Yes, but on the other hand a glaring flaw in the depiction of a knowledge area with which you are familiar can detract from the experience. I'm sure there are many doctors and biomedical researchers that cringe every time they see movies about bioweapons and genetically-engineered mutant monsters.
True, but it gets a little tricky. If you're an hourly employee, and you get your hourly pay (including any required or agreed-upon overtime), it's time to STFU. But salaried folks are a bit different. It's often expected (not without reason, depending upon the particular position and its responsibilities) that a salaried employee would put in some unspecified amount of time beyond the basic 40 hours (or whatever that is where you are.) For example, in my job I generally just work my regular hours, but it's expected that if a problem occurs or there is some other transient need that requires extra effort that we'll all pull together and take care of it. That's only ethical behavior on our part (don't want to leave a customer hanging in the wind) and the company is careful enough not demand that kind of plus time too often.
But yeah, when a company tries to save payroll costs by squeezing its staff too hard, management has no right whatsoever to expect anything resembling loyalty from said employees... yet it does! That's the amazing thing. Some of these guys honestly don't understand why their people would resent working 80 hour weeks, especially when the managers leave on time every day. The problems start when corporate types begin to see their underlings as "lucky to have a job". Things usually go from bad to worse at that point.
And once that kind of corporate behavior becomes widespread (which it most certainly has here in the U.S.), employee loyalty drops and turnover increases. Workers feel no particular involvement with the success or failure of their employer, and will leave at the drop of a hat... and that's only rational behavior because they know that, with rare exceptions, employers cannot be trusted any longer. Corporate America got what it wanted: a ruthless generation of management that considers people to be replaceable components of limited utility, all in the name of more efficiency and lower costs. And when they discovered that we could be replaced with foreign labor at even greater (apparent) savings, they jumped at the chance. The irony is that they screwed themselves too, and we're all paying the price for their inhumanity
There are a lot of Carly Fiorinas running the show nowadays: the work force is expendable.
I wish it were just handwaving and wasted money, because then it would be just like a lot of other Federal programs. Unfortunately, this one has the potential to screw a lot of people over, bigtime, for a long time. So far as I know, I'm not one of them yet. But then again, I won't know until I try to board an airplane... and can't.
Just like our public institutions have managed to sustain the impression of WWII as "the good war", where we were fighting real evil, the administration sees the chance to frame bombing Iran as "the good war" of Bush. Iran is making it very easy for them.
Um... what exactly wasn't "evil" about the Nazi and Japanese war machines? Pointless, unrestrained brutality is one manifestation of evil, one that has cost the lives of billions of people throughout history. Such brutality was the Nazi hallmark, and their erstwhile ally Japan was no better. To claim that Allied efforts in World War II were somehow tainted or misguided is insane: as a matter of fact, the U.S. tried very hard to ignore what was happening in Europe. When England asked for our help, our response was to come up with "Lend Lease", hoping that the Brits could handle Germany by themselves. They couldn't, and that delay cost a lot of lives, when you get right down to it. Had we put paid to Hitler before he got moving World War II might have amounted to little more than the first Gulf War. The arguably even-more-brutal Japanese military regime was a perfect partner for Germany at the time, but they might not have gone to war had we not let Germany go as far as it did before doing anything about it.
So far as any war effort can be considered "good", I'd say that World War II was one of them. Ask the French how they felt about us when we moved into Paris. Ask the British how they felt when our men and war materiel started arriving at their ports. I understand your desire to provide valid criticism of the current Administration, but your comment demeans the thousands of Allied soldiers that died putting real evil back in the bottle, and the millions of U.S. citizens that worked hard to make it possible.
To imply that any Microsoft product is "written for security" is even more ignorant. Each successive version of Microsoft Windows is marketed as being "the most secure Windows to date!" which, while sometimes true, is a far cry from being actually secure. A more reasonable summation might be that Microsoft never gets anything right on the first release. Technically, they rarely get everything right ever, but from a security perspective it would be wise to stick with known quantities (2K and XP) and wait for the first service pack or two before jumping on Vista. That is, if security is at all important to you.
There's a reason why smart people put their Windows machines behind non-Windows firewalls, and don't use Microsoft applications to provide Internet and Web services. I mean, most of us don't trust Microsoft to keep their word about, well, much of anything so I see no reason to accept their assurances that Vista was "written for security."
The real question is why BMG didn't lay down some 'internal investigation' and peg some low-level (scape)goat.
