I don't really see them as parralell to high and low level languages except in available tools sometimes. I've seen fairly basic drawing programs with very few tools, fewer than well supplied oil painter might have in some cases.
I just see them as different. A low level understanding is of value in any endevor, and while a lot of people learn the low level material in learning sketching, sketching itself isn't the low level knowledge.
To use your programming analogy, just because you learned fundemental algorythyms in language foo then later aplied them to language bar doesn't mean foo is more fundemental than bar, even if bar is a more featurefull language or it has a more featurefull developement environment.
Dont' cofuse older with more fundemental. They often go together, but not necessarily.
Someone needs to explain that to my hands then. I can see things fine in my head, it's the translation to hand that is a pain.
I can translate other things motion wise, but drawing fairs poorly, even when I can see the translation to 2d from 3d clearly. However when I have a decent computer program I can at least get something recognizeable from time to time. Saying the hands can do whatever is in the mind is simply false.
Sub contracting helps in this though. The big companies often sub-contract out parts of the whole to little companies, especially niche players.
Sub contracting even aplies amoung the big companies. Once when Lockheed looked like it was going to loose a contract bid for some project or rather in the late 80's or early 90's my dad asked my uncle (who works for LM on some military project as a design engineer) if he was worried about it. He basically said "no I'll still get to work on it, it doesn't matter as much which of us (big areospace companies) gets it, the other two will still get alot of the work as subcontractors, just won't get the biggest piece of the pie". Though in quotes it's not an exact quote, just a paraphrase.
And that's pretty much what I expect would happen here, the big companies get the lions share, and the smaller companies get a healthy load of work as subcontractors.
A) standard pratice seems to be to bid about 80% of a realistic price then have 'cost over-runs' that about double the bid
and b) you have too much time on your hands if your fact checking the price of toilets as used in off the cuff manor to make a joke/sad commentary.:)(please assume humourus tone, no offence intended, etc.)
Because it's not reality that gets congressmen elected. It's the perceptions.
Also the special interest don't CARE about the overal picture in a congressional distict or state, the only care about thier specific picture. Why would they back a congressman that would make them actually compete, rather than just hand out contracts to the highest bidders (donations to political campain, not contract bids).
I'm not saying what you said makes no sense, I'm saying it makes to much sense.
Minor side nitpick, but I consider sketching and computer graphics different mediums. I've known people who could do wonders with one or the other medium but not both despite thier best efforts.
I've very little ability to draw by hand(or any other way to be honest), but somtimes my digital 'stick figures' actually resemble somthing kinda like what I intended, my hand drawn messes usually look best wadded up in the trash.
But then there are some who think painting is art and photography is just artless technology for those who can't do art.
No actually I wasn't saying deciphering bad html was easy to code, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I was questioning the wisdom of doing so silently in a roundabout way. It has, imho, led to making bad html to easy create sites that are broken and don't work well in other browser that don't use the exact same logic.
I've seen FF do a decent job on many sites that are not standards compliant also and not produce an error or warning, perhaps there is a setting to produce an error I'm unaware of (easily possible, I'm not error hunting, and elswise have few reasons to change FF's defaults),but if there is no setting to warn of potentially troublesome html I believe there should be. Of course an extension to toss the currently viewed page past the w3c validator would be a Good Idea if it doesn't already exist.
However some sites just don't render well outside of IE because if the devoloper doesn't see anything wrong in his quick check with IE he assumes it's fine(though many web devlopers should be slapped sensless for thier idea fine) and puts it up. Then when any other browser loads the site it's mangled(more so than intended).
Scientists are PLURAL, your reasoning above does not take that into acount.
try this: some scientist think everything is O.K. climate wise, some think the earth will average just below boiling before 2020, some think it will average just above freezing next week, some think we have a problem and some think other irrellevant things and some say whatever they think will get them the most funding irregardless of truth.
