Please tell me how bombing and killing thousands of innocent civilians, mostly under the age of 15 is protecting this country? Really, please, I really want to know.
You tell me how thousands of American lives lost was provoked. Tell me that it couldn't happen again. The consensus of the world is that Iraq poses a threat. I believe that removing that threat protects American interests and life. Diplomacy was something that I hope in all scenarios and I am willing to support it as far as it will go. However, I am not willing to see an impotent political process drag out for many more months or another 12 years. America has chosen a course with dire consequences amongst the positive outcome that I see as likely. Don't think that I am unaware of the innocents and bystanders that will be killed, harmed, or otherwise affected by this war. It is just my opinion and rational conclusion that there are no better alternatives than our current actions.
In any case, my post never really discussed my motive or opinion about the war. I just wanted to make the point that I ultimately respect those that fight for my country's culture, leadership, and beliefs.
Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Twelve years ago Saddam was not just Iraq's problem but also Kuwait's. He has been a problem to human rights all over the region and in the future may be a threat to the world. Do you dispute this? The international community didn't and doesn't now. They tried diplomatic pressure and other means with America alongside. It didn't work. Somtimes the policies of the world must be backed up with force, even when others are reluctant to do so. Yes that means terrible things might happen.
My hope is that someday you will grow up. Your opinion (which I think is ignorant) may still be the same, which is fine, but perhaps then you'll be able to make a mature argument to support it. Don't expect any more replies from me until you do.
Re:The only thing war has ever done is...
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
So your point is, what? Because there's similarities between Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq, therefore similar military action is justified?
You didn't really understand his post, did you? Been jumping around on your "jump to conclusions mat?" As far as the comparision of Iraq & 1940 Germany is concerned, it's not a worthless one. It was a time that showed the severe consequences that inaction can have on a nation's security. And take things into context now. Weapons are much more than they used to be. When measured in destructive capability, a nation does not need to have a large economy or population. All the poster seemed to say was look at history and learn something from it. That's the point.
Re:The only thing war has ever done is...
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Terrorism must be funded, accomodated, encouraged, and allowed by people that have static entities such as buildings, bases, and large, identifiable units like military forces. You're wrong anyway about terrorism. Terrorists can be large groups with known identities, even nations. War is a viable (hopefully last resort) means to deal with it in some cases.
Re:Early weird news reports
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
I'm through with CNN for good. Their unprofessional journalism and fallacious content-on-a-whim mislead the public and show disrespect for world events. The sad thing is that beyond C-SPAN there aren't any good alternatives. It's too bad we don't get the BBC here.
I don't agree with what they're doing, so I don't support them.
The troops carry out the orders and the interests of the United States of America at the direction of the President. If you don't agree with what they're doing, don't support him. The members of the armed forces make your life possible. They volunteer to protect your rights perhaps without knowing what they were getting into... only that they support this country, it's citizens, and it's values.
These people don't need to earn your respect, they deserve it.
Re:Not How its Supposed To Be
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Money to gain? Do you have any idea how much money the U.S. has already given in aid, will spend on the war, or will commit to the rebuilding of Iraq? People like you that describe the war as a cheap way to get oil are sorely misguided. I'd like to see your significant evidence that proves otherwise.
I may not totally agree with Bush but I'll do the job I was trained to do.
There may be some that would criticize you for doing so. Not me. The job you were trained to do was to protect this country and its values. Doing so, even amidst personal conflict, deserves the highest amount of respect. God bless.
Re:First war post!
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I agree. I take deep offense with the way CNN et al cover this material. Minutes ago I heard a woman broadcasting from the deck of an aircraft carrier trying to get the soldiers on the runway to wave at the camera. Wave!? WTF is that all about? The gross assumptions these broadcasters make is ridiculous as well. I remember on 9/11 seeing headlines that stated the National Mall was on fire. What service does this do for the public?
The countdown timers and journalistic techniques of yesterday only seem to create a sense of expectation in the audience. We all knew after Bush's speech that force was inevitable, but drumming up this sense of urgency in people is wrong. They want people to hang on their every word and worry like crazy about missing things.
I'd like to see more accountability and professionalism in broadcasting. On all but C-SPAN I see content designed to push every human button. The purpose of the media is to inform the public, not jump to conclusions. It's purpose is also, as you said, to remind us that this is not a game, rather than play one of its own
Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Why should I now support a war that my conscience tells me is both wrong and immoral?
The decision is made. Try to accept that and support the men and women that pledge their lives to support your freedoms.
... All fucktards who would otherwise have majored in "marketing" get back to whatever else you were doing.
... I realize that people of your age and younger weren't taught to read and comprehend very well due to the decline of our education system, so I guess that's understandable.
A system could be developed that uses a more decentralized approach than X.509 does today. Just like PGP uses a web of trust system to validate other people's keys, the same could work for SSL Certs.
