You have too much to reply to. You truly underestimate how bad Uzbekistan is if you say it's only one death.
However, yet another survey group wrapped up their conclusion that Iraq never had WMDs before the war, and doesn't now. They were all destroyed in 1991. What other source can I quote for you? David Kay? Hans Blix? There were no weapons. Even Bush conceded the point. Give it up
Bush's rationale in the campaign speech was that Saddam Hussein had the capability of buying and manufacturing WMDs. Well so does Canada, and any country that has money. Heck, evern Bill Gates has the "capability." That reasoning is completely stupid.
Yeah the Sarin gas was confirmed, but it was a very small quantity. If the rebels knew that it had Sarin in it, wouldn't they lob it into the green zone, instead of letting it detonate on a roadside? You can't prove they knew it had sarin in it, and all signs point to it being an old shell from the Iran-Iraq war.
Of course Saddam Huessin was a bad man, but doesn't give carte blanche to us to do whatever it takes. Iran HATES the man, but refused to help remove him, because they correctly guessed our intentions. If we carried it out properly, then I wouldn't be complaining. Instead, the US cancelled the elections that were on schedule because pro-Iranians would win. Come on, now the US is blocking democracy in Iraq? Donating to specific Iraqi candidates who are pro-US? Screw that. The US is undermining the entire idea of democracy, the Bush administration never wanted to free the Iraqis, they just wanted military bases in Iraq to launch new attacks on their neighbors. Kuwait was getting small and lonely.
If you should prove that Iraq did not possess WMD, how could you ever do that?
Easy. Ask their defectors, interview their former scientists. Satellite shots, bribe officials. Go over to Nigeria and ask if they made any deals. Go through Ba'ath party documents, interview civilians, interrogate Saddam now that we've got him.
What WMDs are you speaking of? Gas? If that counts, then every country in the middle east has WMDs. Iraq's Sarin nerve gas from the 1990's was pretty much gone, after a few years it breaks down and turns into just water. If Iraq even had those WMDs, don't you think they would have used them on the invading US troops? They all wore gas masks during the invasion, but it turned out they didn't need it.
Yet? It's been a year, give it up. The US has been living there for a year, if they didn't find it they won't by now.
The Iraqi government doesn't make IEDs. Not only that, but there was no proof that it was WMDs anyway. You are referring to the case when an IED went off, and there were traces of Sarin at the scene. The experts say that it's likely someone took an empty shell left over from the Iran-Iraq war and turned it into an IED, not knowing that there was some leftover Sarin inside it. There are thousands of those shells lying near the border, an unexpected break on their part. Ever notice how the White House gave up trying to say there were WMDs?
Iraq Body count lists between 12976-15033 innocent civilian deaths.
If the war in Iraq was truly about liberation, then any number of other sovereign states should've had priority. I mean, the US has allied with Uzbekistan, a country with a horrendus human rights record (which boiled one of its dissidents alive). If the war in Iraq was about "weapons of mass destruction", then we would've found some by now. If the war in Iraq was about "ties to al-qaeda", then we should've hit the Saudis first, 15 of the 19 highjackers on 9-11 were Saudis. Shouldn't we have mopped up Afghanistan first? It looks really bad if the US withdrew its Special forces from the mountains of Afghanistan in order to put them to work hunting Saddam Hussein. We gave Bin Laden Months to get a lead. If the war was waged simply to procure cheap oil, then companies such as Haliburton would be clocking obscene profits in Iraq right now... hey.. (this paragraph copied from an earlier/. post some time ago)
According to the White House, the reports that Iraq submitted did not show that they were destroyed. I found it amazing that 24 hours after the Iraqi government released a 1500 page report disclosing what they had and used to have, the White House was calling it lies and omissions. Who reads that fast?
By March 2003, Iraq was destroying its Al-Samoud II missiles, the ones that if you stripped of all payloads somehow went slightly further than the UN sanctions allowed. Everybody knew it wasnt a big deal, a technicality really, as empty missiles would not be a threat and they'd never launch them empty anyway, but Iraq was getting rid of them anyway, they saw the threat of invasion looming.
Quickly skimming the UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections reports, I don't see any UN assertions that there were WMDs. In fact, the conclusion states" "we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s."
