Can I jump in? I suspect this thread is pretty much dead, but what the heck:
On your suburban picket fence analogy: Obviously in the story you constructed there'd be little alternative to vigilante action to defend your family. But your analogy is weak. We were protected by considerably more than a white picket fence. The "shotgun" and "pit bull" were decrepit and sickly. The police had inspectors digging through the man's house. 2/3rds of the man's property were patrolled by strike aircraft (not sure how to work that into the analogy, or the thousands of troops we had stationed nearby).
There's a legitimate question over what we should have done about Saddam. But your analogy doesn't have much to do with it.
On WMD: If we really knew precisely where the WMD's were (as the Sec of Defense claimed in the runup to the war) why not tell the inspectors on the ground and let the go impound them. That would have been much more effective than letting them be shipped off to Syria.
I'm not so sure they were ever there. Yes, he used them, but that was 20 years ago, back when we (and others) were supplying him with them. Given the circumstances since, (Gulf War I and sanctions) it would have been difficult for Saddam to maintain those weapons, let alone add to the stockpile.
On terror: No doubt Saddam was a bad man, as you conclude. But we're in a war on Terror, not a war against bad men. There are a lot of bad men out there. In a perfect world, we would defeat all of them. But with limited resources, was it worth attacking a country with almost no viable military strength?
On occupying Iraq: I agree 100% with you about our Bush Sr. abandoning Iraqi dissidents, although I'd put some blame on Clinton as well. But the German analogy is silly. It was a completely different situation There were approximately zero US combat casualties during that occupation.
That rallying terrorist in Iraq is a good thing: Tell that to Madrid. Sure, maybe 99% of the new terrorists are in Iraq. That still leaves dozens of new international terrorists. As you pointed out, it only took 19 on 9/11.
"The problem is that we won too quickly:" So Iraq would be better off if we'd destroyed more of Iraq and killed more Iraqi?? The problem is that we've mishandled the occupation.
On awakening the sleeping giant: Here's another analogy for you. We were awakened by beestings. (Yes, 3000 dead is horribly worse than a few beestings. It's an analogy.) Our reaction (in Iraq) has been to attack a beehive. "Maybe that'll make those bees fall in line." Hmmm...maybe.
And your claims about what an unchecked Saddam would have done applies to 1991, not 2003. Saddam was not unchecked when we chose to attack.
On Abu Ghraib: It's not at all like blaming the parents of a murderer. Parents don't have a chain of command over their adult children.
No one was commanded to torture. But the commanders and political leaders laid the groundwork. You seem familiar with Judaism. Perhaps you know the concept of a "wall around the Torah"? Briefly, the Torah provides the law, but Jews should avoid actions that bring them close to violating the law. (Not a great description, so hopefully you know the concept. Let me know if I should elaborate.) The administration tore down the "wall around the Torah" which made it very likely that the law would be violated. To our great moral and worldly loss.
"If you want to be on the side of the terrorists..." A really cheap shot, and one I hope you'll regret when you re-read it. I'll blame on 2am posting.
If you'd like to continue this, I can be emailed here: (remove line breaks and spam, maybe a little paranoid, but I'd like to keep this address light on the spam...) jon spam marcus spam at apple spam bey dotcom
More data is not necessarily going to be helpful. Check the recent report on intelligence failures that led to 9/11. There was *lots* of data available. The problem was that it wasn't correctly analyzed. A tool like this will gather lots more random data, something we have no shortage of right now.
First was McKinley? For the history geeks, there was this obscure president named Lincoln who got shot about 35 years before McKinley. You may have heard of him?
Okay, I take it back. You weren't ignoring what was said, just deliberately misinterpreting it. Just like you did with my post.
There have been 3 people declared enemy combatants. As you say, 2 of them were US citizens. That's 2 out of 3, which kinda makes my points, doesn't it?
And many Moslems who were locked up were not illegal immigrants. So I'm not making some goofy PC "arrest a diverse group" request. I'm saying that innocent Moslems should not be jailed for long periods of for no reason.
Wow, this is a step up from not reading the article. You didn't even read the post you're responding to.
The "enemy combatants" referred to can't go kill more US soldiers, because there's no claim that they ever killed anyone. We're not talking about the Guantanamo prisoners (even though there were innocent kids locked up there too). We're talking about US citizens/residents who were arrested in the US and locked up. No charges, no nothing. Just locked up because they're "enemy combantants."
And the Moslems who were locked up weren't locked up because they were illegal immigrants. They were locked up because they were Moslems. Many have been released (after being locked up for months or years) with no apologies or explanation.