But the problem is that you need to "know" enough certificates to be able to trust a stranger. And the role that the Certificate Authorities play now is to serve as the neighborhood mom to tell you who else you can trust to get that info. The trouble is finding a cheap and feasible way to distribute trust.
Why do so many/.ers get their panties in a twist over this issue? Site $foo doesn't want you to link to them - so the fuck what? Were you _really_ going to link to them anyway? Really? It seems like people go out of their way to find sites with restrictive linking policies, just so they can get everyone all steamed up about it.
Say I want to dispel the myths of the Church of Scientology and wish to link to their sites to aid my argument? Do you think they would agree? Imagine what would happen to the web if these linking policies were legally enforceable. The Web would degenerate rapidly, new content would be stunted, and information as we know it could become as inaccessible as it was before the WWW.
Also, here's another serious question. Say I publish a cool Lego Mindstorm project on my website, with a bunch of JPEGs. I'm hosted via a cable modem, so if I exceed a certain amount of bandwidth, I'm SOL and have to pay more money. Some guy finds my website, and submits it to Slashdot. Suddenly, my traffic spikes, and I'm over my monthly limit in just 24 hours. Is that fair?
No it's not really fair, but those are the risks. Slashdot bears a lot of responsibility and doesn't always make courteous decisions, but the onus is really on you to deal with whatever happens to your site. Apache has throttling software and there are plenty of hosts out there which wouldn't leave you with over-the-cap fees. The wrong thing to do would be attack a fundamental structure of the Internet. I mean, where would you draw the line anyway?
Yes, you can say "You shouldn't have put up the page if you didn't want people to see it", but do you, honestly, every time you put up a website, anticipate that it will be/.ed? No, of course you don't. So now, this huge traffic spike costs me real money. I have two choices: a) Create a linking policy; b) Remove my content. Chances are I'll choose (b), since I know/.ers will thumb their noses at (a). So now, the web has lost some content, and nobody benefits.
My answer would be c) Deal with it. There are ways to deal with a flood of traffic that won't leave you bankrupt or off the web for a month. There are ways to control access to your content as well. Posting content to the Internet is like putting a billboard on the Moon. Are you going to complain when the whole world looks?
You want to say linking policies are stupid? Fine. Want to say they're useless? Fine. That's well within your rights. But what do you propose sites do to combat the/. effect?
Linking policies shouldn't be enforceable that's for sure. If you make it public that you don't want people to link you site or flood you with traffic then they ought to respect your wishes. But shit happens. So be prepared for it.
In another twist, the vehicle can house an unmanned dronelike small aircraft that can hover over a nearby area and send live video back to the vehicle.
I wonder if they are referring to this thing which was supposedly licensed by the military. Slashdot covered it a while back.
I hate videos showing one model in a very simplistic scene and being hailed as 'most realistic 3D ever.'
Most of those videos are technology demos and are designed to show off specific aspects of the GPU. Placing the effects in the context of a realistic scene is the duty of those who develop the 3D apps. I'd rather see that a card can do some thing new and see how well it can do it rather than watch a video chock full of polygons and nothing else.
People are complaining that Windows costs have stayed the same over the years, despite inflation and a lot more features?
I'm complaining that I have to pay that much to get an OS that runs current programs. (Yes I run Linux too but it's not a complete alternative).
I wouldn't bitch and moan so much if my money didn't buoy so much other Microsoft development. I don't really want or need a media player or web browser or authenticated sign on or anything else that comes with Windows.
With hardware you can generally buy what you need in the capacity you need it. With windows you're stuck with expensive (Home editions) and more expensive (Professional editions) -- most of which I won't ever use.
That'd be great....assuming we actually knew how it was transmitted. Seeing as we don't, the article is educated guesswork at best, complete hogwash at worst.
Actually it's just education. It describes precautions and gives some useful tips to hunters. I didn't see any conjecture or false claims. Field dress precautions are especially important due to the fact that we don't know the means of transmission or impact of CWD.
Which would YOU prefer: Big Daddy filter deciding you're too young to know about Trojans, or Big Momma Librarian tapping you on the shoulder reminding you that mastrebating in public is an offense?
I prefer the Federal government to stay out of it. The libraries should be able to decide how taxpayers use their computers.
Yeah, I had to do a case study on Oral-B once. Access denied. Your tax dollars shouldn't be put to use limiting the amount of information you can access from a public library. All of the filtering systems out there are fundamentally flawed in similar ways. Thankfully we've got the First Amendment as ammunition against federally mandated filters.
You could route it through an anonymous proxy. Possibly one on a hacked Windows machine. I'm sure there are at least a few vulnerabilities to let you do just a thing.
This is just one example of how attackers mask their location.
...going by bike sucks since you can't bike on the sidewalk (unsafe, and I'll get to that later)...