Probably because so much information about the fiasco was already out, including the names of the two companies that provided the technology, and because they were already under investigation by a couple of Attorney Generals. Unless you want to lie to a court and fabricate evidence it's hard to pick a scapegoat at that point.
It's not quite that black and white. There is a fundamental difference between good security, and absolute security. What the government is promising us is absolute security if we just give up the Constitution. Would that be a worthwhile trade-off? Not to me, certainly, but some might accept it if it was possible to have absolute security. As you correctly pointed out, it isn't. However, that doesn't mean that ordinary good security isn't worth striving for. It can be done. Other nations have managed to do it without abusing their own citizens with "no fly" lists and "scores" and all the rest of the TSA claptrap. The reasons we have failed in this regard are political not practical.
My problem with the TSA is that it is an organization infected by unaccountability, that has been repeatedly shown to be ineffective at accomplishing its Congressionally-mandated tasks, has lied to Congress (and us!), and is a civil liberties nightmare. It's time for Congress to just give it up as a bad job. My fear is that it has become too bureaucratically-entrenched to be eliminated at this point, much like the DHS itself.
On the other hand, it is always best to make the enemy pay for what he takes, and if we raise the bar enough to make things difficult for would-be terrorists that's a good thing. All terrorists are not the same, so if nothing else, maybe we'll catch the really stupid ones. The professionals will get through no matter what, but there's no good reason to make it easy for them. And the harder they have to work, the odds get better that they'll make a mistake.
Of course, that would mean spending significant amounts of money on the human element, which means airport guards and security people that are properly trained and well-paid. Period. Probably Israel's national airline could give us some pointers in that regard. For some reason, the TSA seems to be much more interested in half-baked technological "solutions" to the problem of providing good security (at considerable profit to the vendors of such solutions) rather than implementing proven techniques for securing an installation. Why has that not been done? They seem to be pretty free with our money on their other pet projects.
Any way you look at this, it's a trade-off between our traditional way of life and personal security: the only question is at what point do we stop trading rights for some vague idea of "security". The government won't tell us what it is doing, won't give us any numbers to help to quantify the real value of these programs, and insists on using emotional appeals to push this crap on us. In general, that's a sign of bad government and it goes well beyond airport security.
I agree. Granted, with developer-level technology such as this you can survive to some degree on the your merits, but you're right: some promotion would be in order. On the other hand, would you like to be the market droid in charge of popularizing "Flac", "Theora", and "Vorbis", all produced by an organization with a moniker of "Ogg"? Seriously, those sound like they came out of a bad clone of a Tolkien novel, "Princess Theora took a lot of Flac from the Wizard of Ogg when she married Prince Vorbis." MP3 just rolls off the tongue in comparison. The Ogg people are really good at what they do, no kidding, except when it comes to basic marketing.
What's in a name? Well, a rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but when it comes to marketing data compression formats you'd best make sure your name is something that doesn't creep out your customer base.
More to the point, Linux has multiple market shares, shares that Microsoft (and other OS vendors) are having difficulty entering. Everyone is so focused on Linux competing with Windows that they forget the embedded space, where Linux is pretty much the reigning champion. Any successful attempt to make the Linux kernel "illegal" or otherwise too dangerous to use from a legal perspective will run into a lot of opposition from hardware vendors. They need Linux almost as much as mammals need air.
People have implicit trust in computers and software because, for most of them, they simply have no choice. They have to assume that what the computer tells them is accurate, because otherwise they can't do their jobs. I cannot tell you the number of times, in the past twenty-five years, that I've delivered a custom data acquisition system and asked the customer to do an end-to-end test on it to verify the accuracy of the results. "Nah, we trust you" I would often get told, to which I would say, "No! Don't just trust me... prove that it works." A judge, of all people, is supposed to look at any source of evidence with a jaundiced eye. Lives depend upon it, and just taking a prosecutor's word that the "evidence" is valid is wrong, and assuming that a log entry is meaningful just because a server somewhere wrote it is just as wrong.
I bring up the RIAA because it is precisely that sort of evidence that they present in court. It is exactly that sort of evidence that wins them summary judgments against their victims. And it is most certainly the sort of evidence to which a judge should say, "WTF?" when he sees it.
Who was the Congressman that was caught up in the Abscam scandal some years ago, and when confronted with evidence of his own wrongdoing claimed that he had actually done nothing illegal because he had been "performing his own investigation"? At least, I think it was Abscam. I just remember laughing and shaking my head in wonder at the huevos these guys must carry around with them.