Main Entry: global
Pronunciation: 'glO-b&l
Function: adjective
1 : SPHERICAL
2 : of, relating to, or involving the entire world : WORLDWIDE (global warfare) (a global system of communication); also : of or relating to a celestial body (as the moon)
3 : of, relating to, or applying to a whole (as a mathematical function or a computer program) (a global search of a file)
- globally/'glO-b&-lE/ adverb
Kerry said, "that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
What does "global" mean in this sentence? Well, let's work down. It clearly does not mean "spherical," so that is out.
But it clearly also cannot mean "worldwide," which is what the White House is implying. Kerry very clearly meant no such thing. He started by saying that he would not give up the prerogative of going to war preemptively.
KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.
KERRY: I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."
How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way?
The "global test" Kerry speaks of relates in his mind to convincing "your countrymen" of the legitimacy of what you are doing, first and foremost. Convincing your own citizens cannot possibly be a "worldwide" matter. It is only in the last clause of the sentence where the rest of the world comes up. And there, Kerry is not suggesting that it be asked its opinion beforehand. He used the past tense. He is saying that only by first passing the global test with Americans could the US hope, after the fact, to prove to the world that what had been done was legitimate. W. from all accounts was never much good with things like tenses of verbs.
So, if "global" here does not mean "spherical" and does not mean "worldwide," then what does it mean? Kerry was obviously using the word in the third sense above, of "complete." Military action has to pass a complete test, in order to gain the entire confidence of the US public, in preparation for making a convincing case in the aftermath of the war to other countries.
Kerry is saying that Bush's reasons for going to war were flawed and incomplete, so that in some polls less than half of Americans now say it was justified. And if less than half of Americans can justify it, you can hardly expect that the Spanish should go on giving gold and lives for its sake. This unfortunate situation, Kerry is saying, is because the rationale for the war was deficient, incomplete, and less than global in the sense of thoroughgoing.
W. probably couldn't get out a word like "thoroughgoing" without tripping all over it, so Kerry did him a favor in using the shorter word "global." Unfortunately, W.'s dictionary doesn't seem to go
The UN believed Iraq had WMDs? Did their weapons inspectors tell them that? Did they find a problem in the thousands of pages that Iraq submitted presenting their evidence that WMDs were destroyed?
I'm surprised I don't see anyone complaining about how the Bush administration helped MS get off scot-free.
Go back to 2000. Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust laws. The court recommended a breakup, and lost early appeals I think. The media asked the candidates. Gore supported the ruling, but Bush didn't. Bush goes into office, appoints new DOJ officials. Surprise! The government backs down, and Microsoft goes from the brink of being split up, to guilty but no punishment.
Where is the Justice here? What happened to the howling/.ers? Did we all forget?
Steve Wozniak, co-creator of Apple and maker of the Blue Box, did prank call the Vatican one time with his invention.
"During one demonstration, Wozniak called the Vatican posing as Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and asked to speak to Pope Paul VI. Informed that the pope was sleeping but would be awakened, Wozniak lost his nerve and hung up."
It's not competition in that sense. If Apple were trying to prevent Real from running properly on their computers, then it could be a bigger deal, but restricting their own software is legal.
IIRC, the PGP client sent out some sort of malformed LDAP packets when it sent its key to the server. I managed to crash my university's router something like 19 times before I realized it was me. I cut off all Net access for days, people were fuming. Maybe this was it.
Funny you mention IBM and Nazi. The numbers tattooed on every Concentration Camp member's arms were actually IBM numbers linked to a punch card for each person.
I asked my doctor about this, and he said it's basically a long-acting Narcan (naloxone). He doubted it would really be mass-adopted, as it would render morphine and similar drugs worthless. Also, it would have some side effects, such as the person may no longer crave chocolate (it's tied into opiate receptors in the brain) and may no longer experience "runner's high". I doubt it will ever blossom into a big vaccine program.
Why grasp the sides of the book? I thought the easiest way would be to grab the top of the spine and pull back and down. Maybe a forklift on the bottom and a sort of hook on the top to grab the spine at the top and bottom.
Grabbing the sides seems frought with problems, ie. Books too tightly packed, pincers cant get in between books or pinch books either too hard, dimpling the covers, or not hard enough, dropping books.