As far as the safety thing.. I don't care how good you are on a bike you can't stop on a dime if you'er going at a good speed.. Until you actually see it in person you can't fully understand, but I saw a guy (from Deka) going down the side walk at probably 8-10mph.. he got to the intersection and STOPED, on a dime, because you have to lean back to make it stop you are already adjusting your center of balance, if you stopped that quickly on a bike you would either flip over the handle bars or wipe out. This is why a segway is safer.
You're right, riding a bike on a sidewalk isn't safe. It probably has more to do with overall maneuverability than stopping power.
I'm sure I could stop my bike just as fast/faster than a Segway at 8-10mph. Those things weigh 80lbs! The tire footprint is probably about the same as a bike. You can also adjust your center of balance on a bike and are supposed to in braking. Look at a pro mountain biker going downhill for an extreme example. And for the price tag on a Segway you could buy a bike with disc brakes that would stop a 900lb gorilla.
And let me just inject my opinion that while the world can always use more free time and safety, another excuse to put off exercise is not what we need. I know plenty of people that stand on escalators, take the subway just a few blocks, and take cabs the rest of the distance. Personally I think a bike or possibly a public transit option is more in the public interest.
Slashdot Mirror
You tell me how thousands of American lives lost was provoked. Tell me that it couldn't happen again. The consensus of the world is that Iraq poses a threat. I believe that removing that threat protects American interests and life. Diplomacy was something that I hope in all scenarios and I am willing to support it as far as it will go. However, I am not willing to see an impotent political process drag out for many more months or another 12 years. America has chosen a course with dire consequences amongst the positive outcome that I see as likely. Don't think that I am unaware of the innocents and bystanders that will be killed, harmed, or otherwise affected by this war. It is just my opinion and rational conclusion that there are no better alternatives than our current actions.
In any case, my post never really discussed my motive or opinion about the war. I just wanted to make the point that I ultimately respect those that fight for my country's culture, leadership, and beliefs.
Twelve years ago Saddam was not just Iraq's problem but also Kuwait's. He has been a problem to human rights all over the region and in the future may be a threat to the world. Do you dispute this? The international community didn't and doesn't now. They tried diplomatic pressure and other means with America alongside. It didn't work. Somtimes the policies of the world must be backed up with force, even when others are reluctant to do so. Yes that means terrible things might happen.
My hope is that someday you will grow up. Your opinion (which I think is ignorant) may still be the same, which is fine, but perhaps then you'll be able to make a mature argument to support it. Don't expect any more replies from me until you do.
You didn't really understand his post, did you? Been jumping around on your "jump to conclusions mat?" As far as the comparision of Iraq & 1940 Germany is concerned, it's not a worthless one. It was a time that showed the severe consequences that inaction can have on a nation's security. And take things into context now. Weapons are much more than they used to be. When measured in destructive capability, a nation does not need to have a large economy or population. All the poster seemed to say was look at history and learn something from it. That's the point.
Terrorism must be funded, accomodated, encouraged, and allowed by people that have static entities such as buildings, bases, and large, identifiable units like military forces. You're wrong anyway about terrorism. Terrorists can be large groups with known identities, even nations. War is a viable (hopefully last resort) means to deal with it in some cases.
I'm through with CNN for good. Their unprofessional journalism and fallacious content-on-a-whim mislead the public and show disrespect for world events. The sad thing is that beyond C-SPAN there aren't any good alternatives. It's too bad we don't get the BBC here.
The troops carry out the orders and the interests of the United States of America at the direction of the President. If you don't agree with what they're doing, don't support him. The members of the armed forces make your life possible. They volunteer to protect your rights perhaps without knowing what they were getting into... only that they support this country, it's citizens, and it's values.
These people don't need to earn your respect, they deserve it.
Money to gain? Do you have any idea how much money the U.S. has already given in aid, will spend on the war, or will commit to the rebuilding of Iraq? People like you that describe the war as a cheap way to get oil are sorely misguided. I'd like to see your significant evidence that proves otherwise.
There may be some that would criticize you for doing so. Not me. The job you were trained to do was to protect this country and its values. Doing so, even amidst personal conflict, deserves the highest amount of respect. God bless.
I agree. I take deep offense with the way CNN et al cover this material. Minutes ago I heard a woman broadcasting from the deck of an aircraft carrier trying to get the soldiers on the runway to wave at the camera. Wave!? WTF is that all about? The gross assumptions these broadcasters make is ridiculous as well. I remember on 9/11 seeing headlines that stated the National Mall was on fire. What service does this do for the public?
The countdown timers and journalistic techniques of yesterday only seem to create a sense of expectation in the audience. We all knew after Bush's speech that force was inevitable, but drumming up this sense of urgency in people is wrong. They want people to hang on their every word and worry like crazy about missing things.
