Yes, entirely possible (why post as AC when you've got something constructive to say?). I was offering a plausible counter-proposal, not arguing what was actually happening. Based upon what has come out since I wrote this, I'm inclined to agree with your proposal in your last paragraph: Burkett holds a grudge and put these toghether himself. The fact that he requested that CBS get someone from the Kerry campaign to call him suggests two things: no Kerry campaign connection, and no sense at CBS.
Or in this case a script kiddie who's probably been hanging around/. to much. At any rate, I wouldn't hire one this soon after he had "learned his lesson." I'd wait and see if he can contribute to society before trusting him with my boxen. But if he's got a clean record after a few years, and has proven that he's trustworthy, and has the skills, yeah, probably.
Then we're in agreement that whoever did this is scum. Good to see some agreement can be reached. And yes, Dan Rather deserves anything that happens to him over this.
No, because I know something of the history of what Karl Rove does. You know, like bug his own office. And I'm not saying that this is true, only that I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Kerry or the DNC is behind the forgeries, since it's clear who is benefitting (the Administration) and that should have been clear in foresight to anyone who did forge documents - that they were so poorly forged they were bound to be exposed.
What does it say about the moral integrity of those who use what is leaked?
Not much. You've got a good point there. But which is the more important question: whether Dan Rather is an anything-for-the-ratings slimeball, or which of the campaigns (if it was either of the campaigns, and not just some wacko side org of either party, or some bizarre news junkie with no agenda) would stoop so low as to (very poorly) forge these documents? I know that if it were convincingly proven to me that someone forged these documents with Kerry's knowledge, or his "deniable" apathy, I'd have a very hard time voting for him, even though I think this Administration's foreign policy is the most poorly run in my lifetime, and that any third party vote (where I'd be likely to resort if necessary) would be in effect a vote for the Adminisration. Can you say the same? If it were proven that Karl Rove was behind this, as a dirty trick to discredit the Democrats, would you refuse to vote to re-elect GWB?
No, Otter, I'm not reading too much into "coordinated attack." "Coordinated attack" does not mean "the DNC coordinated the leaks on this and CBS and the Boston Globe just jumped on the story without doing proper fact checking" if that's what you meant. The way you used "coordinated attack" suggests that the editors of Globe, the DNC, and CBS sat down and coordinated an attack, and I don't think even you believe that.
As for Karl Rove - look, I'm not saying that he DID do it, I'm just saying that past history suggests we shouldn't dismiss the possibility that he did. In the end, anyone with half an ounce of brains should have been able to figure out where this would end up, if they did forge the documents.
And don't you think that the ease with which the forgery was exposed suggests that the forger is one of the most incompetent practitioners of his craft of the past decade?
The whole problem here is that the potential moderators don't have enough evidence or knowledge to accurately moderate the news. Look, I know from my mods that most of the time when I make a political comment, if the mods reflect the repllies, that liberals mod me up and conservatives mod me down - regardless of whether or not they know that what I'm saying is true. There are some exceptions - mostly conservatives who respond politely or constructively or at least logically and rationally, and who I assume would mod me up if I were making some kind of sense regardless of whether or not they agreed with my thinking. But for the most part, mods on news and political comment will be polarized and partisan.
So no, I think it is unlikely such a system would work.
No, it depends upon being able to convince CBS that they're genuine and then being to easily and convincingly impeach them. Look into how Karl Rove operates some time; if he were behind this, it wouldn't be the first time he got something potentially damaging to his candidate into the press in a way that would ultimately discredit it.
Look into the original Bush cocaine accusations (made by an ex-felon, but sourced to Karl Rove), the bug in Rove's office, the Bush debate practice tape that the Gore campaign dutifully handed over, and turned out to have been "leaked" by a Bush campaign staffer with no grudges against GWB - hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Rove directed Bush's ex-sister-in-law to leak that nonsense story to Kitty Kelley. Notice how quickly that story was discredited, despite the fact that the corroborating witness was Sharon Bush's own ex-publicist? Notice how all the attention has been drawn away from Sey Hersh's very important book?
The man is brilliant. He has the moral integrity of a styrofoam cup, but he's brilliant.
Um, if Karl Rove were behind this, that's exactly what he'd want to have happen - have it exposed immediately as a fraud. This isn't to exculpate CBS - they should have looked into the documents more closely. I just want you to ask yourself this question: are you really sure you know who benefited by all this?
Don't forget that Karl Rove has been known to do things like bug his own office. The assumption that this was a coordinated attack on GWB is just that, an assumption based upon the (perfectly legitimate anywhere except in politics, where this sort of thing usually ends up favoring the target) logic that GWB's campaign wouldn't forge documents that make them look bad. Do I think there are people on the left capable of doing something like this? Sure. But don't assume that just because the obvious benefit (if the documents hadn't been all but proven to be forgeries) would have redounded to Kerry means folks with Kerry's best interests at heart forged them.