Groups two and three are most likely crackpots. Groups one and four conflict, but are reasonable. Only group four is likely to get more than 'thanks, that'll be all' and certainly won't get the press and attention and funding, and of course group five is ignored and group six will probably sound a lot like four.
Think it through and throw in due consideration for human nature and you'll see how the assertion you qouted tends to be true, minus the hyperboly, without needing your case three to be the rule, at best a very tiny subset as real scientist are rather likely to find the fakes in thier field.
" IE has the *highest* tolerance for broken HTML out there. "
However in this case it's more akin to "I work for the company with the highest tollerance for polluted air". At least that is what it's become.
It's like the guy who drives home half drunk so many times he stops worrying about it and figures he can do just as well all the way drunk.
And frankly it's not that IE will properly display any compliant html and do a good job of guessing when the html is mangled. It's more that IE will diplay most complaint html, it's own special add-ons, and often render mangled html in a useable fashion.
I've also seen site that perfectly 'valid' by w3c standards and were still broken because the 'web designer' was an idiot (fixed sized fonts that are two small to read on a 19" monitor at 800x600 resolution is my biggest gripe right now), And some site with bad markup that looked pretty good on both FF and IE before I completely abandoned IE.
So I do believe it's mostly the web designers who create the attrocious sites and most of the horrid sites, but this is in part because they design to IE and don't bother checking anything else out of sheer lazyness.
Except I'm not shure it has to bring the site down, or even slow it, to be a DOS attack.
At least I wouldn't be suprise if that was how courts would see it.
You are in effect denying service by making the use such service untennable, I don't think the mechanism (eigther by causing thier costs to skyrocket, or by overloading the server) makes to big a difference.
If say the company is in a jurisdiction where it's o.k. to send spam, and the spammer is within his isp's terms of services (say he pays the isp a little more for an exemption to thier rules against spamming) then I suspect it could put lycos on even shakier ground.
However IANAL and someone who knows the relevant part of the law may want to comment, and of course there is the issue of multiple laws, both within this (US) country and others.
Now before anyone decides I'm siding with the spammers, I most CERTAINLY am not. I think spam is major pain and waste of bandwith and would need firm controll of myself to NOT punch one of those a-holes in the face if I should meet one. I just worry that this will backfire in any one many BAD ways, such as a court rulling that gives spammers an easier time of spamming, someone hacking lycos's list server and doing a number on an innocent party, or some other unforseen result. And would like to see how likely some of these scenarios are, I think we have a clue on the hacked list scenario now.
The point is not being able to give your children an inheritance. You could do that just as easily as him without excessive copyright duration, the same way as him, save the money or invest in tangible assets such as a home or property.
What excessive copyright duration does is let *YOU* spend it all before you croak and still leave your children money, whereas he cannot live as well a life as you (on the same income) and still leave his decendants as much as you can.
Any wonder he considers you greedy for wanting special rules to let you have your cake and eat it to?
The powerline broadband idea didn't pan out, it created radio interference in unacceptable bands (including ham) and had other problems.
I don't know if there is a way around this or not, but basically the higher frequencies of broadband travelling down long highvoltage lines made them (the lines) effectively big radio transmitters. The only solution I can see is to require rf shielding on the lines to block the transmisions, which winds up being the same problem as upgrading telco wiring everywhere.
Might speed adoption of ipv6 if that put enough new people online to hurt the work arounds for the limits in ipv4 adress space. But you'd have to pretty much lock down most ports for 'standard issue' dial up, say limit it to pop3,usenet,imap, and web (blanking on the actual port #'s, too many numbers today), and frankly you could cut it to just web and let people use the free webmail sites and web-based usenet till they spring for a full isp account of some sort.
A part of the reason I suspect is the AGE of the US system, it was one of the first and there is a LOT of old copper in rural areas that I wouldn't be suprised to find out is poorly mapped.
Also in-equal regulations at the beggining may have had somthing to do with it, I suspect the original systems were regulated by several different jurisdictions and not at all in some.
