CYA -- Everyone in the military knows "CYA" this means "Cover Your Ass". The term is used because of the culture of the military. Most people in the military have very little social sophistication, as you might expect of people whose business is solving problems by killing other people. When something is wrong, it is dealt with by attacking, rather than inquiring and fixing.
The person who wrote the memo wanted something in the files that would show he was not part of the corruption. Without the letter, it would be assumed he agreed to the corruption. The lowest ranking person would be punished, and that might be him. The letter "covered" his "ass" from attack.
The handling of these kinds of matters back then is no different than the way the military is handling the torturing of Iraqis now. The people who did the torturing were there to KILL Iraqis. Anything less than killing them may have been thought of as gentle. There is little analysis of anything among those whose business it is to resolve problems by killing others. The leaders only think about escaping responsibility and laying blame on someone of lower rank. So, problems are almost never fixed. Anyone with a sense of idealism finds the military culture very bleak.
Credibility of the man interviewed on the CBS show, "60 Minutes II" -- Someone being interviewed told 60 Minutes last night that he found the letters completely credible: Bush really would have received preferential treatment. I found the man completely credible. That's just the way things were done back then, just as he said. If you had power, you could arrange preferential treatment. If you objected, you would either be ignored or attacked.
Typeface and font used in the letters. -- Much is being made of the proportional font used in the letters. However, I've often had the experience of walking into a military office and being shocked by the office equipment there. There are numerous ways that people in the military get things that they don't really need. For example, a general may requisition something and then discover that his secretary doesn't want to learn how to use it. So, then it is available to an office of lower rank.
The fonts are consistent with those sold with a kind of upscale IBM Selectric typewriter that was actually a low-cost typesetting machine. (Typesetting was what it was called before everyone could do it on a personal computer.) These machines had a use-once carbon ribbon. The impression of each character was clearer than the clearest laser printer.
I'm a bit confused about the model numbers of the typewriter. It could have been called a Selectric costing then about $2,500, I believe. I seem to remember that they had another name for the more upscale, true typesetting machines. (I wrote computer manuals which I typed on a Selectric and were prepared on those machines.)
There were usually some odd symbols and characters like "th" on the type balls used by the Selectric family of typesetting machines. That's because of the design of the balls. Whereever there was room, there were characters, partly to assure that the balls would be balanced, I suppose, and partly just because there was room.
"Just like I'm not saying Bush is a slave owner I'm not saying he's the one causing global warming (which is I understand it is a culmination of completely natural processes and CFCs)."
Global warming is caused by the rapid increase in the burning of fossil fuels, now that China and other less-developed countries are modernizing. Another cause is extremely rapid deforestation. Chlorinated Fluorocarbons play a role, too, I understand.
The issues with the Bush administration are more complex than you mentioned, since the administration cannot influence the use of fossil fuels in China, for example. In my opinion, Bush merely sells the government to whomever will pay the most. As with most former alcoholics, George W. Bush is not a very aware person; it is not really he who does the selling, just his administration.
One thing discussions like this have taught me is that there are a LOT of
people who have very little idea what their government is doing. There is
enough material about U.S. government corruption to make a hundred movies like
Fahrenheit 9/11.
I've found that most U.S. citizens don't know that the U.S. government has
killed more than 3,000,000 people in war since the end of World War II. None
of those people directly threatened the United States.
I've found that most U.S. citizens don't know that the U.S. government
has engaged in 24 wars
since the end of World War II.
Michael Moore: Parts of the U.S. government are very, very corrupt.
TV shows and newspaper articles: Michael Moore is a liar!
Other TV shows and newspaper articles: Michael Moore is not a liar!
Discussions about Michael Moore are a distraction. We should be discussing
U.S. government corruption. For example, we should be discussing the U.S.
government's relationship with Saudi Arabia that is unhealthy for both
countries. There were only hints of that in Fahrenheit 9/11. The movie showed
network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with Prince Bandar of Saudi
Arabia. Why was he doing that, aside from the fact that men sometimes hold
hands in Saudi Arabia? Why are they so warm with each other that they hold
hands in public? One clue: I think we can rule out any idea that Prince Bandar
actually likes George W. Bush; that would be very much against Saudi culture.
I've heard this about Hauppauge products a lot: People say they are oversold by the company.
I've had lots of problems with ATI, but those were about PCI video adapter display drivers, not major performance issues.
After reading this and other Slashdot articles on the subject, I get the impression that, in general, people are not happy with video recording products.
Sorry, I hit the return key accidentally. Please disregard my previous
comment.
Twirlip:
Show me even one mistake in what I said, and I will fix it.
It is becoming common that when someone sees something they didn't know
already, they call it "radical".
The entire point of my comment, and the entire point of the article to which I
linked, was that a former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces and former
Republican president was correct. Everything else was only the details of how
it works.
Was General Eisenhower a radical leftist? Thinking about that makes me laugh.
"Well-known radical leftist and General and Republican President Dwight David
Eisenhower..." LOL.
If you read books about the issues, you may come to the conclusion that by far the biggest underlying issue in the present political campaign is U.S. government violence. You probably won't know this unless you read books.
The present system of violence in the U.S. and Britain started in the 1940s. In the 1940s, it was decided that the U.S. government could act in secret in foreign countries to preserve the profits of U.S. and British companies. It was decided that the U.S. government could not only act in secret, it could break the laws of the foreign country. It was decided the the U.S. government could even arrange the murder of the leaders of foreign countries. Agencies like the CIA were created for secret accomplishment of largely secret foreign policy.