What about my Mail.app checking my IMAP and POP accounts every minute? If a heavy traffic server like.Mac's can handle the load balancing of thousands of users simultaneously, can't they do the same for RSS? Load balancing isn't a Web-serving specific solution either.
Normally, yes. However, Apple announced earlier that they aren't making any more G4 iMacs and there is already a shortage of supply of the current model. There won't be iMacs for sale for a few months now. Their sales aren't going to drop if they're not selling them now.
Slashdot Mirror
However, yet another survey group wrapped up their conclusion that Iraq never had WMDs before the war, and doesn't now. They were all destroyed in 1991. What other source can I quote for you? David Kay? Hans Blix? There were no weapons. Even Bush conceded the point. Give it up
Bush's rationale in the campaign speech was that Saddam Hussein had the capability of buying and manufacturing WMDs. Well so does Canada, and any country that has money. Heck, evern Bill Gates has the "capability." That reasoning is completely stupid.
Yeah the Sarin gas was confirmed, but it was a very small quantity. If the rebels knew that it had Sarin in it, wouldn't they lob it into the green zone, instead of letting it detonate on a roadside? You can't prove they knew it had sarin in it, and all signs point to it being an old shell from the Iran-Iraq war.
Of course Saddam Huessin was a bad man, but doesn't give carte blanche to us to do whatever it takes. Iran HATES the man, but refused to help remove him, because they correctly guessed our intentions. If we carried it out properly, then I wouldn't be complaining. Instead, the US cancelled the elections that were on schedule because pro-Iranians would win. Come on, now the US is blocking democracy in Iraq? Donating to specific Iraqi candidates who are pro-US? Screw that. The US is undermining the entire idea of democracy, the Bush administration never wanted to free the Iraqis, they just wanted military bases in Iraq to launch new attacks on their neighbors. Kuwait was getting small and lonely.
Easy. Ask their defectors, interview their former scientists. Satellite shots, bribe officials. Go over to Nigeria and ask if they made any deals. Go through Ba'ath party documents, interview civilians, interrogate Saddam now that we've got him.
They still haven't found any.
Yet? It's been a year, give it up. The US has been living there for a year, if they didn't find it they won't by now.
The Iraqi government doesn't make IEDs. Not only that, but there was no proof that it was WMDs anyway. You are referring to the case when an IED went off, and there were traces of Sarin at the scene. The experts say that it's likely someone took an empty shell left over from the Iran-Iraq war and turned it into an IED, not knowing that there was some leftover Sarin inside it. There are thousands of those shells lying near the border, an unexpected break on their part. Ever notice how the White House gave up trying to say there were WMDs?
Iraq Body count lists between 12976-15033 innocent civilian deaths.
If the war in Iraq was truly about liberation, then any number of other sovereign states should've had priority. I mean, the US has allied with Uzbekistan, a country with a horrendus human rights record (which boiled one of its dissidents alive). If the war in Iraq was about "weapons of mass destruction", then we would've found some by now. If the war in Iraq was about "ties to al-qaeda", then we should've hit the Saudis first, 15 of the 19 highjackers on 9-11 were Saudis. Shouldn't we have mopped up Afghanistan first? It looks really bad if the US withdrew its Special forces from the mountains of Afghanistan in order to put them to work hunting Saddam Hussein. We gave Bin Laden Months to get a lead. If the war was waged simply to procure cheap oil, then companies such as Haliburton would be clocking obscene profits in Iraq right now... hey.. (this paragraph copied from an earlier /. post some time ago)
By March 2003, Iraq was destroying its Al-Samoud II missiles, the ones that if you stripped of all payloads somehow went slightly further than the UN sanctions allowed. Everybody knew it wasnt a big deal, a technicality really, as empty missiles would not be a threat and they'd never launch them empty anyway, but Iraq was getting rid of them anyway, they saw the threat of invasion looming.
Quickly skimming the UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections reports, I don't see any UN assertions that there were WMDs. In fact, the conclusion states" "we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s."
Pronunciation: 'glO-b&l
Function: adjective
1 : SPHERICAL
2 : of, relating to, or involving the entire world : WORLDWIDE (global warfare) (a global system of communication); also : of or relating to a celestial body (as the moon)
3 : of, relating to, or applying to a whole (as a mathematical function or a computer program) (a global search of a file)
- globally
Kerry said, "that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
What does "global" mean in this sentence? Well, let's work down. It clearly does not mean "spherical," so that is out.
