2Fwput30.xml
0 96-2004Jun18.html
It may have only been an offhand comment on TV, but I saw it.
Your own citations prove my point that at the time of the invasion no one knew whether or not Sadaam had WMD:
"Russian President Putin said on February 9, 2003, that the main task facing the international community was ascertaining whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), not a regime change in Iraq"
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030217.htm
Also proving my point that no one knew Iraq was WMD-free until long after the invasion, including Russia:
"Mr Putin said it was impossible to know whether the people who possessed weapons of mass destruction had been killed or whether they had just gone into hiding. "Perhaps their plan is to transfer these weapons to terrorist organisations," he said. "We simply do not know. Until we get answers to these questions we cannot feel safe and secure.""
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2
While googling I found this interesting little bit:
"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said, according to RIA Novosti, the Russian news agency.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53
The US and British were falsely accused of this Falsely? Time after time they spouted bogus information, and were told by the rest of the world that it was nonsense.
Again, you use creative editing to misrepresent what I said, you conveniently omit "intelligence was under pressure to conform their analysis to current political positions". The false accusation was not, as you misrepresent, that US and UK intel was wrong. The false accusation was that US and UK intel falsified reports to serve their political masters. US and UK investigations, 3 in the UK, have debunked that myth.
How the heck can you possibly claim that I'm revising my own beliefs, when you don't even know me?
My claim is that the notions that you advance are revisionist. If you were certain Iraq had no WMD prior to the invasion then you were pretty much alone, even anti-war states like Russia were not so sure. You would seem to be merely be a closed minded individual who turned out to be correct not through analysis but by luck, a fluke of history. Unless of course you had better intel resources in Iraq than the Russians.
"Adapting an old Mig, with the aid of duct tape"
No, no, no. Not "adapting an old Mig"
Again misrepresentation of my point. Sure the one aircraft you offer may not be impressive but that was not Sadaams entire inventory. I recall in-flight video of a drone that was not the aircraft you describe, the aircraft was clearly jet powered. My point that drones can be easily created from obsolete aircraft stands. That said, your redicule of wooden wings and a wooden propeller strongly suggests that you are way out of your league. I suggest you do a little research on aircraft such as the British Mosquito of the 1940s.
I think I've more than documented that the Russian intelligence agency found it completely bogus ...
... and that the German intelligence agency at the very least tried to tell the US that they were spouting bogus information several times ...
Yet I saw Putin say, in an interview a year or more after the invasion, that we were all fooled and all had faulty intelligence indicating Sadaam still had WMD to some degree. Again, believing that Sadaam probably has something and believing that an invasion is not warranted at a specific moment in time are not mutually exclusive ideas. Opposition to the invasion is not proof that a nation believed Sadaam to be WMD free.
Or intelligence was under pressure to conform their analysis to current political positions. The US and British intelligence agencies were falsely accused of this, perhaps some in the US feared, at the time, that a similar pressure existed in Germany with the difference that threats were downplayed rather than played up. Things only seem clear now, years later, and after extensive unfettered searches. I'm not saying that German intelligence was pressured, just that pressure can be exerted in both directions, and that things are only clear with 20/20 hindsight. More on this in a moment.
I can also attest that, as myself, I and those I knew, after reading the excellent reporting in the European press and the god-awful reporting in the US press, were convinced, like most Europeans, that there were no WMDs. It's not a "people believed something different then than now" - our stances haven't changed; we were just proven correct.
This displays the quintessential revisionist attitude. At the time there was no evidence that Sadaam was WMD free. The UN needed more time to make such a determination. People are taking credit for a fluke of history. Much of your evidence is similarly tainted, after gaining unfettered access we have a complete understanding of what equipment Sadaam had, be it aluminum tubes and aerial drones, but before the invasion if was so much guesswork. Intelligence analysts are supposed to be pessimistic. Much of your evidence is also subjective, yes its humorous if an aerial drone had duct tape but do you think all drones are advanced technology? Guess what, they are not. Remotely controlled aerial drones have been used since 1943, obsolete aircraft have been easily retrofitted to function as drones since the 1940s as well. Adapting an old Mig, with the aid of duct tape and other low technologies, would be a simple exercise.
And yes, I believe that attitudes have changed and hardened. At the time most Europeans being interviewed on TV, ranging from diplomats to common folk, were saying it's premature to invade and that the UN inspectors should be allowed more time to *complete* their work. I stress complete because it was *not* known at the time that Sadaam was WMD free. That was only determined long after the invasion. Now the story changes to suit political aims, revisionists start mispresprenting that we all *knew* Sadaam was WMD free. If we all *knew* that why did the UN need more time?