True, but the GP's point is still valid... conviction based solely upon server log entries (or even the use of such logs to intimidate, such as the RIAA has been doing) should simply be unacceptable to a judge. Such information being a part of the fabric of evidence in a larger case is one thing, but it is simply not reliable enough to be depended upon in such important matters.
Courts need to become more technically competent, I think. We're too accustomed to the idea that if data comes from a computer it is implicitly trustworthy, and that's a big problem.
Please America, don't try to bring your horrible legal system to the rest of the world. We don't want it.
Thanks for the slam. Thing is, there's a lot about our legal system that some billions of people might like to enjoy (you know, the whole Bill of Rights thing, etc. etc.) but will never have the chance because their own truly horrible legal systems stand in the way. Now, if you'd said, "Please America, don't try to bring your corrupted copyright scheme to the rest of the world" I'd be more inclined to agree with you. Best to be more specific in such cases.
In any event, its your choice whether to adopt such laws or not: Europe seems to be going full steam ahead with this crap. I'm sorry to see it happen since I think the people of the European Union deserve better, but it just goes to show that their leaders (both governmental and corporate) are just as greedy and corrupt as ours.
The problem is that there are so many conflicting laws on the books today that everyone is guilty of something. It truly is unreasonable to expect anyone to know what their rights are under the law anymore. Really, it's completely out of hand, but I don't see it getting better soon. Too many people profit by this quagmire.
Frankly, I must object to the obvious hate-boi tone of this forum. Fanbois are bad, but hate-bois are just as bad if not worse.
Pseudo-French irritates me almost much, frankly.
So object away, but the reality is that a number of senior Sony personnel have committed acts that were sufficiently illegal to earn a substantial prison sentence for any ordinary white-collar criminal type. They walked away from it, and their employer paid a pittance for their crimes. Am I saying that the entire company is morally bankrupt? No, but in matters of business ethic some parts of Sony are highly suspect at this point.
Twenty-odd years ago, Sony was something of a corporate hero: after all, they took Sony vs. Universal to the Supreme Court and won. As a hardware manufacturer, Sony America stood up to the MPAA and sent a very clear message to that particular branch of organized crime. Sadly, as a media company they have joined forces with those selfsame corporate gangsters. I mean... Sony sunk to installing rootkits on Windows machines unfortunate enough to have a Sony CD in them. Yes, they got caught flat-footed (thank you Mark Russinovich) but they still did it. I'm sorry, but Sony is suffering some legitimate ire on the part of its customers, ire that is entirely due to a degree of managerial schizophrenia rarely seen in the corporate world.
Who knew you could just Google "alien lifeforms"? All that SETI CPU time was wasted
Nah, that just results in links to the personal Web pages of intelligent slime pools and self-aware motile shrubs. On the other hand, by entering the search term "Orion Slave Girl" one can easily get a date for next Saturday.
And really, since 2D acceleration became widely available oh, some fifteen years ago it's all been done using hardware anyway. Modern chipsets do font rendering in hardware, even. The only difference in Aero is that it's using 3D acceleration.
Well, ideally there should always be another scientist who doesn't believe... that's what keeps the bulk of science and its practitioners honest. All this scientist is saying is "here's our interpretation of the data, others will follow with their own interpretations and hopefully more experimental evidence." Doesn't scare me at all: it's the correct attitude. Where I do get nervous is when I hear something along the lines of "we've proven that the brain increased in gray matter because of the huge amount of data memorized." That's decidedly unscientific because it precludes the possibility of being wrong.
When you get right down to it both Bill Clinton and George Bush qualify as traitors. Clinton did untold damage to the military and our industrial base while he was in office, and as for Bush... well. Neither of them worked in the best interests of the United States or its citizens, and neither deserved the office of President of the United States.
Look, we all know and accept that successful politicians are dishonest, and only get to such rarefied levels by becoming corrupt to varying degrees. But the naked corruption evinced by both men is just astonishing.
Slashdot Mirror
I read a one-liner that said, "Artificial Intelligence is the science of making computers behave like they do in the movies."
Yes, but on the other hand a glaring flaw in the depiction of a knowledge area with which you are familiar can detract from the experience. I'm sure there are many doctors and biomedical researchers that cringe every time they see movies about bioweapons and genetically-engineered mutant monsters.
Many employers look at the Christmas season as the time when they get the least out of their employees ...