Only an estimated 2% read non-fiction books not connected with work. The system of violence works partly by keeping U.S. citizens ignorant. It is not necessary that all citizens be ignorant, just a large percentage of the voters. Actually, there is plenty of information freely available in books, but only an estimated 2% of American citizens read non-fiction books not connected with their work. It is easy to understand why. United States citizens are the hardest-working in the world, with the exception of the Japanese. Many U.S. citizens have only two weeks of vacation every year, and they need that to rest. They simply don't have time to read books.
However, the only way to understand something as complicated as politics is to read books extensively. The issues are too complicated to express in a few words.
By far the biggest issue in the present political campaign is this fundamental one, about which former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces and former Republican U.S. President General Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us in a famous speech. He said that we should beware of the "military-industrial complex". Here are quotes:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."
The problem he warned us about has been a major influence on both the politics and quality of life of the United States. The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since World War II. The system of violence works by creating fear so richpeople can profit.
The events leading up to the present "war on terror" and the two wars against Iraq began in the 1950s, when hidden elements of the U.S. government overthrew a democratically elected president of Iran (Mossadegh) because he wanted to reduce the profits of U.S. and British oil companies doing business in Iran.
The U.S. government supported a very weak man, the Shah of Iran, who became very violent toward his own citizens. Eventually, people in Iran overthrew the Shah. The U.S. government's actions de-stabilized the country and encouraged the violence that came after. The U.S. government supported Iraq against Iran, supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein at a very high profit for the rich owners of U.S. weapons companies. To give a present example, the Bu
The site you are thinking of is already cited in the Slashdot story: FactCheck.ORG from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Great site, but very limited focus. There is no examination of the underlying problems. In this case, that is a BIG shortcoming.
By far the biggest issue is one about which former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces and former Republican U.S. President General Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us in a famous speech. He said that we should beware of the "military-industrial complex". Here are quotes:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."
The problem he warned us about has been happening big time for many years. The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since WW2. The system of violence works by creating fear so richpeople can profit.
Every important speaker at the Republican convention spoke of keeping America safe. Every important speaker was reading speeches written for them by marketing consultants like Karl Rove. "Keeping America Safe" is code for "keeping America fearful by promoting violence so the rich can get richer". It was despicable when Bill Clinton did it, and it continues to be despicable now that George W. Bush is doing it. Possibly many of the nation's leaders are not fully aware of the circumstances. It seems that only a very small percentage of citizens realize the extent of the violence of the U.S. government.
The only really good way to educate yourself about the U.S. government is to read books about it. Here are reviews of 3 movies and 35 books: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. It's necessary to gather enough information that you can make your own informed conclusions, and not just copy the conclusions of others.
Don't like the books I found? Find your own. It's your duty as an adult to participate in the political issues of your country.
There is one of those cultural prisoners now. Always willing to pay for a new war. Votes Republican because George W. Bush believes in God, and only Bush will make us safe from those foreigners. Market researchers like the Bush administration's Karl Rove find it easy to manipulate him to do anything they want.
" Think of all the damage done by the millions of people reacting to false information."
I have found Encyclopedia Brittanica to be extremely and subtly destructive. The short entry for Nobel prize winner Barbara McClintock gave no idea that her scientific articles spanned a width of 80 feet when put together. I discovered that only after a web search. Her work is still important to molecular biologists. Reading EB gave no impression of her importance.
The paper version of Encyclopedia Brittanica is limited by how much the executives of the company want to spend on paper. They probably say something like this to writers: "Give us 500 words on Barbara McClintock."
Wikipedia has the advantage of being written by enthusiasts.
A problem with Hauppauge is product confusion. The model number PVR-250 is just a trick number. The real number is 975 or some 3-digit number beginning with 9, and the PVR-250 datasheet doesn't say anything about the real number. A 975 PVR-250 costs maybe $70, and a 980 PVR-250 costs perhaps $120, and there are other numbers, too, apparently.
One of the nastiest aspects of working in technical fields is bored marketing people who don't want to learn about their own products, and don't want to burden their small brains with any technical knowledge whatsoever. When I want to try a new product I spend sometimes an hour or more getting past that.
(Posting again because Slashdot did not receive all of my comment.)
Thanks very much for the link to FactCheck. I didn't know about it.
Please understand: The corruption in the present administration is by far the worst corruption in the U.S. government ever, apparently, at least. This is why:
Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have two complaints against the U.S. government:
1) Osama bin Laden says that the U.S. government interferes with politics inside Saudi Arabia, preventing needed changes. I've talked with sons of rich Saudis, whose families benefit from the present regime, and would therefore have every reason to disagree, and they say this is correct. The U.S. government does interfere, and changes are needed.
Also, consider this: In the Michael Moore movie Fahrenheit 9/11, George W. Bush can be seen holding hands with a man known to his family as "Bandar Bush", and known in Saudi Arabia as "Prince Bandar". (In Saudi Arabia, it is common for men to hold hands. Doubters: Please, that scene in the movie is taken from network TV footage; no one has contested or questioned it.) Prince Bandar is one of the regime to which Osama bin Laden objects.
George W. Bush had a failing oil company, someone in the Saudi ruling regime bought the company, and Mr. Bush then made a profit. Ask yourself, why would a rich Saudi want to invest in a failing oil company in Texas? The answer is that the Saudis wanted access to top officials in the U.S. government.
So, in this point, Osama bin Laden is correct. I don't agree that violence is the way to resolve this problem, but the U.S. government is preventing needed political change in Saudi Arabia. Think about this. How would you feel if someone from another country was interfering with the U.S. political process?
2) Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda object to the support from the U.S. government for Israeli violence toward Palestinians. I once calculated that the support is about $910 for every Jewish man, woman, and child each year. When you see helicopters firing at Palestinians on the ground, those helicopters came from your tax dollars. Did you intend to get in the middle of a 3,200-year-old conflict (on and off) between the family of Abraham and the surrounding people? Open your billfold right now. What dollars do you see there that you would be willing to give to kill Palestinians you don't know? Yes, there is a serious problem there, but did you intend to get involved? Do you see any advantage for anyone in you getting involved? One famous Israeli government official said that the U.S. government money was like "gasoline on a fire".
So Osama bin Laden is correct in this second complaint, also. Again, I don't agree that violence is the way to resolve this problem, but the U.S. government is, in fact, giving money that Israelis use to buy U.S.-made weapons that are used to kill Arabs. Not surprisingly, Arabs don't like being killed. Not surprisingly, some of them object by becoming violent themselves.
This particular U.S. government corruption works through embezzling. The weapons companies could never arrange a deal to get your tax dollars directly from the U.S. government, the would risk prison; the U.S. government is not that corrupt. Instead, the money goes to the Israeli government first, and back to the weapons manufacturers, who make an easy profit, since the Israelis cannot spend the money elsewhere. If you read the books in the article, Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government, you will see that George W. Bush's family is invested in weapons makers. Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, another company that makes more profit when there is violence. This involvement may make them prefer violent means.
George W. Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, attended a meeting of
Also, consider this: In the Michael Moore movie Fahrenheit 9/11, George W. Bush can be seen holding hands with a man known to his family as "Bandar Bush", and known in Saudi Arabia as "Prince Bandar". (In Saudi Arabia, it is common for men to hold hands. Doubters: Please, that scene in the movie is taken from network TV footage; no one has contested or questioned it.) Prince Bandar is one of the regime to which Osama bin Laden objects.
George W. Bush had a failing oil company, someone in the Saudi ruling regime bought the company, and Mr. Bush then made a profit. Ask yourself, why would a rich Saudi want to invest in a failing oil company in Texas? The answer is that the Saudis wanted access to top officials in the U.S. government.
So, in this point, Osama bin Laden is correct. I don't agree that violence is the way to resolve this problem, but the U.S. government is preventing needed political change in Saudi Arabia. Think about this. How would you feel if someone from another country was interfering with the U.S. political process?
2) Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda object to the support from the U.S. government for Israeli violence toward Palestinians. I once calculated that the support is about $910 for every Jewish man, woman, and child each year. When you see helicopters firing at Palestinians on the ground, those helicopters came from your tax dollars. Did you intend to get in the middle of a 3,200-year-old conflict (on and off) between the family of Abraham and the surrounding people? Open your billfold right now. What dollars do you see there that you would be willing to give to kill Palestinians you don't know? Yes, there is a serious problem there, but did you intend to get involved? Do you see any advantage for anyone in you getting involved? One famous Israeli government official said that the U.S. government money was like "gasoline on a fire".
So Osama bin Laden is correct in this second complaint, also. Again, I don't agree that violence is the way to resolve this problem, but the U.S. government is, in fact, giving money that Israelis use to buy U.S.-made weapons that are used to kill Arabs. Not surprisingly, Arabs don't like being killed. Not surprisingly, some of them object by becoming violent themselves.
This particular U.S. government corruption works through embezzling. The weapons companies could never arrange a deal to get your tax dollars directly from the U.S. government, the would risk prison; the U.S. government is not that corrupt. Instead, the money goes to the Israeli government first, and back to the weapons manufacturers, who make an easy profit, since the Israelis cannot spend the money elsewhere. If you read the books in the article, Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government, you will see that George W. Bush's family is invested in weapons makers. Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, another company that makes more profit when there is violence. This involvement may make them prefer violent means.
George W. Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, attended a meeting of The Carlyle Group investors on the days around 9/11 that was also attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden. The Carlyle Group is a weapons manufacturer holding company.
No partisan interest here. It's been going on a long time: 24
wars since WW2. Creating fear so richpeople
can profit.
However, you seem to say that the 3 movies and 35 recently published books in
this article are all wrong, even though they written by all kinds of people,
Republicans, Democrats, generals, former government leaders, a Pulitzer Prize
winner, political commentators, editorial writers, environmental
organizations, and members of the public: Unprecedented
Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.
Name ONE statement that is in error. I'll investigate (again), and if you are
correct, I will change it.
Most people don't know that the situation in Iraq began in the 50's, when
hidden elements of the U.S. government overthrew a
democratically elected president of Iran
(Mossadegh) because he wanted to reduce the profits of U.S. and British
oil companies doing business in Iran. The U.S. government supported a
very weak man, the Shah of Iran, who became very violent toward his own
citizens. Eventually, people in Iran overthrew the Shah. The U.S.
government's actions de-stabilized the country and encouraged the
violence that came after. The U.S. government supported Iraq against Iran,
supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein at a very high profit for the rich owners
of U.S. weapons companies. The Bush family has long owned part of a company
that owns weapons companies. Cheney was head of Halliburton, a company that
profits when there is war, especially since Halliburton was able to arrange a
secret, no competitive bid contract.
What do you say about that? Is the university that hosts the documents all
wrong?
Obviously, there is too much material for any one article. Should I not
discuss the corruption of today because there was corruption in the past?
It's amazing how many hostile responses there have been to my post.
My point is: There is absolutely NO evidence that genetic differences that may
have been discovered have any effect whatsoever on what a man is able to do.
In normal human interaction, men are just as able to perceive and understand
color as women.
There are thousands of "scientific" articles like this that vastly
overstate the scientist's actual findings. The article is written the way it
is only because that way it will be read by more than a few people, who are
looking for justification for the hostility toward men that has become
standard in the U.S. culture. Normally the underlying findings would be read
by only 50 or 100 geneticists, at most, who have an interest in a genetic
difference that makes no perceptible difference in human behavior.