If Hatch is willing to nuke your PC for downloading a song, what do you think he'll do to anyone who tries to distribute mod chips? Maybe cut off their right hand? For a first offense anyway...
"the big news media, minus Fox, has been bedwetting, treehugging leftist pigs"
Damn, you're logic is impressive. How can I possibly argue with such clever name calling?
"MSNBC, CNN, NBC, and ABC have always been on the left, and there's no way you'll ever admit that until you take a step back and look at it objectively, which you never will, so I'll just stop the argument there."
And now that you've stopped the argument (by simply stating that you're right) your logic wins again. How can we poor liberals possibly defeat such clever logic?
"You mind telling me why Big Corporations are always in bed with conservatives? If Democrats are so good for the economy, why wouldn't the Big Corporations want to be in bed with the party that'll make them the most money?"
Okay, now you're actually making an argument that can be refuted. (And only half way through the post.) Better economy doesn't necessarily mean more money for a corporation. And it's dicey whether either party can ensure a better economy. (The economy's not really doing great under current Republican control, is it?) But giving money to politicians can guarantee that corporations get a bigger slice of the pie. And that *would* guarantee more money for the corps. So that's why they give to both parties, but more to Republicans.
"Since you obviously care very deeply about the environment, I'll make you a deal. If you pay me $5 per month, I'll start recycling. I'll even write up a contract and everything. In fact, I'll even make a Paypal account that you can pay directly so you don't even have to mail a check. Deal? No? Well then you're no better than Exxon."
Hmm...you obviously care very deeply about conservative politics. I'll make you a deal. If you pay me $5 a month, I'll start supporting conservative politics. I'll even write up a contract, and set up a paypal acct, yada yada." Deal? No? Well then you're no better than Lenin. Or...maybe it's just that you're not willing to send money over the internet to someone you've never met, to keep a promise you can never verify. Damn, that logic again.
Your argument about global warming is so weak as to be useless. I'll just point out that global warming has little or nothing to do with ozone, and that a temperature reading at a single place on a single day is a pretty laughable way to determine a global trend.
Hmm...no idea of the research quality, but it's a pretty questionable source. It comes from The Center for Global Food Issues, whose mission is to: "combat efforts to limit technological innovation in agriculture." (Taken from their "about" page.)
So part of their mission is to discredit organics. Don't have time to pick through their research now, but I'd want a less biased backup before I accepted their claim.
Come on, if you're going to be picky and pedantic, at least get it right. Pesticides are chemical used to kill unwanted organisms. These can be plants, mammals (such as rats) or insects. Round-up is not an insecticide, but it certainly is a pesticide.
The subject line of the comment was "Honor" and the case made was that Amazon's right should be equivalent to their customers. I pointed out that they do extend an equivalent right.
Of course what you and they *should* honorably do has nothing to do with what's legally required. However, I think your inspection of the T&C will find that there's no contract until they ship (which is also when they bill your credit card).
But Amazon does allow you to cancel a purchase before it's been shipped. I've done so. From their help page:
It's easy to cancel items from an order you placed at Amazon.com, provided that the order has not yet entered the shipping process.
If we can recognize you as a customer with any unshipped orders, you will see a box to the right. Click the relevant link in that box to visit the order summary page. (If you do not see that box, sign in to Your Account, and select the order you wish to alter.)
Once you've reached the order summary, click the "Need to cancel an item?" button. On the next page, click the checkbox next to any item you want to cancel. Be sure to click the "Cancel checked items" button when you are finished.
So to reverse your question: Since they *do* allow their customers to do that, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?
According to Symantec spokesman Yunsun Wee, Symantec issued an alert about Slammer to DeepSight Threat Management System subscribers "at approximately 9 p.m. PST on Friday, Jan. 24."
Most of the rest of the Internet didn't spot Slammer until shortly after midnight EST on Saturday, Jan. 25th.
Ummm..."shortly after midnight EST" is pretty damn close to "approximately 9 p.m. PST"! It doesn't sound like Symantec had much advance knowledge at all.
Back when I worked for FASA (1991, I think?) they modified the software for the BattleTech pods to make a Jeep Race simulator. We took them around to all the auto shows to let people "test drive" Jeeps.
Okay, people mostly let their kids play while they went to look at the real cars, but the idea of a "virtual test drive" was still there.
A decision by Wal-Mart or SMU has nothing to do with the First Amendment, but it has plenty to do with Freedom of Speech. They're trying to control the content of speech and general flow of discourse. That's why they're doing it! Of course it's completely legal and acceptable for them to do so. But that doesn't mean that Joe Slashdot isn't going to disagree with them. I think it's fair to assume that's what "Free speech and so on" meant.