Yes, and many employers are actually killer androids from the future, out to terminate as many well-paid employees as possible.
True, but it gets a little tricky. If you're an hourly employee, and you get your hourly pay (including any required or agreed-upon overtime), it's time to STFU. But salaried folks are a bit different. It's often expected (not without reason, depending upon the particular position and its responsibilities) that a salaried employee would put in some unspecified amount of time beyond the basic 40 hours (or whatever that is where you are.) For example, in my job I generally just work my regular hours, but it's expected that if a problem occurs or there is some other transient need that requires extra effort that we'll all pull together and take care of it. That's only ethical behavior on our part (don't want to leave a customer hanging in the wind) and the company is careful enough not demand that kind of plus time too often.
... yet it does! That's the amazing thing. Some of these guys honestly don't understand why their people would resent working 80 hour weeks, especially when the managers leave on time every day. The problems start when corporate types begin to see their underlings as "lucky to have a job". Things usually go from bad to worse at that point.
... and that's only rational behavior because they know that, with rare exceptions, employers cannot be trusted any longer. Corporate America got what it wanted: a ruthless generation of management that considers people to be replaceable components of limited utility, all in the name of more efficiency and lower costs. And when they discovered that we could be replaced with foreign labor at even greater (apparent) savings, they jumped at the chance. The irony is that they screwed themselves too, and we're all paying the price for their inhumanity
But yeah, when a company tries to save payroll costs by squeezing its staff too hard, management has no right whatsoever to expect anything resembling loyalty from said employees
And once that kind of corporate behavior becomes widespread (which it most certainly has here in the U.S.), employee loyalty drops and turnover increases. Workers feel no particular involvement with the success or failure of their employer, and will leave at the drop of a hat
There are a lot of Carly Fiorinas running the show nowadays: the work force is expendable.
but I think we really need some research into how to create transparent politicians. I think that would be more valuable in the long run.
I wish it were just handwaving and wasted money, because then it would be just like a lot of other Federal programs. Unfortunately, this one has the potential to screw a lot of people over, bigtime, for a long time. So far as I know, I'm not one of them yet. But then again, I won't know until I try to board an airplane ... and can't.
Just like our public institutions have managed to sustain the impression of WWII as "the good war", where we were fighting real evil, the administration sees the chance to frame bombing Iran as "the good war" of Bush. Iran is making it very easy for them.
... what exactly wasn't "evil" about the Nazi and Japanese war machines? Pointless, unrestrained brutality is one manifestation of evil, one that has cost the lives of billions of people throughout history. Such brutality was the Nazi hallmark, and their erstwhile ally Japan was no better. To claim that Allied efforts in World War II were somehow tainted or misguided is insane: as a matter of fact, the U.S. tried very hard to ignore what was happening in Europe. When England asked for our help, our response was to come up with "Lend Lease", hoping that the Brits could handle Germany by themselves. They couldn't, and that delay cost a lot of lives, when you get right down to it. Had we put paid to Hitler before he got moving World War II might have amounted to little more than the first Gulf War. The arguably even-more-brutal Japanese military regime was a perfect partner for Germany at the time, but they might not have gone to war had we not let Germany go as far as it did before doing anything about it.
Um
So far as any war effort can be considered "good", I'd say that World War II was one of them. Ask the French how they felt about us when we moved into Paris. Ask the British how they felt when our men and war materiel started arriving at their ports. I understand your desire to provide valid criticism of the current Administration, but your comment demeans the thousands of Allied soldiers that died putting real evil back in the bottle, and the millions of U.S. citizens that worked hard to make it possible.
To imply that any Microsoft product is "written for security" is even more ignorant. Each successive version of Microsoft Windows is marketed as being "the most secure Windows to date!" which, while sometimes true, is a far cry from being actually secure. A more reasonable summation might be that Microsoft never gets anything right on the first release. Technically, they rarely get everything right ever, but from a security perspective it would be wise to stick with known quantities (2K and XP) and wait for the first service pack or two before jumping on Vista. That is, if security is at all important to you.
There's a reason why smart people put their Windows machines behind non-Windows firewalls, and don't use Microsoft applications to provide Internet and Web services. I mean, most of us don't trust Microsoft to keep their word about, well, much of anything so I see no reason to accept their assurances that Vista was "written for security."
The real question is why BMG didn't lay down some 'internal investigation' and peg some low-level (scape)goat.