This is VERY important: A man can learn to be just as good in sensing color
as a woman, in any human endeavor that matters.
Most of the great painters have been men, of course.
Have you known women who complain that great male painters have made bad color
choices?
The article sells a lie that is too subtle for most people. Most people are
completely fooled, as the comments show.
This is extremely important because of the prevalence of misunderstanding. Men in the
U.S. live in a very adversarial environment. Few realize this. They learn to accept the
hostility and even invite it, and even treat themselves in a hostile manner.
For example, the Slashdot logo says "nerd", an extremely derogatory label.
Again, men have been taught to accept adversarial behavior. Look at the responses to
my comment that assume that I am trying to get some social advantage. Some people can
only have that perception, and cannot benefit from what I said.
You don't need to live in the cultural prison that others made for you.
A lot of Slashdot readers look for something that might be wrong with a comment, rather than respond to the message.
My wife was standing about 10 feet away when the incident I described happened. I have a photo of the woman and my wife together. A lot of women think a man is more attractive when they can see another woman likes him.
My wife knows I'm friendly with women and it doesn't bother her. She also knows I'm happily married and she does not have to worry about another woman.
Think about this. Suppose a little boy grew up in the woman culture. From the time he is able to understand words, he would be taught in many different ways that color matters, because "being beautiful" matters. Such a person would learn to be especially sensitive to color, the way someone who has been blinded learns to be especially sensitive to sounds. It has nothing to do with gender.
More than 30 years ago, a woman told me I was a "typical engineer". She said I was socially backward and that I had a "slide-rule voice". I was smart enough to know that she was right. I remembered that, when I was a teenager, I would have to ask my mother if clothes matched in color.
I put a lot of effort into growing in those areas. For example, I went to sensitivity training at UCLA Management Institute to be more in touch with my own and other's feelings. I asked women friends a million questions. I began paying attention to how people operated who could do things I couldn't do.
I'm still friends with the woman who criticized me. Now I'm far more in touch with my feelings than she is, and she accepts advice from me. It takes me, literally, about 1 to 3 seconds to decide whether something is artistically pleasing, including seeing whether the colors are appropriate. I can deliver a complete criticism in one minute. Last year I spent several hours reviewing the recent offerings of Donna Karan and other fashion houses with a woman friend who was a buyer for a department store in New York. She seemed to appreciate what I said, even though I am generally negative about women spending so much time on clothes. When I was single I would think, why should a woman spend a lot of time with something I am going to look at only long enough to discover how to take it off?
Last Sunday I went clothes shopping with my wife, and I picked out the only top she decided to buy. It's learning how, only that.
The woman who criticized me is still no better at being logical, something that is absolutely necessary for a programmer, and absolutely necessary for managing to have a good life. If she had put the same effort as I did into teaching myself to think carefully, I'm sure she could have done very well, however.
What women often want is a man who is horny, knows what to do, but is otherwise just like them. Because of that, a man who knows the woman culture gets far too many chances to have sex. A big criticism that I have, and that I have heard from Europeans and Russians and Brazilians, is that women in the U.S. are too undiscriminating about who they choose for sexual involvement.
A few months ago I was standing in a bar surrounded by at least 200 people talking to a woman I had met. I told her I did not want a beer because I am overweight; I don't need the calories. She said she was overweight, too. I said she didn't look overweight to me. She said she was, nevertheless. I ran my hand under her jacket along her waist, and said she was not overweight. She said she was. I said, "Okay, take off your clothes." Obviously, I was only joking, but she laughed in a delighted way, indicating she thought I was on the right track. I was only trying to relieve the boredom of being in the bar. I didn't see the direction things would take in a few seconds.
"But to claim that MS help offers no assistance is a little misleading..."
I didn't claim no there was no help in MS office. I only claimed that the search words I entered, and there were several of them, did not give an answer. I tried the same thing in OO and immediately found the answer. In that particular instance, OO was better. Obviously, if I had known the correct search terms, I would have found what I wanted.
"MS always have provided good documentation and help in their products."
I disagree with that. If you try to support Windows XP, you find that the documentation is extremely scattered and poorly written. Also, if an MS tech support rep. is told of a mistake in a manual, he has no way to get it fixed, apparently.
You are right, of course. When the U.S. military uses Linux to help kill people, they will ask for more money, not less, because some of those people will have relatives that don't like family members being killed. The relatives will retaliate with violence. That will be used as a reason for a bigger U.S. government violence budget.
Quinto is a foreign word. Your sig says, "Ceci n'est pas un post". Those are foreign words, too.
The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries since the end of the Second World War. Only 155 to go. Possibly yours is next.
Not only does the U.S. government not like foreigners, it tries to kill them. It's equal opportunity violence, led by a president whose family is invested in weapons manufacturers.
Slashdot Mirror
CYA -- Everyone in the military knows "CYA" this means "Cover Your Ass". The term is used because of the culture of the military. Most people in the military have very little social sophistication, as you might expect of people whose business is solving problems by killing other people. When something is wrong, it is dealt with by attacking, rather than inquiring and fixing.
The person who wrote the memo wanted something in the files that would show he was not part of the corruption. Without the letter, it would be assumed he agreed to the corruption. The lowest ranking person would be punished, and that might be him. The letter "covered" his "ass" from attack.
The handling of these kinds of matters back then is no different than the way the military is handling the torturing of Iraqis now. The people who did the torturing were there to KILL Iraqis. Anything less than killing them may have been thought of as gentle. There is little analysis of anything among those whose business it is to resolve problems by killing others. The leaders only think about escaping responsibility and laying blame on someone of lower rank. So, problems are almost never fixed. Anyone with a sense of idealism finds the military culture very bleak.