But the reall killer is indeed population density, rural areas have a significantly lower density, so it's less profitable to upgrade 10 miles of lines for 10 people than it is to do 5 miles for 500 people.
And frankly large chunks are just patchwork messes, 15-50 homes lines run to an agreggator that strips down to voice freq range then combines them into one FO signal that travels a ways, get converted back to wire for a while then re-aggregated, then conveter to microwave and beamed a ways then smoke signalls then carrier pigeon and so on. I may have a few of those specific details wrong, but I hope the idea gets across, it's hard to maintain a high banwith signall with several medium changes when some of them are analog and some digital.
Yep that's all it takes, First set up with XP forgott to make shure the firewall was on. Blaster had it down in under five minutes. This was on a connection that somtimes gets 28.8 and somemtimes only 26.4.
" So here's the tricky part class: it's not IE or firefox that's broken, it's the sites."
Yes and no. I deffinately agree that about a third of the website developers out there (and or the phb's who instist on stupid web designs, can't tell from this end) should be taken out back and beaten whith a full printout of the w3c recomendation (in at least a 20pt font) and a few web design books till they eighter realize thier not cluefull enough to do web design or get said clue.
That said they couldn't be lazy like that if IE's settings BY defualt didn't make it possible. If IE was coded to obey standards, and it's security setting were decent by default, web designers would have those sort of sites break for an unacceptable number of people. Then the complaints would start, then thier employers would raise a fit. True some phb's would insist on the broken design being fixed yet still do all the things that required the broken code before IE started shipping with saner settings, but even they'd get a small clue when the 8th web designer they've hired this month tells them "it won't work, it can't be made to work".
And of course some sites would say "sorry but you browser has the wrong settings, please go here and here and set, run programs from websites to always." but at that point all IE can do warn "doing this will put your computer at risk from hacking" and the rest becomes end user clue-state driven.
Mycroft
Re:Does /. want endorsements from the NY Times?
on
Buggy Voting Machines
·
· Score: 1
I don't think that analogy holds, voting for weapons is not the same as voting to use them. Kerry did the later.
But my point was he should not have voted for somthing he did not want actually used (or so he was saying for a while). And if it was obvious Bush was going to war from the beggining then that would make it worse as it implies Kerry knew (or is to stupid to see the obvious) what the result of giving Bush the go-ahead would be.
A Better choice to support 'threatening' Saddam and make it clear that force would be used, but as a last resort, would have been to push for a resolution (non-binding) to give the go ahead if Saddam continued to be unco-operative. Admittedly this could have been harder to do (or less hard, depends on the internal politics of congress at the time), but it sound more like what Kerry claims his goal was. And there are likely other avenues Kerry could have explored.
And all this still sidesteps the fact that Kerry <i>supported</i> the ousting of Saddam, and the contention that Saddam had proscribed wmd's and wmd programs, in several speeches and statements before and after that vote, a strong indicator that support much more than just a 'threat' with his vote. He simply changed his tune to get the nomination, he even backed down from the anti-war rhetoric to a significant degree after he got it when it became clear Bush was getting significant support on the issue. It changed more to a difference of opinion on methodology rather than whether we should have or not.
Yeah, it doesn't suprise me. But some of these programs go past even that. Some are flat out ripoffs of other software (as in dissassemble code, change a few strings re-compile, sell) and some claim specific malware that only thier 'pro' version can fix, malware provably not on the machine (as fresh install of xp, no net connection, the free version of the scan software the ONLY software not on the xp disk installed, ect.). And in a few cases the software itself has installed malware.
Depends, programming CAN refer to behavioural modification. So I'f your tyring to make a joke, or wear a tinfoil hat. Then your translation works.
If not maybe in this cas 'filling' as in pouring full of might work.
I appretiate the compliment. And I do prefer insightfull replies to insightfull mods. I've plenty of/. Karma, which I rate lower than good conversation.