Probably because so much information about the fiasco was already out, including the names of the two companies that provided the technology, and because they were already under investigation by a couple of Attorney Generals. Unless you want to lie to a court and fabricate evidence it's hard to pick a scapegoat at that point.
It's not quite that black and white. There is a fundamental difference between good security, and absolute security. What the government is promising us is absolute security if we just give up the Constitution. Would that be a worthwhile trade-off? Not to me, certainly, but some might accept it if it was possible to have absolute security. As you correctly pointed out, it isn't. However, that doesn't mean that ordinary good security isn't worth striving for. It can be done. Other nations have managed to do it without abusing their own citizens with "no fly" lists and "scores" and all the rest of the TSA claptrap. The reasons we have failed in this regard are political not practical.
My problem with the TSA is that it is an organization infected by unaccountability, that has been repeatedly shown to be ineffective at accomplishing its Congressionally-mandated tasks, has lied to Congress (and us!), and is a civil liberties nightmare. It's time for Congress to just give it up as a bad job. My fear is that it has become too bureaucratically-entrenched to be eliminated at this point, much like the DHS itself.
On the other hand, it is always best to make the enemy pay for what he takes, and if we raise the bar enough to make things difficult for would-be terrorists that's a good thing. All terrorists are not the same, so if nothing else, maybe we'll catch the really stupid ones. The professionals will get through no matter what, but there's no good reason to make it easy for them. And the harder they have to work, the odds get better that they'll make a mistake.
Of course, that would mean spending significant amounts of money on the human element, which means airport guards and security people that are properly trained and well-paid. Period. Probably Israel's national airline could give us some pointers in that regard. For some reason, the TSA seems to be much more interested in half-baked technological "solutions" to the problem of providing good security (at considerable profit to the vendors of such solutions) rather than implementing proven techniques for securing an installation. Why has that not been done? They seem to be pretty free with our money on their other pet projects.
Any way you look at this, it's a trade-off between our traditional way of life and personal security: the only question is at what point do we stop trading rights for some vague idea of "security". The government won't tell us what it is doing, won't give us any numbers to help to quantify the real value of these programs, and insists on using emotional appeals to push this crap on us. In general, that's a sign of bad government and it goes well beyond airport security.
I agree. Granted, with developer-level technology such as this you can survive to some degree on the your merits, but you're right: some promotion would be in order. On the other hand, would you like to be the market droid in charge of popularizing "Flac", "Theora", and "Vorbis", all produced by an organization with a moniker of "Ogg"? Seriously, those sound like they came out of a bad clone of a Tolkien novel, "Princess Theora took a lot of Flac from the Wizard of Ogg when she married Prince Vorbis." MP3 just rolls off the tongue in comparison. The Ogg people are really good at what they do, no kidding, except when it comes to basic marketing.
What's in a name? Well, a rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but when it comes to marketing data compression formats you'd best make sure your name is something that doesn't creep out your customer base.
More to the point, Linux has multiple market shares, shares that Microsoft (and other OS vendors) are having difficulty entering. Everyone is so focused on Linux competing with Windows that they forget the embedded space, where Linux is pretty much the reigning champion. Any successful attempt to make the Linux kernel "illegal" or otherwise too dangerous to use from a legal perspective will run into a lot of opposition from hardware vendors. They need Linux almost as much as mammals need air.
People have implicit trust in computers and software because, for most of them, they simply have no choice. They have to assume that what the computer tells them is accurate, because otherwise they can't do their jobs. I cannot tell you the number of times, in the past twenty-five years, that I've delivered a custom data acquisition system and asked the customer to do an end-to-end test on it to verify the accuracy of the results. "Nah, we trust you" I would often get told, to which I would say, "No! Don't just trust me ... prove that it works." A judge, of all people, is supposed to look at any source of evidence with a jaundiced eye. Lives depend upon it, and just taking a prosecutor's word that the "evidence" is valid is wrong, and assuming that a log entry is meaningful just because a server somewhere wrote it is just as wrong.
I bring up the RIAA because it is precisely that sort of evidence that they present in court. It is exactly that sort of evidence that wins them summary judgments against their victims. And it is most certainly the sort of evidence to which a judge should say, "WTF?" when he sees it.
Who was the Congressman that was caught up in the Abscam scandal some years ago, and when confronted with evidence of his own wrongdoing claimed that he had actually done nothing illegal because he had been "performing his own investigation"? At least, I think it was Abscam. I just remember laughing and shaking my head in wonder at the huevos these guys must carry around with them.