Credibility of the man interviewed on the CBS show, "60 Minutes II" -- Someone being interviewed told 60 Minutes last night that he found the letters completely credible: Bush really would have received preferential treatment. I found the man completely credible. That's just the way things were done back then, just as he said. If you had power, you could arrange preferential treatment. If you objected, you would either be ignored or attacked.
Typeface and font used in the letters. -- Much is being made of the proportional font used in the letters. However, I've often had the experience of walking into a military office and being shocked by the office equipment there. There are numerous ways that people in the military get things that they don't really need. For example, a general may requisition something and then discover that his secretary doesn't want to learn how to use it. So, then it is available to an office of lower rank.
The fonts are consistent with those sold with a kind of upscale IBM Selectric typewriter that was actually a low-cost typesetting machine. (Typesetting was what it was called before everyone could do it on a personal computer.) These machines had a use-once carbon ribbon. The impression of each character was clearer than the clearest laser printer.
I'm a bit confused about the model numbers of the typewriter. It could have been called a Selectric costing then about $2,500, I believe. I seem to remember that they had another name for the more upscale, true typesetting machines. (I wrote computer manuals which I typed on a Selectric and were prepared on those machines.)
There were usually some odd symbols and characters like "th" on the type balls used by the Selectric family of typesetting machines. That's because of the design of the balls. Whereever there was room, there were characters, partly to assure that the balls would be balanced, I suppose, and partly just because there was room.
--
Bush's education improvements were fraud
"Just like I'm not saying Bush is a slave owner I'm not saying he's the one causing global warming (which is I understand it is a culmination of completely natural processes and CFCs)."
Global warming is caused by the rapid increase in the burning of fossil fuels, now that China and other less-developed countries are modernizing. Another cause is extremely rapid deforestation. Chlorinated Fluorocarbons play a role, too, I understand.
The issues with the Bush administration are more complex than you mentioned, since the administration cannot influence the use of fossil fuels in China, for example. In my opinion, Bush merely sells the government to whomever will pay the most. As with most former alcoholics, George W. Bush is not a very aware person; it is not really he who does the selling, just his administration.
--
Bush's education improvements were fraud
One thing discussions like this have taught me is that there are a LOT of people who have very little idea what their government is doing. There is enough material about U.S. government corruption to make a hundred movies like Fahrenheit 9/11.
I've found that most U.S. citizens don't know that the U.S. government has killed more than 3,000,000 people in war since the end of World War II. None of those people directly threatened the United States.
I've found that most U.S. citizens don't know that the U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since the end of World War II.
Want to educate yourself about U.S. goverment corruption? See the two other movies and read the 35 books reviewed in this article: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.
This is how it has been going:
Michael Moore: Parts of the U.S. government are very, very corrupt.
TV shows and newspaper articles: Michael Moore is a liar!
Other TV shows and newspaper articles: Michael Moore is not a liar!
Discussions about Michael Moore are a distraction. We should be discussing U.S. government corruption. For example, we should be discussing the U.S. government's relationship with Saudi Arabia that is unhealthy for both countries. There were only hints of that in Fahrenheit 9/11. The movie showed network footage of George W. Bush holding hands with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia. Why was he doing that, aside from the fact that men sometimes hold hands in Saudi Arabia? Why are they so warm with each other that they hold hands in public? One clue: I think we can rule out any idea that Prince Bandar actually likes George W. Bush; that would be very much against Saudi culture.
I've heard this about Hauppauge products a lot: People say they are oversold by the company.
I've had lots of problems with ATI, but those were about PCI video adapter display drivers, not major performance issues.
After reading this and other Slashdot articles on the subject, I get the impression that, in general, people are not happy with video recording products.
--
Bush's education improvements were fraud
Sorry, I hit the return key accidentally. Please disregard my previous comment.
Twirlip:
Show me even one mistake in what I said, and I will fix it.
It is becoming common that when someone sees something they didn't know already, they call it "radical".
The entire point of my comment, and the entire point of the article to which I linked, was that a former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces and former Republican president was correct. Everything else was only the details of how it works.
Was General Eisenhower a radical leftist? Thinking about that makes me laugh. "Well-known radical leftist and General and Republican President Dwight David Eisenhower..." LOL.
I posted a more complete comment here: Only one way to understand: Read books. Again, if you can find an error, I will investigate and fix it.
By the way, was CBS News wrong when they found that Bush's education improvements were fraud?
Twirlip:
Show me even one mistake in what I said, and I will fix it.
At present every time someone sees something they didn't know already, they call it "radical".
If you read books about the issues, you may come to the conclusion that by far the biggest underlying issue in the present political campaign is U.S. government violence. You probably won't know this unless you read books.
The present system of violence in the U.S. and Britain started in the 1940s. In the 1940s, it was decided that the U.S. government could act in secret in foreign countries to preserve the profits of U.S. and British companies. It was decided that the U.S. government could not only act in secret, it could break the laws of the foreign country. It was decided the the U.S. government could even arrange the murder of the leaders of foreign countries. Agencies like the CIA were created for secret accomplishment of largely secret foreign policy.
Only an estimated 2% read non-fiction books not connected with work. The system of violence works partly by keeping U.S. citizens ignorant. It is not necessary that all citizens be ignorant, just a large percentage of the voters. Actually, there is plenty of information freely available in books, but only an estimated 2% of American citizens read non-fiction books not connected with their work. It is easy to understand why. United States citizens are the hardest-working in the world, with the exception of the Japanese. Many U.S. citizens have only two weeks of vacation every year, and they need that to rest. They simply don't have time to read books.