But yeah that's basically it. I phrased it to give people room to say 'glad I'm not one of <i>those</i> idiots. Rather than have them think ' i bet he thinks everyone is an idiot and probably me to'.
A corralary to this is that you don't necesarrily have to be rich or successull to get the reaction this creates, just carry yourself like you are. Controll of your own body language is a usefull art, though hard to make an automatic thing. I'm not that good at it (yet) but I've seen the difference carefull choices in gesture, posture, and wording can make.
Also being tall helps seriously, they've actually shown that taller people get more respect and better initial impressions from people accross the board.
LOL, actually I meant rogue, but I suspect that is known.
I can sometimes type out of sync hand wise, this usually puts a letters reached by the right hand in front of a letters reached by the left which should instead follow, I usually catch this proofreading, but I guesse my brain recognized rouge as a real word, but not as the WRONG word.
The scarry thing I sometimes do somthing simular verbally and use a simular, but not quite right contextually, word.
Mycroft
Re:Does /. want endorsements from the NY Times?
on
Buggy Voting Machines
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I wasn't talking about Kerry vote, (he says didn't mean to actualy USE force, well he shouldn't have voted that way then IMHO) I'm talking about what he actually said. He actually said that we shouldn't vote for him if we didn't believe Saddam should be removed because of his wmds. He said we should take him out. then when Dean got so much traction with jis anti-war crusade he adopted it. Conviently forgetting that he was for removing Saddam and considered, or at least apeared to consider, Saddam a real threat with wmds before the invasion as well as voted for the authority to invade.
Also getting Saddam removed from power started as a Clinton administration policy. Not that Bush wasn't ready to go ahead with it.
There are a lot of things you can point out that don't exactly show Bush in the best light (to put in mildly), but somehow claim the Iraq invasion and the WMD scandle isn't one shared by Kerry is false, the best you can say is that some of the time Kerry left hedge words, or worded things to give himself semantic loopholes should he change his mind.
Mycroft
Re:Does /. want endorsements from the NY Times?
on
Buggy Voting Machines
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Actually Kerry's records are not, last time I checked, open for examination. He's refused to sign the form allowing full public disclosure of his records.
Bush has signed this form, however some (NOT all) of his records are missing or incomplete.
I suspect BOTH are avoid unpleasant items in thier record.
Oh yeah, those 'lies' you are talking about I assume to be the wmd screwup? If so please note Kerry also supported invasion on those grounds, even to the point of advising people who did not believe him to NOT vote for him. He changed his tune later for political convience.
Kerry and Bush are both Yale graduates and members of the Skull and Bones secret society. If you honestly think thier not in this as co-conspiritors (so to speak) your exactly thier kinda sheep, keep up the good work. At best this(the presidential race) was just a friendly competition. At worst it was sham to deprive the people of a real choice in the election.
It is also the non-partisians who's vote is effected by misleading or biased exit poll reporting.
I know it's dumb, but there ARE people who feel compelled to vote for 'the winner'. Thier ego's are so week, or they so desire to be on the winning side, that they vote for whomever is ahead.
Also there are people who honestly can't decide who to vote for, but feel they must vote, so the assume if one candidate is significantly ahead then they must be the better candidate or so many wouldn't be voting for him.
Plus Both sides have reason to fear "oh we've lost then no point trying" or "Well we've won, no point wasting my time if we got it so in hand." Neigther side is willing to lose a vote through eigther circumstance. This is why exit polling was so downplayed this time around, after the debacle on the calling of florida last time.
Plus the demographics for not voting because "we/they already won" is not necesarily and even distribution for both parties in every precinct. In some party A) will lose or gain votes from thier side more than party B) and in others it's the other way around. This happens in the wrong precint in the wrong state and a lot of electoral college votes could shift if it's a close race.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really see them as parralell to high and low level languages except in available tools sometimes. I've seen fairly basic drawing programs with very few tools, fewer than well supplied oil painter might have in some cases.