What I am referring to is the "intelligence failure", not an elected government's war/wait policy. The "intelligence failures" were not a US exclusive, they were not even a Republican exclusive, various anti-war countries honestly believed that Sadaam probably still had WMD and wanted to give the UN more time to find it, various Democratic politicians honestly belived that Sadaam probably still had WMD and wanted to give the UN more time to find it. The real argument was over go to war now or give the inspectors more time. Only much later, as part of various national and international political contests, including some in the US, did everyone jump on the current revisioninst bandwagon and declare that everyone new Sadaam was clean, regardless of what their intelligence agencies were saying a year or more earlier. Once the war began it became a political issue, no longer a security issue, and that guided all the posturing and positioning. Don't confuse politics with history. There is a reason the best histories are usually written long after the events described.
And surely you'll cite such references!
The old German link is 404'd.
The Putin thing was a TV interview.
Some friends want to play WoW, I'll have to get back to you later. Geopolitics can wait.
I even deliberately left it as an incomplete sentence so that anyone who didn't know what you wrote would know that it was truncated. What's next - are you going to insist that I quote your entire post?
The fragment of the sentence that you deleted contained "some of these agencies belonged to very anti-war governments, Germany for example" and then you attempted to misrepresent my post as only referring to "pro-war allies". That is either incompetence or intentional misrepresentation. Given your response I sadly can't rule out the latter. Please continue such behavior, it does wonders for your credibility.
"In truth numerous intelligence agencies were saying"
The intelligence agencies of our pro-war allies?
What a creative job of editing you have there. I actually wrote: "In truth numerous intelligence agencies were saying Sadaam still had WMD, some of these agencies belonged to very anti-war governments, Germany for example." I originally gave you the benefit of the doubt that you may have simply had a shallow understanding of events but now I am beginning to suspect that you simply have a political agenda. There are honorable and intelligent anti-war arguments, "we did not find WMD" is not one of them. That is armchair quarterbacking. A more intelligent argument would be one involving "imminent threat" not "WMD existence".
"The WMD question has not been discussed rationally in a while"
Perchance, since Bush's hand-picked inspector concluded that, and I quote, "We got it very, very wrong"?"
After one year of unfettered access and crawling all over the place. If Sadaam had permitted such access in the first place, or something close to it, there would have been no war. Again, your argument fails because at the time of the invasion it was prudent and reasonable to believe that Sadaam may still have WMD, as anti-war nations such as Germany, Russia, and Jordam honestly believed. The argument at the time was really how much more time would the UN inspectors need to find out one way or the other, and whether the UN was able to do so at all.
1) Pro-war hawk, Bush appointee, former devout WMD believer, and head of the WMD search David Kay acknowleges that no such weapons existed at the time of the invasion. The search teams are no longer operating.
You confuse what was known at the time the decision was made with what was know a year or more after the decision. That is quite revisionist. In truth numerous intelligence agencies were saying Sadaam still had WMD, some of these agencies belonged to very anti-war governments, Germany for example. Believing that Sadaam had WMD was a quite reasonable and prudent thing to believe.
The IAEA and UNMOVIC heads themselves described good cooperation from the Iraqi government.
Excuse me, at one point the U.N. teams left because they were not permitted to do their job. You are referring to an exceptionally narrow timeframe and missing the big picture that Iraq sometimes cooperated and sometimes did not. The prudent interpretation would be that they interfere when the UN is on to something and they cooperate when the UN is on a dead end. You mentioned that Sadaam destroyed stockpiles. Why did he not do so under UN supervision? Clearly he wanted people to believe he still had WMD. He assumed it would enhance his ability to "negotiate" and provide a deterrent. Given the UN's spotty record, being suprised by his nuclear program and later his bio program, it was prudent to believe be a bit cautious with preliminary and politicised UN reports.
In general you confuse to separate issues: "Does Sadaam still have WMD?" and "Is an attack on the west imminent?". The WMD question has not been discussed rationally in a while, it had become a political wedge issue wield for political gain. Sometimes wielded by those who agreed Sadaam had WMD at the time, just like Bush, and some who even voted for force at the time. If you fail to consider the politics you will never truly understand events and will be easily manipulated. The left is as guilty as the right.