Sure he should have been clearer. But unclear != wrong.
It's a fully automated version of Everquest. Just start it up and watch your character advance.
..The cool thing about it is that you get to execute boyscouts and your character can be an enchanted motorcycle, a panda-man, a talking donkey, and MANY other things...
Okay, I have no idea if they're any good. I just figured there had to be such a band, and found them with a quick search. I didn't even go to the trouble of listening to the MP3s they have posted. Someone give a listen and let me know, 'kay?
Are you claiming that PCs running Windows are used for heart monitoring equipment? In a situation where a crash would be fatal?? I have a couple of friends who work on medical software, and I'm not aware of any instances where that's the case. Do you have any evidence to back such a claim?
If an automaker builds a defective car, people die. If DVD players are defective, people don't get to watch DVDs. Clearly quality is more important in some places than others.
High quality costs more. Consumers want to pay less. (Even if the quality is less.) So manufacturers will tend to make lower quality products.
My point is that it's possible to have a great degree of freedom in a console game. That's a fairly recent development, and it removes a major difference between PCs and consoles.
Slashdot Mirror
Can I jump in? I suspect this thread is pretty much dead, but what the heck:
m
On your suburban picket fence analogy:
Obviously in the story you constructed there'd be little alternative to vigilante action to defend your family. But your analogy is weak. We were protected by considerably more than a white picket fence. The "shotgun" and "pit bull" were decrepit and sickly. The police had inspectors digging through the man's house. 2/3rds of the man's property were patrolled by strike aircraft (not sure how to work that into the analogy, or the thousands of troops we had stationed nearby).
There's a legitimate question over what we should have done about Saddam. But your analogy doesn't have much to do with it.
On WMD:
If we really knew precisely where the WMD's were (as the Sec of Defense claimed in the runup to the war) why not tell the inspectors on the ground and let the go impound them. That would have been much more effective than letting them be shipped off to Syria.
I'm not so sure they were ever there. Yes, he used them, but that was 20 years ago, back when we (and others) were supplying him with them. Given the circumstances since, (Gulf War I and sanctions) it would have been difficult for Saddam to maintain those weapons, let alone add to the stockpile.
On terror:
No doubt Saddam was a bad man, as you conclude. But we're in a war on Terror, not a war against bad men. There are a lot of bad men out there. In a perfect world, we would defeat all of them. But with limited resources, was it worth attacking a country with almost no viable military strength?
On occupying Iraq:
I agree 100% with you about our Bush Sr. abandoning Iraqi dissidents, although I'd put some blame on Clinton as well. But the German analogy is silly. It was a completely different situation There were approximately zero US combat casualties during that occupation.
That rallying terrorist in Iraq is a good thing:
Tell that to Madrid. Sure, maybe 99% of the new terrorists are in Iraq. That still leaves dozens of new international terrorists. As you pointed out, it only took 19 on 9/11.
"The problem is that we won too quickly:" So Iraq would be better off if we'd destroyed more of Iraq and killed more Iraqi?? The problem is that we've mishandled the occupation.
On awakening the sleeping giant:
Here's another analogy for you. We were awakened by beestings. (Yes, 3000 dead is horribly worse than a few beestings. It's an analogy.) Our reaction (in Iraq) has been to attack a beehive. "Maybe that'll make those bees fall in line." Hmmm...maybe.
And your claims about what an unchecked Saddam would have done applies to 1991, not 2003. Saddam was not unchecked when we chose to attack.
On Abu Ghraib:
It's not at all like blaming the parents of a murderer. Parents don't have a chain of command over their adult children.
No one was commanded to torture. But the commanders and political leaders laid the groundwork. You seem familiar with Judaism. Perhaps you know the concept of a "wall around the Torah"? Briefly, the Torah provides the law, but Jews should avoid actions that bring them close to violating the law. (Not a great description, so hopefully you know the concept. Let me know if I should elaborate.) The administration tore down the "wall around the Torah" which made it very likely that the law would be violated. To our great moral and worldly loss.
"If you want to be on the side of the terrorists..."
A really cheap shot, and one I hope you'll regret when you re-read it. I'll blame on 2am posting.
If you'd like to continue this, I can be emailed here: (remove line breaks and spam, maybe a little paranoid, but I'd like to keep this address light on the spam...)
jon
spam
marcus
spam
at
apple
spa
bey
dotcom
Yeah, it goes to 11!
More data is not necessarily going to be helpful. Check the recent report on intelligence failures that led to 9/11. There was *lots* of data available. The problem was that it wasn't correctly analyzed. A tool like this will gather lots more random data, something we have no shortage of right now.