I just see them as different.
A low level understanding is of value in any endevor, and while a lot of people learn the low level material in learning sketching, sketching itself isn't the low level knowledge.
To use your programming analogy, just because you learned fundemental algorythyms in language foo then later aplied them to language bar doesn't mean foo is more fundemental than bar, even if bar is a more featurefull language or it has a more featurefull developement environment.
Dont' cofuse older with more fundemental. They often go together, but not necessarily.
Mycroft
Someone needs to explain that to my hands then. I can see things fine in my head, it's the translation to hand that is a pain.
I can translate other things motion wise, but drawing fairs poorly, even when I can see the translation to 2d from 3d clearly. However when I have a decent computer program I can at least get something recognizeable from time to time. Saying the hands can do whatever is in the mind is simply false.
Mycroft
Sub contracting helps in this though. The big companies often sub-contract out parts of the whole to little companies, especially niche players.
Sub contracting even aplies amoung the big companies. Once when Lockheed looked like it was going to loose a contract bid for some project or rather in the late 80's or early 90's my dad asked my uncle (who works for LM on some military project as a design engineer) if he was worried about it. He basically said "no I'll still get to work on it, it doesn't matter as much which of us (big areospace companies) gets it, the other two will still get alot of the work as subcontractors, just won't get the biggest piece of the pie". Though in quotes it's not an exact quote, just a paraphrase.
And that's pretty much what I expect would happen here, the big companies get the lions share, and the smaller companies get a healthy load of work as subcontractors.
Mycroft
A) standard pratice seems to be to bid about 80% of a realistic price then have 'cost over-runs' that about double the bid :)(please assume humourus tone, no offence intended, etc.)
and
b) you have too much time on your hands if your fact checking the price of toilets as used in off the cuff manor to make a joke/sad commentary.
Mycroft
Because it's not reality that gets congressmen elected. It's the perceptions.
Also the special interest don't CARE about the overal picture in a congressional distict or state, the only care about thier specific picture. Why would they back a congressman that would make them actually compete, rather than just hand out contracts to the highest bidders (donations to political campain, not contract bids).
I'm not saying what you said makes no sense, I'm saying it makes to much sense.
Mycroft
Minor side nitpick, but I consider sketching and computer graphics different mediums. I've known people who could do wonders with one or the other medium but not both despite thier best efforts.
I've very little ability to draw by hand(or any other way to be honest), but somtimes my digital 'stick figures' actually resemble somthing kinda like what I intended, my hand drawn messes usually look best wadded up in the trash.
But then there are some who think painting is art and photography is just artless technology for those who can't do art.
Mycroft
No actually I wasn't saying deciphering bad html was easy to code, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I was questioning the wisdom of doing so silently in a roundabout way. It has, imho, led to making bad html to easy create sites that are broken and don't work well in other browser that don't use the exact same logic.
I've seen FF do a decent job on many sites that are not standards compliant also and not produce an error or warning, perhaps there is a setting to produce an error I'm unaware of (easily possible, I'm not error hunting, and elswise have few reasons to change FF's defaults),but if there is no setting to warn of potentially troublesome html I believe there should be. Of course an extension to toss the currently viewed page past the w3c validator would be a Good Idea if it doesn't already exist.
However some sites just don't render well outside of IE because if the devoloper doesn't see anything wrong in his quick check with IE he assumes it's fine(though many web devlopers should be slapped sensless for thier idea fine) and puts it up. Then when any other browser loads the site it's mangled(more so than intended).
Mycroft
Scientists are PLURAL, your reasoning above does not take that into acount.
try this: some scientist think everything is O.K. climate wise, some think the earth will average just below boiling before 2020, some think it will average just above freezing next week, some think we have a problem and some think other irrellevant things and some say whatever they think will get them the most funding irregardless of truth.