RI's board of directors is chaired by U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) and includes former Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger, former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, current members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, and individuals from the private sector with backgrounds in international relations, business and government.
Yeah, this is ENTIRELY independent. Mind you, at least one member of the board has some independent ideas.
Q - I thought President Bush said in his speech that, "Either you're for us or against us....anyone who harbors terrorists, or fosters their activity," and he meant terrorists in general. Doesn't Saddam qualify?
A - We've got to be looking at priorities here. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have one thing in common, and that is they both hate the United States. Otherwise, they have very little in common.
As a matter of fact, my guess is, if it weren't for the United States, Osama bin Laden would turn on Saddam Hussein. Why? Because Saddam Hussein is the head of a Ba'athist party -- a secular, socialist party. He is anathema to the kind of world that Osama bin Laden wants to reinstall So he's part of the problem; he's not part of the solution. That doesn't mean they can't cooperate, and might not cooperate. But what I'm saying is we need to get our priorities straight, and we've got them straight right now. We're going after number one target.
Iraq could turn out to be number two, but there are a lot of other candidates. Hezbollah, for example, is a global terrorist network, which has attacked the United States and U.S. interests before. How about that?...We need to be skillful about this. We need to use scalpels, not sledgehammers.
In a stunning display of support for democracy and a strong rebuttal to critics of efforts to bring democratic reform to Iraq, 87% of Iraqis indicated that they plan to vote in January elections.
You mean, 87% of Iraqi RESPONDENTS indicated that they plan to vote in January elections. This is a self-selecting question: people likely to respond to a poll are more likely to go to the polls than people who don't respond to a poll. At any rate, everyone outside Iraq believes that Iraqis should have the right to self-determination. We believe the same thing of the people of China. But it wouldn't be a smart thing to invade China to effect that.
Plus there are the copyright issues. But as other subthreads have now convinced me, the author of this is using an old literary device of the "found item" (for instance, Eco's *Name of the Rose* pretends to be a translation of a lost account by Adso). He's the original owner of the card and the photos. Very clever.
I dunno. I don't remember any scenes of Chewbacca getting killed by a bunch of Jawas with a rocket propelled grenade launcher while helping Han search the deserts outside Mos Eiseley for Greedo's blaster.
Slashdot Mirror
/.ing is unobnoxious? Then we're not doing it right!
Ah. Glad to see they're not on Thursdays. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.
This sugar (glycoaldehyde) + a 3 carbon sugar = ribose = a building block of deoxyribonucleic acid. See the original link
Yes, entirely possible (why post as AC when you've got something constructive to say?). I was offering a plausible counter-proposal, not arguing what was actually happening. Based upon what has come out since I wrote this, I'm inclined to agree with your proposal in your last paragraph: Burkett holds a grudge and put these toghether himself. The fact that he requested that CBS get someone from the Kerry campaign to call him suggests two things: no Kerry campaign connection, and no sense at CBS.
Or in this case a script kiddie who's probably been hanging around /. to much. At any rate, I wouldn't hire one this soon after he had "learned his lesson." I'd wait and see if he can contribute to society before trusting him with my boxen. But if he's got a clean record after a few years, and has proven that he's trustworthy, and has the skills, yeah, probably.
Tell him to google kuai zi.
I just checked the US version. Greedo fires first by a few frames.
Then we're in agreement that whoever did this is scum. Good to see some agreement can be reached. And yes, Dan Rather deserves anything that happens to him over this.
And if CBS gave Burkett money for his role in "bring the documents to light," that would constitute fraud, no?
No, because I know something of the history of what Karl Rove does. You know, like bug his own office. And I'm not saying that this is true, only that I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Kerry or the DNC is behind the forgeries, since it's clear who is benefitting (the Administration) and that should have been clear in foresight to anyone who did forge documents - that they were so poorly forged they were bound to be exposed.
What does it say about the moral integrity of those who use what is leaked?
Not much. You've got a good point there. But which is the more important question: whether Dan Rather is an anything-for-the-ratings slimeball, or which of the campaigns (if it was either of the campaigns, and not just some wacko side org of either party, or some bizarre news junkie with no agenda) would stoop so low as to (very poorly) forge these documents? I know that if it were convincingly proven to me that someone forged these documents with Kerry's knowledge, or his "deniable" apathy, I'd have a very hard time voting for him, even though I think this Administration's foreign policy is the most poorly run in my lifetime, and that any third party vote (where I'd be likely to resort if necessary) would be in effect a vote for the Adminisration. Can you say the same? If it were proven that Karl Rove was behind this, as a dirty trick to discredit the Democrats, would you refuse to vote to re-elect GWB?
No, Otter, I'm not reading too much into "coordinated attack." "Coordinated attack" does not mean "the DNC coordinated the leaks on this and CBS and the Boston Globe just jumped on the story without doing proper fact checking" if that's what you meant. The way you used "coordinated attack" suggests that the editors of Globe, the DNC, and CBS sat down and coordinated an attack, and I don't think even you believe that.