First was McKinley? For the history geeks, there was this obscure president named Lincoln who got shot about 35 years before McKinley. You may have heard of him?
Okay, I take it back. You weren't ignoring what was said, just deliberately misinterpreting it. Just like you did with my post.
There have been 3 people declared enemy combatants. As you say, 2 of them were US citizens. That's 2 out of 3, which kinda makes my points, doesn't it?
And many Moslems who were locked up were not illegal immigrants. So I'm not making some goofy PC "arrest a diverse group" request. I'm saying that innocent Moslems should not be jailed for long periods of for no reason.
Wow, this is a step up from not reading the article. You didn't even read the post you're responding to.
The "enemy combatants" referred to can't go kill more US soldiers, because there's no claim that they ever killed anyone. We're not talking about the Guantanamo prisoners (even though there were innocent kids locked up there too). We're talking about US citizens/residents who were arrested in the US and locked up. No charges, no nothing. Just locked up because they're "enemy combantants."
And the Moslems who were locked up weren't locked up because they were illegal immigrants. They were locked up because they were Moslems. Many have been released (after being locked up for months or years) with no apologies or explanation.
If Hatch is willing to nuke your PC for downloading a song, what do you think he'll do to anyone who tries to distribute mod chips? Maybe cut off their right hand? For a first offense anyway...
Your argument about global warming is so weak as to be useless. I'll just point out that global warming has little or nothing to do with ozone, and that a temperature reading at a single place on a single day is a pretty laughable way to determine a global trend.
Hmm...no idea of the research quality, but it's a pretty questionable source. It comes from The Center for Global Food Issues, whose mission is to: "combat efforts to limit technological innovation in agriculture." (Taken from their "about" page.) So part of their mission is to discredit organics. Don't have time to pick through their research now, but I'd want a less biased backup before I accepted their claim.
Organics are recalled 10x as often? I wasn't aware of that. Any documentation?
Come on, if you're going to be picky and pedantic, at least get it right. Pesticides are chemical used to kill unwanted organisms. These can be plants, mammals (such as rats) or insects. Round-up is not an insecticide, but it certainly is a pesticide.
The subject line of the comment was "Honor" and the case made was that Amazon's right should be equivalent to their customers. I pointed out that they do extend an equivalent right.
Of course what you and they *should* honorably do has nothing to do with what's legally required. However, I think your inspection of the T&C will find that there's no contract until they ship (which is also when they bill your credit card).
So to reverse your question: Since they *do* allow their customers to do that, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?
Ummm..."shortly after midnight EST" is pretty damn close to "approximately 9 p.m. PST"! It doesn't sound like Symantec had much advance knowledge at all.
Back when I worked for FASA (1991, I think?) they modified the software for the BattleTech pods to make a Jeep Race simulator. We took them around to all the auto shows to let people "test drive" Jeeps.
Okay, people mostly let their kids play while they went to look at the real cars, but the idea of a "virtual test drive" was still there.
"Meet" might be correct, but shouldn't that be "too much" not "to much"?
Wow, you remember when 1 MB == 1000 MB. Now *that's* magic!!
I think your knee is jerking...
A decision by Wal-Mart or SMU has nothing to do with the First Amendment, but it has plenty to do with Freedom of Speech. They're trying to control the content of speech and general flow of discourse. That's why they're doing it! Of course it's completely legal and acceptable for them to do so. But that doesn't mean that Joe Slashdot isn't going to disagree with them. I think it's fair to assume that's what "Free speech and so on" meant.
Sure he should have been clearer. But unclear != wrong.
Damn, beat me to it. Just a little too slow...
It's a fully automated version of Everquest. Just start it up and watch your character advance.
How can you not love that?
. . .
Okay, I have no idea if they're any good. I just figured there had to be such a band, and found them with a quick search. I didn't even go to the trouble of listening to the MP3s they have posted. Someone give a listen and let me know, 'kay?
Are you claiming that PCs running Windows are used for heart monitoring equipment? In a situation where a crash would be fatal?? I have a couple of friends who work on medical software, and I'm not aware of any instances where that's the case. Do you have any evidence to back such a claim?
If an automaker builds a defective car, people die. If DVD players are defective, people don't get to watch DVDs. Clearly quality is more important in some places than others.
High quality costs more. Consumers want to pay less. (Even if the quality is less.) So manufacturers will tend to make lower quality products.
My point is that it's possible to have a great degree of freedom in a console game. That's a fairly recent development, and it removes a major difference between PCs and consoles.
Try Morrowind, which is on XBox as well as PC. It's a huge game with an immense amount of freedom.