Groups two and three are most likely crackpots. Groups one and four conflict, but are reasonable. Only group four is likely to get more than 'thanks, that'll be all' and certainly won't get the press and attention and funding, and of course group five is ignored and group six will probably sound a lot like four.
Think it through and throw in due consideration for human nature and you'll see how the assertion you qouted tends to be true, minus the hyperboly, without needing your case three to be the rule, at best a very tiny subset as real scientist are rather likely to find the fakes in thier field.
Mycroft
" IE has the *highest* tolerance for broken HTML out there. "
However in this case it's more akin to "I work for the company with the highest tollerance for polluted air". At least that is what it's become.
It's like the guy who drives home half drunk so many times he stops worrying about it and figures he can do just as well all the way drunk.
And frankly it's not that IE will properly display any compliant html and do a good job of guessing when the html is mangled. It's more that IE will diplay most complaint html, it's own special add-ons, and often render mangled html in a useable fashion.
I've also seen site that perfectly 'valid' by w3c standards and were still broken because the 'web designer' was an idiot (fixed sized fonts that are two small to read on a 19" monitor at 800x600 resolution is my biggest gripe right now), And some site with bad markup that looked pretty good on both FF and IE before I completely abandoned IE.
So I do believe it's mostly the web designers who create the attrocious sites and most of the horrid sites, but this is in part because they design to IE and don't bother checking anything else out of sheer lazyness.
Mycroft
Except I'm not shure it has to bring the site down, or even slow it, to be a DOS attack.
At least I wouldn't be suprise if that was how courts would see it.
You are in effect denying service by making the use such service untennable, I don't think the mechanism (eigther by causing thier costs to skyrocket, or by overloading the server) makes to big a difference.
If say the company is in a jurisdiction where it's o.k. to send spam, and the spammer is within his isp's terms of services (say he pays the isp a little more for an exemption to thier rules against spamming) then I suspect it could put lycos on even shakier ground.
However IANAL and someone who knows the relevant part of the law may want to comment, and of course there is the issue of multiple laws, both within this (US) country and others.
Now before anyone decides I'm siding with the spammers, I most CERTAINLY am not. I think spam is major pain and waste of bandwith and would need firm controll of myself to NOT punch one of those a-holes in the face if I should meet one. I just worry that this will backfire in any one many BAD ways, such as a court rulling that gives spammers an easier time of spamming, someone hacking lycos's list server and doing a number on an innocent party, or some other unforseen result. And would like to see how likely some of these scenarios are, I think we have a clue on the hacked list scenario now.
Mycroft
Sorry, but the Dems do it also. The biggest difference in the two major parties these days is rhetoric.
Mycroft
The point is not being able to give your children an inheritance. You could do that just as easily as him without excessive copyright duration, the same way as him, save the money or invest in tangible assets such as a home or property.
What excessive copyright duration does is let *YOU* spend it all before you croak and still leave your children money, whereas he cannot live as well a life as you (on the same income) and still leave his decendants as much as you can.
Any wonder he considers you greedy for wanting special rules to let you have your cake and eat it to?
Mycroft
The powerline broadband idea didn't pan out, it created radio interference in unacceptable bands (including ham) and had other problems.
I don't know if there is a way around this or not, but basically the higher frequencies of broadband travelling down long highvoltage lines made them (the lines) effectively big radio transmitters. The only solution I can see is to require rf shielding on the lines to block the transmisions, which winds up being the same problem as upgrading telco wiring everywhere.
Mycroft
Might speed adoption of ipv6 if that put enough new people online to hurt the work arounds for the limits in ipv4 adress space. But you'd have to pretty much lock down most ports for 'standard issue' dial up, say limit it to pop3,usenet,imap, and web (blanking on the actual port #'s, too many numbers today), and frankly you could cut it to just web and let people use the free webmail sites and web-based usenet till they spring for a full isp account of some sort.