However, the only way to understand something as complicated as politics is to read books extensively. The issues are too complicated to express in a few words.
By far the biggest issue in the present political campaign is this fundamental one, about which former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces and former Republican U.S. President General Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us in a famous speech. He said that we should beware of the "military-industrial complex". Here are quotes:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."
The problem he warned us about has been a major influence on both the politics and quality of life of the United States. The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since World War II. The system of violence works by creating fear so rich people can profit.
Very few U.S. citizens know the full history of the war against Iraq. This short article is a summary: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories.
The events leading up to the present "war on terror" and the two wars against Iraq began in the 1950s, when hidden elements of the U.S. government overthrew a democratically elected president of Iran (Mossadegh) because he wanted to reduce the profits of U.S. and British oil companies doing business in Iran.
The U.S. government supported a very weak man, the Shah of Iran, who became very violent toward his own citizens. Eventually, people in Iran overthrew the Shah. The U.S. government's actions de-stabilized the country and encouraged the violence that came after. The U.S. government supported Iraq against Iran, supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein at a very high profit for the rich owners of U.S. weapons companies. To give a present example, the Bu
The site you are thinking of is already cited in the Slashdot story: FactCheck.ORG from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Great site, but very limited focus. There is no examination of the underlying problems. In this case, that is a BIG shortcoming.
By far the biggest issue is one about which former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces and former Republican U.S. President General Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us in a famous speech. He said that we should beware of the "military-industrial complex". Here are quotes:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."
The problem he warned us about has been happening big time for many years. The U.S. government has engaged in 24 wars since WW2. The system of violence works by creating fear so rich people can profit.
Every important speaker at the Republican convention spoke of keeping America safe. Every important speaker was reading speeches written for them by marketing consultants like Karl Rove. "Keeping America Safe" is code for "keeping America fearful by promoting violence so the rich can get richer". It was despicable when Bill Clinton did it, and it continues to be despicable now that George W. Bush is doing it. Possibly many of the nation's leaders are not fully aware of the circumstances. It seems that only a very small percentage of citizens realize the extent of the violence of the U.S. government.
The only really good way to educate yourself about the U.S. government is to read books about it. Here are reviews of 3 movies and 35 books: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. It's necessary to gather enough information that you can make your own informed conclusions, and not just copy the conclusions of others.
Don't like the books I found? Find your own. It's your duty as an adult to participate in the political issues of your country.
There is one of those cultural prisoners now. Always willing to pay for a new war. Votes Republican because George W. Bush believes in God, and only Bush will make us safe from those foreigners. Market researchers like the Bush administration's Karl Rove find it easy to manipulate him to do anything they want.
CP's who think President Bush is religious should read this: It's illogical to vote Republican in 2004.
And those who think the U.S. government's many wars are for security should read this:
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.
" Think of all the damage done by the millions of people reacting to false information."
I have found Encyclopedia Brittanica to be extremely and subtly destructive. The short entry for Nobel prize winner Barbara McClintock gave no idea that her scientific articles spanned a width of 80 feet when put together. I discovered that only after a web search. Her work is still important to molecular biologists. Reading EB gave no impression of her importance.
The paper version of Encyclopedia Brittanica is limited by how much the executives of the company want to spend on paper. They probably say something like this to writers: "Give us 500 words on Barbara McClintock."
Wikipedia has the advantage of being written by enthusiasts.
--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.
A problem with Hauppauge is product confusion. The model number PVR-250 is just a trick number. The real number is 975 or some 3-digit number beginning with 9, and the PVR-250 datasheet doesn't say anything about the real number. A 975 PVR-250 costs maybe $70, and a 980 PVR-250 costs perhaps $120, and there are other numbers, too, apparently.
One of the nastiest aspects of working in technical fields is bored marketing people who don't want to learn about their own products, and don't want to burden their small brains with any technical knowledge whatsoever. When I want to try a new product I spend sometimes an hour or more getting past that.
--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.
(Posting again because Slashdot did not receive all of my comment.)
Thanks very much for the link to FactCheck. I didn't know about it.
Please understand: The corruption in the present administration is by far the worst corruption in the U.S. government ever, apparently, at least. This is why:
Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have two complaints against the U.S. government:
1) Osama bin Laden says that the U.S. government interferes with politics inside Saudi Arabia, preventing needed changes. I've talked with sons of rich Saudis, whose families benefit from the present regime, and would therefore have every reason to disagree, and they say this is correct. The U.S. government does interfere, and changes are needed.
Also, consider this: In the Michael Moore movie Fahrenheit 9/11, George W. Bush can be seen holding hands with a man known to his family as "Bandar Bush", and known in Saudi Arabia as "Prince Bandar". (In Saudi Arabia, it is common for men to hold hands. Doubters: Please, that scene in the movie is taken from network TV footage; no one has contested or questioned it.) Prince Bandar is one of the regime to which Osama bin Laden objects.
George W. Bush had a failing oil company, someone in the Saudi ruling regime bought the company, and Mr. Bush then made a profit. Ask yourself, why would a rich Saudi want to invest in a failing oil company in Texas? The answer is that the Saudis wanted access to top officials in the U.S. government.
So, in this point, Osama bin Laden is correct. I don't agree that violence is the way to resolve this problem, but the U.S. government is preventing needed political change in Saudi Arabia. Think about this. How would you feel if someone from another country was interfering with the U.S. political process?
2) Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda object to the support from the U.S. government for Israeli violence toward Palestinians. I once calculated that the support is about $910 for every Jewish man, woman, and child each year. When you see helicopters firing at Palestinians on the ground, those helicopters came from your tax dollars. Did you intend to get in the middle of a 3,200-year-old conflict (on and off) between the family of Abraham and the surrounding people? Open your billfold right now. What dollars do you see there that you would be willing to give to kill Palestinians you don't know? Yes, there is a serious problem there, but did you intend to get involved? Do you see any advantage for anyone in you getting involved? One famous Israeli government official said that the U.S. government money was like "gasoline on a fire".
So Osama bin Laden is correct in this second complaint, also. Again, I don't agree that violence is the way to resolve this problem, but the U.S. government is, in fact, giving money that Israelis use to buy U.S.-made weapons that are used to kill Arabs. Not surprisingly, Arabs don't like being killed. Not surprisingly, some of them object by becoming violent themselves.
This particular U.S. government corruption works through embezzling. The weapons companies could never arrange a deal to get your tax dollars directly from the U.S. government, the would risk prison; the U.S. government is not that corrupt. Instead, the money goes to the Israeli government first, and back to the weapons manufacturers, who make an easy profit, since the Israelis cannot spend the money elsewhere. If you read the books in the article, Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government, you will see that George W. Bush's family is invested in weapons makers. Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, another company that makes more profit when there is violence. This involvement may make them prefer violent means.
George W. Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, attended a meeting of
Also, consider this: In the Michael Moore movie Fahrenheit 9/11, George W. Bush can be seen holding hands with a man known to his family as "Bandar Bush", and known in Saudi Arabia as "Prince Bandar". (In Saudi Arabia, it is common for men to hold hands. Doubters: Please, that scene in the movie is taken from network TV footage; no one has contested or questioned it.) Prince Bandar is one of the regime to which Osama bin Laden objects.
George W. Bush had a failing oil company, someone in the Saudi ruling regime bought the company, and Mr. Bush then made a profit. Ask yourself, why would a rich Saudi want to invest in a failing oil company in Texas? The answer is that the Saudis wanted access to top officials in the U.S. government.
So, in this point, Osama bin Laden is correct. I don't agree that violence is the way to resolve this problem, but the U.S. government is preventing needed political change in Saudi Arabia. Think about this. How would you feel if someone from another country was interfering with the U.S. political process?
2) Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda object to the support from the U.S. government for Israeli violence toward Palestinians. I once calculated that the support is about $910 for every Jewish man, woman, and child each year. When you see helicopters firing at Palestinians on the ground, those helicopters came from your tax dollars. Did you intend to get in the middle of a 3,200-year-old conflict (on and off) between the family of Abraham and the surrounding people? Open your billfold right now. What dollars do you see there that you would be willing to give to kill Palestinians you don't know? Yes, there is a serious problem there, but did you intend to get involved? Do you see any advantage for anyone in you getting involved? One famous Israeli government official said that the U.S. government money was like "gasoline on a fire".
So Osama bin Laden is correct in this second complaint, also. Again, I don't agree that violence is the way to resolve this problem, but the U.S. government is, in fact, giving money that Israelis use to buy U.S.-made weapons that are used to kill Arabs. Not surprisingly, Arabs don't like being killed. Not surprisingly, some of them object by becoming violent themselves.
This particular U.S. government corruption works through embezzling. The weapons companies could never arrange a deal to get your tax dollars directly from the U.S. government, the would risk prison; the U.S. government is not that corrupt. Instead, the money goes to the Israeli government first, and back to the weapons manufacturers, who make an easy profit, since the Israelis cannot spend the money elsewhere. If you read the books in the article, Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government, you will see that George W. Bush's family is invested in weapons makers. Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, another company that makes more profit when there is violence. This involvement may make them prefer violent means.
George W. Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, attended a meeting of The Carlyle Group investors on the days around 9/11 that was also attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden. The Carlyle Group is a weapons manufacturer holding company.
That's unprecedented conflict of interest.
You missed the point. She's operating under conflict of interest. The money and her position with the Republicans is only supporting evidence.
--
Bush's education improvements were fraud
I don't want them in jail. I just want someone new in office.
No partisan interest here. It's been going on a long time: 24 wars since WW2. Creating fear so rich people can profit.
However, you seem to say that the 3 movies and 35 recently published books in this article are all wrong, even though they written by all kinds of people, Republicans, Democrats, generals, former government leaders, a Pulitzer Prize winner, political commentators, editorial writers, environmental organizations, and members of the public: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.
Name ONE statement that is in error. I'll investigate (again), and if you are correct, I will change it.
Most people don't know that the situation in Iraq began in the 50's, when hidden elements of the U.S. government overthrew a democratically elected president of Iran (Mossadegh) because he wanted to reduce the profits of U.S. and British oil companies doing business in Iran. The U.S. government supported a very weak man, the Shah of Iran, who became very violent toward his own citizens. Eventually, people in Iran overthrew the Shah. The U.S. government's actions de-stabilized the country and encouraged the violence that came after. The U.S. government supported Iraq against Iran, supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein at a very high profit for the rich owners of U.S. weapons companies. The Bush family has long owned part of a company that owns weapons companies. Cheney was head of Halliburton, a company that profits when there is war, especially since Halliburton was able to arrange a secret, no competitive bid contract.
What do you say about that? Is the university that hosts the documents all wrong?
Obviously, there is too much material for any one article. Should I not discuss the corruption of today because there was corruption in the past?
Excellent research. Mod parent up!!
--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.
There are many, many situations of this nature. See Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government
"As for the great painters being men, one should not rule out european sexism as to who got the opportunity to be great in their age."
You totally missed the point. Women don't complain about the color choices of male painters, showing that they don't see color better.