As for Karl Rove - look, I'm not saying that he DID do it, I'm just saying that past history suggests we shouldn't dismiss the possibility that he did. In the end, anyone with half an ounce of brains should have been able to figure out where this would end up, if they did forge the documents.
And don't you think that the ease with which the forgery was exposed suggests that the forger is one of the most incompetent practitioners of his craft of the past decade?
So no, I think it is unlikely such a system would work.
No, it depends upon being able to convince CBS that they're genuine and then being to easily and convincingly impeach them. Look into how Karl Rove operates some time; if he were behind this, it wouldn't be the first time he got something potentially damaging to his candidate into the press in a way that would ultimately discredit it.
Look into the original Bush cocaine accusations (made by an ex-felon, but sourced to Karl Rove), the bug in Rove's office, the Bush debate practice tape that the Gore campaign dutifully handed over, and turned out to have been "leaked" by a Bush campaign staffer with no grudges against GWB - hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Rove directed Bush's ex-sister-in-law to leak that nonsense story to Kitty Kelley. Notice how quickly that story was discredited, despite the fact that the corroborating witness was Sharon Bush's own ex-publicist? Notice how all the attention has been drawn away from Sey Hersh's very important book?
The man is brilliant. He has the moral integrity of a styrofoam cup, but he's brilliant.
Um, if Karl Rove were behind this, that's exactly what he'd want to have happen - have it exposed immediately as a fraud. This isn't to exculpate CBS - they should have looked into the documents more closely. I just want you to ask yourself this question: are you really sure you know who benefited by all this?
Don't forget that Karl Rove has been known to do things like bug his own office. The assumption that this was a coordinated attack on GWB is just that, an assumption based upon the (perfectly legitimate anywhere except in politics, where this sort of thing usually ends up favoring the target) logic that GWB's campaign wouldn't forge documents that make them look bad. Do I think there are people on the left capable of doing something like this? Sure. But don't assume that just because the obvious benefit (if the documents hadn't been all but proven to be forgeries) would have redounded to Kerry means folks with Kerry's best interests at heart forged them.
Karkason is a surname. Travertine is a kind of marble. Lucchese is a kind of boot. Herbes is probably also a surname.
Naw, Mrs. Lopez (JL's mother) probably used it. Once. To her daughter. To cheer her up. Then added "Really!"
Keep the copies of the photos, maybe; but copyright to the photos? I won't believe that unless you can provide precedents. IANAL or a LS.
PS: Did anyone happen to look at who IRI is?
RI's board of directors is chaired by U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) and includes former Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger, former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, current members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, and individuals from the private sector with backgrounds in international relations, business and government.
Yeah, this is ENTIRELY independent. Mind you, at least one member of the board has some independent ideas.
Q - I thought President Bush said in his speech that, "Either you're for us or against us....anyone who harbors terrorists, or fosters their activity," and he meant terrorists in general. Doesn't Saddam qualify?
...We need to be skillful about this. We need to use scalpels, not sledgehammers.
A - We've got to be looking at priorities here. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have one thing in common, and that is they both hate the United States. Otherwise, they have very little in common.
As a matter of fact, my guess is, if it weren't for the United States, Osama bin Laden would turn on Saddam Hussein. Why? Because Saddam Hussein is the head of a Ba'athist party -- a secular, socialist party. He is anathema to the kind of world that Osama bin Laden wants to reinstall So he's part of the problem; he's not part of the solution. That doesn't mean they can't cooperate, and might not cooperate. But what I'm saying is we need to get our priorities straight, and we've got them straight right now. We're going after number one target.
Iraq could turn out to be number two, but there are a lot of other candidates. Hezbollah, for example, is a global terrorist network, which has attacked the United States and U.S. interests before. How about that?
In a stunning display of support for democracy and a strong rebuttal to critics of efforts to bring democratic reform to Iraq, 87% of Iraqis indicated that they plan to vote in January elections.
You mean, 87% of Iraqi RESPONDENTS indicated that they plan to vote in January elections. This is a self-selecting question: people likely to respond to a poll are more likely to go to the polls than people who don't respond to a poll. At any rate, everyone outside Iraq believes that Iraqis should have the right to self-determination. We believe the same thing of the people of China. But it wouldn't be a smart thing to invade China to effect that.
Plus there are the copyright issues. But as other subthreads have now convinced me, the author of this is using an old literary device of the "found item" (for instance, Eco's *Name of the Rose* pretends to be a translation of a lost account by Adso). He's the original owner of the card and the photos. Very clever.
Mod parent up. This is, so far as I know (IANAL), correct.
I dunno. I don't remember any scenes of Chewbacca getting killed by a bunch of Jawas with a rocket propelled grenade launcher while helping Han search the deserts outside Mos Eiseley for Greedo's blaster.
The EyeTV boxes do in fact have TV tuners. The EyeTV 200 is a FireWire based PVR-like device for Mac. (It's about $300, though).