True, but the GP's point is still valid ... conviction based solely upon server log entries (or even the use of such logs to intimidate, such as the RIAA has been doing) should simply be unacceptable to a judge. Such information being a part of the fabric of evidence in a larger case is one thing, but it is simply not reliable enough to be depended upon in such important matters.
Courts need to become more technically competent, I think. We're too accustomed to the idea that if data comes from a computer it is implicitly trustworthy, and that's a big problem.
Please America, don't try to bring your horrible legal system to the rest of the world. We don't want it.
Thanks for the slam. Thing is, there's a lot about our legal system that some billions of people might like to enjoy (you know, the whole Bill of Rights thing, etc. etc.) but will never have the chance because their own truly horrible legal systems stand in the way. Now, if you'd said, "Please America, don't try to bring your corrupted copyright scheme to the rest of the world" I'd be more inclined to agree with you. Best to be more specific in such cases.
In any event, its your choice whether to adopt such laws or not: Europe seems to be going full steam ahead with this crap. I'm sorry to see it happen since I think the people of the European Union deserve better, but it just goes to show that their leaders (both governmental and corporate) are just as greedy and corrupt as ours.
Have a nice day.
The problem is that there are so many conflicting laws on the books today that everyone is guilty of something. It truly is unreasonable to expect anyone to know what their rights are under the law anymore. Really, it's completely out of hand, but I don't see it getting better soon. Too many people profit by this quagmire.
Frankly, I must object to the obvious hate-boi tone of this forum. Fanbois are bad, but hate-bois are just as bad if not worse.
... Sony sunk to installing rootkits on Windows machines unfortunate enough to have a Sony CD in them. Yes, they got caught flat-footed (thank you Mark Russinovich) but they still did it. I'm sorry, but Sony is suffering some legitimate ire on the part of its customers, ire that is entirely due to a degree of managerial schizophrenia rarely seen in the corporate world.
Pseudo-French irritates me almost much, frankly.
So object away, but the reality is that a number of senior Sony personnel have committed acts that were sufficiently illegal to earn a substantial prison sentence for any ordinary white-collar criminal type. They walked away from it, and their employer paid a pittance for their crimes. Am I saying that the entire company is morally bankrupt? No, but in matters of business ethic some parts of Sony are highly suspect at this point.
Twenty-odd years ago, Sony was something of a corporate hero: after all, they took Sony vs. Universal to the Supreme Court and won. As a hardware manufacturer, Sony America stood up to the MPAA and sent a very clear message to that particular branch of organized crime. Sadly, as a media company they have joined forces with those selfsame corporate gangsters. I mean
Legally questionable, ethically suspect, morally bankrupt.
Who knew you could just Google "alien lifeforms"? All that SETI CPU time was wasted
Nah, that just results in links to the personal Web pages of intelligent slime pools and self-aware motile shrubs. On the other hand, by entering the search term "Orion Slave Girl" one can easily get a date for next Saturday.
And really, since 2D acceleration became widely available oh, some fifteen years ago it's all been done using hardware anyway. Modern chipsets do font rendering in hardware, even. The only difference in Aero is that it's using 3D acceleration.
In the year 2525, if Man is still alive,
Arms and legs have nothin' to do,
some machine be doin' it for you.
Apparently this applies to our brains as well as our limbs.
Well, ideally there should always be another scientist who doesn't believe ... that's what keeps the bulk of science and its practitioners honest. All this scientist is saying is "here's our interpretation of the data, others will follow with their own interpretations and hopefully more experimental evidence." Doesn't scare me at all: it's the correct attitude. Where I do get nervous is when I hear something along the lines of "we've proven that the brain increased in gray matter because of the huge amount of data memorized." That's decidedly unscientific because it precludes the possibility of being wrong.
Yes it's an older article, but it's a fairly quiet sunday today.
Darth Vader: Do they have a code clearance?
Admiral Piett: It's an older code, sir, but it checks out. I was about to clear them.
When you get right down to it both Bill Clinton and George Bush qualify as traitors. Clinton did untold damage to the military and our industrial base while he was in office, and as for Bush ... well. Neither of them worked in the best interests of the United States or its citizens, and neither deserved the office of President of the United States.
Look, we all know and accept that successful politicians are dishonest, and only get to such rarefied levels by becoming corrupt to varying degrees. But the naked corruption evinced by both men is just astonishing.