Women choose male interior decorators more than they choose females. They would not do that if women could see color better.
It's amazing how many hostile responses there have been to my post.
My point is: There is absolutely NO evidence that genetic differences that may have been discovered have any effect whatsoever on what a man is able to do. In normal human interaction, men are just as able to perceive and understand color as women.
There are thousands of "scientific" articles like this that vastly overstate the scientist's actual findings. The article is written the way it is only because that way it will be read by more than a few people, who are looking for justification for the hostility toward men that has become standard in the U.S. culture. Normally the underlying findings would be read by only 50 or 100 geneticists, at most, who have an interest in a genetic difference that makes no perceptible difference in human behavior.
This is VERY important: A man can learn to be just as good in sensing color as a woman, in any human endeavor that matters.
Most of the great painters have been men, of course. Have you known women who complain that great male painters have made bad color choices?
The article sells a lie that is too subtle for most people. Most people are completely fooled, as the comments show.
This is extremely important because of the prevalence of misunderstanding. Men in the U.S. live in a very adversarial environment. Few realize this. They learn to accept the hostility and even invite it, and even treat themselves in a hostile manner. For example, the Slashdot logo says "nerd", an extremely derogatory label.
Again, men have been taught to accept adversarial behavior. Look at the responses to my comment that assume that I am trying to get some social advantage. Some people can only have that perception, and cannot benefit from what I said.
You don't need to live in the cultural prison that others made for you.
A lot of Slashdot readers look for something that might be wrong with a comment, rather than respond to the message.
My wife was standing about 10 feet away when the incident I described happened. I have a photo of the woman and my wife together. A lot of women think a man is more attractive when they can see another woman likes him.
My wife knows I'm friendly with women and it doesn't bother her. She also knows I'm happily married and she does not have to worry about another woman.
I don't agree with any of the theories.
Think about this. Suppose a little boy grew up in the woman culture. From the time he is able to understand words, he would be taught in many different ways that color matters, because "being beautiful" matters. Such a person would learn to be especially sensitive to color, the way someone who has been blinded learns to be especially sensitive to sounds. It has nothing to do with gender.
More than 30 years ago, a woman told me I was a "typical engineer". She said I was socially backward and that I had a "slide-rule voice". I was smart enough to know that she was right. I remembered that, when I was a teenager, I would have to ask my mother if clothes matched in color.
I put a lot of effort into growing in those areas. For example, I went to sensitivity training at UCLA Management Institute to be more in touch with my own and other's feelings. I asked women friends a million questions. I began paying attention to how people operated who could do things I couldn't do.
I'm still friends with the woman who criticized me. Now I'm far more in touch with my feelings than she is, and she accepts advice from me. It takes me, literally, about 1 to 3 seconds to decide whether something is artistically pleasing, including seeing whether the colors are appropriate. I can deliver a complete criticism in one minute. Last year I spent several hours reviewing the recent offerings of Donna Karan and other fashion houses with a woman friend who was a buyer for a department store in New York. She seemed to appreciate what I said, even though I am generally negative about women spending so much time on clothes. When I was single I would think, why should a woman spend a lot of time with something I am going to look at only long enough to discover how to take it off?
Last Sunday I went clothes shopping with my wife, and I picked out the only top she decided to buy. It's learning how, only that.
The woman who criticized me is still no better at being logical, something that is absolutely necessary for a programmer, and absolutely necessary for managing to have a good life. If she had put the same effort as I did into teaching myself to think carefully, I'm sure she could have done very well, however.
What women often want is a man who is horny, knows what to do, but is otherwise just like them. Because of that, a man who knows the woman culture gets far too many chances to have sex. A big criticism that I have, and that I have heard from Europeans and Russians and Brazilians, is that women in the U.S. are too undiscriminating about who they choose for sexual involvement.
A few months ago I was standing in a bar surrounded by at least 200 people talking to a woman I had met. I told her I did not want a beer because I am overweight; I don't need the calories. She said she was overweight, too. I said she didn't look overweight to me. She said she was, nevertheless. I ran my hand under her jacket along her waist, and said she was not overweight. She said she was. I said, "Okay, take off your clothes." Obviously, I was only joking, but she laughed in a delighted way, indicating she thought I was on the right track. I was only trying to relieve the boredom of being in the bar. I didn't see the direction things would take in a few seconds.
It's all in learning how, only that.
Hey Adrien,
Interesting post.
MS Word is so quirky that I think it needs a lot of re-writing. Trashing its own files is only one of the many time-consuming problems.
"But to claim that MS help offers no assistance is a little misleading..."
I didn't claim no there was no help in MS office. I only claimed that the search words I entered, and there were several of them, did not give an answer. I tried the same thing in OO and immediately found the answer. In that particular instance, OO was better. Obviously, if I had known the correct search terms, I would have found what I wanted.
"MS always have provided good documentation and help in their products."
I disagree with that. If you try to support Windows XP, you find that the documentation is extremely scattered and poorly written. Also, if an MS tech support rep. is told of a mistake in a manual, he has no way to get it fixed, apparently.
Quinto 2000,
You are right, of course. When the U.S. military uses Linux to help kill people, they will ask for more money, not less, because some of those people will have relatives that don't like family members being killed. The relatives will retaliate with violence. That will be used as a reason for a bigger U.S. government violence budget.
Quinto is a foreign word. Your sig says, "Ceci n'est pas un post". Those are foreign words, too.
The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries since the end of the Second World War. Only 155 to go. Possibly yours is next.
Not only does the U.S. government not like foreigners, it tries to kill them. It's equal opportunity violence, led by a president whose family is invested in weapons manufacturers.