I just tried one. It feels and sounds as if it has two very conventional clicky switches and as far as left/right buttons go it feels completely natural. It has a flexible "unibody" shell that lets you press one switch and not the other. Unfortunately it also gives the mouse a flimsy feel. A $20 Microsoft or Logitech mouse feels better, and can't these be configured so that all buttons are left clicks? The scoll wheel is something you have to try, some will like it, some will hate it. It seems to take more strokes than a conventional wheel. It may have a rougher granularity but I'm not sure, I need more time on it. As far as aesthetics goes it can't be beat, it definitely matches the keyboard. This mouse is something you have to try before you buy.
no shit its cool - only apple could take the mouse and breathe life into it. I can't believe the nay-sayers here - the benefits are obvious - they can ship a single product that satifies 1 button 2 button and n button people! Beautiful - and no more clicking - I'm ordering 1 (or maybe 2 or maybe n) right now!
Try it before you buy it. It is not revolutionary. I just tried one. It has two very conventional clicky switches and as far as left/right buttons go it feels completely natural. It accomplishes this by having a flexible "unibody" shell that lets you press one switch and not the other. Unfortunately it also gives the mouse a flimsy feel. A $20 Microsoft or Logitech mouse feels better, and can't these be configured so that all buttons are left clicks? The scoll wheel is something you have to try as well, some will like it, some will hate it. It seems to take more strokes than a conventional wheel. It may have a rougher granularity but I'm not sure, I need more time on it. As far as aesthetics goes it can't be beat, it definitely matches the keyboard.
Perhaps you are too old to understand the humor of us young whippersnappers?
;-)
No, it simply sucked as humor.
If you could choose any mouse to use with your Linux Lab, would you be interested in one with a revolutionary Scroll Ball and touch-sensitive technology concealed under a seamless top shell, to give the programability of a four-button mouse in a single-button design?
Perhaps you are too young to remember but trackballs inspired mice with scroll balls years, decades ?, ago. This is not an Apple innovation. Neither is many programmable buttons. What is new about the Apple mouse is the look and feel, not the functionality. With respect to mice, this is a rare area where Apple is playing catchup to Microsoft. What a weak troll you offer. If the future try not to be such an obvious kool-aid swiller. That said, I will buy this new Apple mouse for my Mini immediately, today if the local Apple store has them in stock.
My question is this: if you find a security vulnerability in linux, do you inform the linux community about it?
Yes, we immediately publish Linux vulnerabilities in our marketting literature and immediately distribute this literature widely to IT decision makers and other professionals.
The question was not "does Saddam have WMD?". The question was "does he *still* have WMD?". Syria said he did, Russia said he did, Germany said he did, it was not just the US. Actually not just the Republicans that is, some Democrats said he still had them as well.
Saddam was supposed to get rid of them under UN supervision, he did not do so. Furthermore he impeded UN teams try to determine if they were really gone. He wanted people to think he still had them believing it added to his clout and/or security. He guessed wrong.
That said, the question of what to do about the situation, going to war or not, is a different subject. Believing that Sadaam had WMD was a quite reasonable and prudent thing to believe. Believing that there was an imminent threat is something else and I expect that it will be decades before we know is the war in Iraq helped or hurt the war on terror.
Apparently someone mistook the response below for a troll. It's not, the author of the book admits it is crap, he admits he was a 19 year old kid who didn't know jack and merely cobbled together crap from the library and other sources. As for the book being a scam, well it is but a scam by the publisher not the author. The author sort has no rights to his work and wishes that he never wrote it and has asked the publishers to remove it from the market. They won't, they keep finding suckers who will buy it. Another poster has a link: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=157635&cid= 13210369
On another note, the best terrorist training manual is the American written "The Anarchist Cookbook".
"The Anarchist Cookbook" is crap. Maybe it seemed authoratative to pot smoking hippies in the early 70s but that speaks more to their ignorance than the book's quality. The book was basically a scam for paranoid early 70s hippies and high school chemistry students of the mid-late 70s and early 80s. Been there, done that, my high school chemistry class would be on a domestic terrorist list today. The good manuals are by the government, military and CIA, and used to be readily available to the public, and no I'm not talking about some bomb shelter supply store in Montana, and no I'm not going to tell you where because I don't want to help dumb-ass kiddies hurt themselves. Almost been there, almost done that.
On another note, the best terrorist training manual is the American written "The Anarchist Cookbook".
"The Anarchist Cookbook" is crap. Maybe it seemed authoratative to pot smoking hippies in the early 70s but that speaks more to their ignorance than the book's quality. The book was basically a scam for paranoid early 70s hippies and high school chemistry students of the mid-late 70s and early 80s. Been there, done that, my high school chemistry class would be on a domestic terrorist list today.
The good manuals are by the government, military and CIA, and used to be readily available to the public, and no I'm not talking about some bomb shelter supply store in Montana, and no I'm not going to tell you where because I don't want to help dumb-ass kiddies hurt themselves. Almost been there, almost done that.