Mycroft
A part of the reason I suspect is the AGE of the US system, it was one of the first and there is a LOT of old copper in rural areas that I wouldn't be suprised to find out is poorly mapped.
Also in-equal regulations at the beggining may have had somthing to do with it, I suspect the original systems were regulated by several different jurisdictions and not at all in some.
But the reall killer is indeed population density, rural areas have a significantly lower density, so it's less profitable to upgrade 10 miles of lines for 10 people than it is to do 5 miles for 500 people.
And frankly large chunks are just patchwork messes, 15-50 homes lines run to an agreggator that strips down to voice freq range then combines them into one FO signal that travels a ways, get converted back to wire for a while then re-aggregated, then conveter to microwave and beamed a ways then smoke signalls then carrier pigeon and so on. I may have a few of those specific details wrong, but I hope the idea gets across, it's hard to maintain a high banwith signall with several medium changes when some of them are analog and some digital.
Mycroft
Yep that's all it takes, First set up with XP forgott to make shure the firewall was on. Blaster had it down in under five minutes. This was on a connection that somtimes gets 28.8 and somemtimes only 26.4.
Mycroft
" So here's the tricky part class: it's not IE or firefox that's broken, it's the sites."
Yes and no. I deffinately agree that about a third of the website developers out there (and or the phb's who instist on stupid web designs, can't tell from this end) should be taken out back and beaten whith a full printout of the w3c recomendation (in at least a 20pt font) and a few web design books till they eighter realize thier not cluefull enough to do web design or get said clue.
That said they couldn't be lazy like that if IE's settings BY defualt didn't make it possible. If IE was coded to obey standards, and it's security setting were decent by default, web designers would have those sort of sites break for an unacceptable number of people. Then the complaints would start, then thier employers would raise a fit. True some phb's would insist on the broken design being fixed yet still do all the things that required the broken code before IE started shipping with saner settings, but even they'd get a small clue when the 8th web designer they've hired this month tells them "it won't work, it can't be made to work".
And of course some sites would say "sorry but you browser has the wrong settings, please go here and here and set, run programs from websites to always." but at that point all IE can do warn "doing this will put your computer at risk from hacking" and the rest becomes end user clue-state driven.
Mycroft
I don't think that analogy holds, voting for weapons is not the same as voting to use them. Kerry did the later.
But my point was he should not have voted for somthing he did not want actually used (or so he was saying for a while). And if it was obvious Bush was going to war from the beggining then that would make it worse as it implies Kerry knew (or is to stupid to see the obvious) what the result of giving Bush the go-ahead would be.
A Better choice to support 'threatening' Saddam and make it clear that force would be used, but as a last resort, would have been to push for a resolution (non-binding) to give the go ahead if Saddam continued to be unco-operative. Admittedly this could have been harder to do (or less hard, depends on the internal politics of congress at the time), but it sound more like what Kerry claims his goal was. And there are likely other avenues Kerry could have explored.
And all this still sidesteps the fact that Kerry <i>supported</i> the ousting of Saddam, and the contention that Saddam had proscribed wmd's and wmd programs, in several speeches and statements before and after that vote, a strong indicator that support much more than just a 'threat' with his vote. He simply changed his tune to get the nomination, he even backed down from the anti-war rhetoric to a significant degree after he got it when it became clear Bush was getting significant support on the issue. It changed more to a difference of opinion on methodology rather than whether we should have or not.
Mycroft
Yeah, it doesn't suprise me. But some of these programs go past even that. Some are flat out ripoffs of other software (as in dissassemble code, change a few strings re-compile, sell) and some claim specific malware that only thier 'pro' version can fix, malware provably not on the machine (as fresh install of xp, no net connection, the free version of the scan software the ONLY software not on the xp disk installed, ect.). And in a few cases the software itself has installed malware.
Mycroft
Depends, programming CAN refer to behavioural modification. So I'f your tyring to make a joke, or wear a tinfoil hat. Then your translation works.