But it clearly also cannot mean "worldwide," which is what the White House is implying. Kerry very clearly meant no such thing. He started by saying that he would not give up the prerogative of going to war preemptively.
The "global test" Kerry speaks of relates in his mind to convincing "your countrymen" of the legitimacy of what you are doing, first and foremost. Convincing your own citizens cannot possibly be a "worldwide" matter. It is only in the last clause of the sentence where the rest of the world comes up. And there, Kerry is not suggesting that it be asked its opinion beforehand. He used the past tense. He is saying that only by first passing the global test with Americans could the US hope, after the fact, to prove to the world that what had been done was legitimate. W. from all accounts was never much good with things like tenses of verbs.
So, if "global" here does not mean "spherical" and does not mean "worldwide," then what does it mean? Kerry was obviously using the word in the third sense above, of "complete." Military action has to pass a complete test, in order to gain the entire confidence of the US public, in preparation for making a convincing case in the aftermath of the war to other countries.
Kerry is saying that Bush's reasons for going to war were flawed and incomplete, so that in some polls less than half of Americans now say it was justified. And if less than half of Americans can justify it, you can hardly expect that the Spanish should go on giving gold and lives for its sake. This unfortunate situation, Kerry is saying, is because the rationale for the war was deficient, incomplete, and less than global in the sense of thoroughgoing.
W. probably couldn't get out a word like "thoroughgoing" without tripping all over it, so Kerry did him a favor in using the shorter word "global." Unfortunately, W.'s dictionary doesn't seem to go
The UN believed Iraq had WMDs? Did their weapons inspectors tell them that? Did they find a problem in the thousands of pages that Iraq submitted presenting their evidence that WMDs were destroyed?
But what ISN'T reality TV these days?
$12? Do they give you comfortable reclining chairs with that sort of price? What about free refills?
Where can I start with Episode 1?
I'm surprised I don't see anyone complaining about how the Bush administration helped MS get off scot-free.
/.ers? Did we all forget?
Go back to 2000. Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust laws. The court recommended a breakup, and lost early appeals I think. The media asked the candidates. Gore supported the ruling, but Bush didn't. Bush goes into office, appoints new DOJ officials. Surprise! The government backs down, and Microsoft goes from the brink of being split up, to guilty but no punishment.
Where is the Justice here? What happened to the howling
non-practicing?
It's not competition in that sense. If Apple were trying to prevent Real from running properly on their computers, then it could be a bigger deal, but restricting their own software is legal.
You did say Yes to their EULA, right?
IIRC, the PGP client sent out some sort of malformed LDAP packets when it sent its key to the server. I managed to crash my university's router something like 19 times before I realized it was me. I cut off all Net access for days, people were fuming. Maybe this was it.
Reminds me of the bugs Captain Midnight found in the satellite TV system. Did they ever fix it, other than encrypting the signal?
Funny you mention IBM and Nazi. The numbers tattooed on every Concentration Camp member's arms were actually IBM numbers linked to a punch card for each person.
You mean like Everything2?
Why grasp the sides of the book? I thought the easiest way would be to grab the top of the spine and pull back and down. Maybe a forklift on the bottom and a sort of hook on the top to grab the spine at the top and bottom.
Grabbing the sides seems frought with problems, ie. Books too tightly packed, pincers cant get in between books or pinch books either too hard, dimpling the covers, or not hard enough, dropping books.
That is why all the other democratic candidates jumped on him. They seemed to trash Bush less than they trashed Dean.
Fine, read what the poster above linked to, a video of the event. The yell happens 1:14 into the video. You tell me.
Wouldn't the sheer size of dats stolen indicate it was an inside job? 8.2GB doesn't just get downloaded off the server through the internet.
But Bicentennial Man wasn't that bad, wasn't it a similiar work?
What about my Mail.app checking my IMAP and POP accounts every minute? If a heavy traffic server like .Mac's can handle the load balancing of thousands of users simultaneously, can't they do the same for RSS? Load balancing isn't a Web-serving specific solution either.
Normally, yes. However, Apple announced earlier that they aren't making any more G4 iMacs and there is already a shortage of supply of the current model. There won't be iMacs for sale for a few months now. Their sales aren't going to drop if they're not selling them now.