I'd like to see more accountability and professionalism in broadcasting. On all but C-SPAN I see content designed to push every human button. The purpose of the media is to inform the public, not jump to conclusions. It's purpose is also, as you said, to remind us that this is not a game, rather than play one of its own
The decision is made. Try to accept that and support the men and women that pledge their lives to support your freedoms.
Quite understandable.
Bush stood up to overwhelming global opinion to do what he thought (and many Americans agree) is the right thing. That takes cojones and integrity.
or Opera (enable / disable with F12)
To make sure you're one of the first to reserve one?
A system could be developed that uses a more decentralized approach than X.509 does today. Just like PGP uses a web of trust system to validate other people's keys, the same could work for SSL Certs.
But the problem is that you need to "know" enough certificates to be able to trust a stranger. And the role that the Certificate Authorities play now is to serve as the neighborhood mom to tell you who else you can trust to get that info. The trouble is finding a cheap and feasible way to distribute trust.
Say I want to dispel the myths of the Church of Scientology and wish to link to their sites to aid my argument? Do you think they would agree? Imagine what would happen to the web if these linking policies were legally enforceable. The Web would degenerate rapidly, new content would be stunted, and information as we know it could become as inaccessible as it was before the WWW.
No it's not really fair, but those are the risks. Slashdot bears a lot of responsibility and doesn't always make courteous decisions, but the onus is really on you to deal with whatever happens to your site. Apache has throttling software and there are plenty of hosts out there which wouldn't leave you with over-the-cap fees. The wrong thing to do would be attack a fundamental structure of the Internet. I mean, where would you draw the line anyway?
My answer would be c) Deal with it. There are ways to deal with a flood of traffic that won't leave you bankrupt or off the web for a month. There are ways to control access to your content as well. Posting content to the Internet is like putting a billboard on the Moon. Are you going to complain when the whole world looks?
Linking policies shouldn't be enforceable that's for sure. If you make it public that you don't want people to link you site or flood you with traffic then they ought to respect your wishes. But shit happens. So be prepared for it.
I wonder if they are referring to this thing which was supposedly licensed by the military. Slashdot covered it a while back.
Most of those videos are technology demos and are designed to show off specific aspects of the GPU. Placing the effects in the context of a realistic scene is the duty of those who develop the 3D apps. I'd rather see that a card can do some thing new and see how well it can do it rather than watch a video chock full of polygons and nothing else.
People are complaining that Windows costs have stayed the same over the years, despite inflation and a lot more features?
I'm complaining that I have to pay that much to get an OS that runs current programs. (Yes I run Linux too but it's not a complete alternative).
I wouldn't bitch and moan so much if my money didn't buoy so much other Microsoft development. I don't really want or need a media player or web browser or authenticated sign on or anything else that comes with Windows.
With hardware you can generally buy what you need in the capacity you need it. With windows you're stuck with expensive (Home editions) and more expensive (Professional editions) -- most of which I won't ever use.
That'd be great.. ..assuming we actually knew how it was transmitted. Seeing as we don't, the article is educated guesswork at best, complete hogwash at worst.
Actually it's just education. It describes precautions and gives some useful tips to hunters. I didn't see any conjecture or false claims. Field dress precautions are especially important due to the fact that we don't know the means of transmission or impact of CWD.
This is a decent article that addresses how to clean a deer with caution and respect to CWD:
Cut with Caution: How to safely field dress deer
Which would YOU prefer: Big Daddy filter deciding you're too young to know about Trojans, or Big Momma Librarian tapping you on the shoulder reminding you that mastrebating in public is an offense?
I prefer the Federal government to stay out of it. The libraries should be able to decide how taxpayers use their computers.
Yeah, I had to do a case study on Oral-B once. Access denied. Your tax dollars shouldn't be put to use limiting the amount of information you can access from a public library. All of the filtering systems out there are fundamentally flawed in similar ways. Thankfully we've got the First Amendment as ammunition against federally mandated filters.
You could route it through an anonymous proxy. Possibly one on a hacked Windows machine. I'm sure there are at least a few vulnerabilities to let you do just a thing.
This is just one example of how attackers mask their location.
You're right, riding a bike on a sidewalk isn't safe. It probably has more to do with overall maneuverability than stopping power.
I'm sure I could stop my bike just as fast/faster than a Segway at 8-10mph. Those things weigh 80lbs! The tire footprint is probably about the same as a bike. You can also adjust your center of balance on a bike and are supposed to in braking. Look at a pro mountain biker going downhill for an extreme example. And for the price tag on a Segway you could buy a bike with disc brakes that would stop a 900lb gorilla.
And let me just inject my opinion that while the world can always use more free time and safety, another excuse to put off exercise is not what we need. I know plenty of people that stand on escalators, take the subway just a few blocks, and take cabs the rest of the distance. Personally I think a bike or possibly a public transit option is more in the public interest.