If not maybe in this cas 'filling' as in pouring full of might work.
Mycroft
I appretiate the compliment. And I do prefer insightfull replies to insightfull mods. I've plenty of /. Karma, which I rate lower than good conversation.
But yeah that's basically it. I phrased it to give people room to say 'glad I'm not one of <i>those</i> idiots. Rather than have them think ' i bet he thinks everyone is an idiot and probably me to'.
A corralary to this is that you don't necesarrily have to be rich or successull to get the reaction this creates, just carry yourself like you are. Controll of your own body language is a usefull art, though hard to make an automatic thing. I'm not that good at it (yet) but I've seen the difference carefull choices in gesture, posture, and wording can make.
Also being tall helps seriously, they've actually shown that taller people get more respect and better initial impressions from people accross the board.
Mycroft
LOL, actually I meant rogue, but I suspect that is known.
I can sometimes type out of sync hand wise, this usually puts a letters reached by the right hand in front of a letters reached by the left which should instead follow, I usually catch this proofreading, but I guesse my brain recognized rouge as a real word, but not as the WRONG word.
The scarry thing I sometimes do somthing simular verbally and use a simular, but not quite right contextually, word.
Mycroft
I wasn't talking about Kerry vote, (he says didn't mean to actualy USE force, well he shouldn't have voted that way then IMHO) I'm talking about what he actually said. He actually said that we shouldn't vote for him if we didn't believe Saddam should be removed because of his wmds. He said we should take him out. then when Dean got so much traction with jis anti-war crusade he adopted it. Conviently forgetting that he was for removing Saddam and considered, or at least apeared to consider, Saddam a real threat with wmds before the invasion as well as voted for the authority to invade.
Also getting Saddam removed from power started as a Clinton administration policy. Not that Bush wasn't ready to go ahead with it.
There are a lot of things you can point out that don't exactly show Bush in the best light (to put in mildly), but somehow claim the Iraq invasion and the WMD scandle isn't one shared by Kerry is false, the best you can say is that some of the time Kerry left hedge words, or worded things to give himself semantic loopholes should he change his mind.
Mycroft
Actually Kerry's records are not, last time I checked, open for examination. He's refused to sign the form allowing full public disclosure of his records.
Bush has signed this form, however some (NOT all) of his records are missing or incomplete.
I suspect BOTH are avoid unpleasant items in thier record.
Oh yeah, those 'lies' you are talking about I assume to be the wmd screwup? If so please note Kerry also supported invasion on those grounds, even to the point of advising people who did not believe him to NOT vote for him. He changed his tune later for political convience.
Kerry and Bush are both Yale graduates and members of the Skull and Bones secret society. If you honestly think thier not in this as co-conspiritors (so to speak) your exactly thier kinda sheep, keep up the good work. At best this(the presidential race) was just a friendly competition. At worst it was sham to deprive the people of a real choice in the election.
Mycroft
It is also the non-partisians who's vote is effected by misleading or biased exit poll reporting.
I know it's dumb, but there ARE people who feel compelled to vote for 'the winner'. Thier ego's are so week, or they so desire to be on the winning side, that they vote for whomever is ahead.
Also there are people who honestly can't decide who to vote for, but feel they must vote, so the assume if one candidate is significantly ahead then they must be the better candidate or so many wouldn't be voting for him.
Plus Both sides have reason to fear "oh we've lost then no point trying" or "Well we've won, no point wasting my time if we got it so in hand." Neigther side is willing to lose a vote through eigther circumstance. This is why exit polling was so downplayed this time around, after the debacle on the calling of florida last time.
Plus the demographics for not voting because "we/they already won" is not necesarily and even distribution for both parties in every precinct. In some party A) will lose or gain votes from thier side more than party B) and in others it's the other way around. This happens in the wrong precint in the wrong state and a lot of electoral college votes could shift if it's a close race.
Mycroft