Personally i get bothered more by the media and govt. Claiming you either protest the war or support the troops. Hell yes i supports the troops so dont get them killed? Isn't that supporting both sides? This is all part of the "your with us or your with the terrorists" mentality that is causing so much confusion.
I've gotta agree with what I think you said.:) I oppose the war for reasons not appearing in this post. However, I support the troops. Those are the same troops that will be expected to stand up and fight for my freedom, and that of my family. Hell yeah I support them! Just because I disagree with my government's actions doesn't mean I shouldn't support my military.
Regardless of what they're doing right at this moment, the military is there to ensure my freedom and those of the people I love. Granted it's a different world now than it was when the US military was created, but it's still their primary mission.
Of course, you also won't see me showing up for a protest. Heh. I think we learned well that protests don't work, especially if you're trying to change something. It just makes people pissed at your side of the coin and less likely to look at that side. Imagine the widespread adoption of GNU/Linux if we all hit the streets and protested against microsoft waving penguin flags and banners and crap.
if this statement isn't dripping with conspiracy-theory thinking, I don't know what is.
Talk about out-of-context usage. I presented two possibilities and a course of action to help distinguish between them while providing contingencies for both of them.
I just wanna know, were you dropped as a baby, 'cause brains you lack?
give me a fucking break. you people over dramatize this! what everyone seems to forget is that there WILL be another election in 2004. and i bet you ANYTHING that bush won't win re-election. there will be a new (democrat) bozo in the white house for people to bitch about. take the tin foil hat off -- it's tacky.
Better yet, why don't you pull your head out of your ass? I didn't say shit about conspiracy, I just pointed out that there is a historical precedent for the idea that Bush is trying to become a fascist dictator. Go read up some more of your history. Read about Gaius Julius Caesar, and don't just read the stupid Shakespeare play. Go read about the Russian Communist revolution. Read about the various power struggles in China. The war of the rose? How about finding out some more about Napolean?
How can you predict that there will be an election in 2004? Have you a time machine with which you have already seen the results? I agree that it's very likely there will be an election in 2004, and I will walk down and vote for the democrat that opposes Bush, even though I don't care for democrats either.
Bottom line, troll, is pull your head out of your ass. We learn history so that we can learn from its mistakes. If you ahve a problem with that, then maybe you don't need your brain at all anymore, eh?
...for one person who is against the war to use anything but lies, ignorance, and oversimplification to support their viewpoint.
Because if we allow our leader to use the attacks on the Trade Center as an excuse to justify war anywhere he wants, then we will be opening ourselves to dismantling our own government and letting in a new, less-free government.
The *only* reason I opposed the war was because Bush had to throw it all under the banner of "fighting terrorism because of September 11th". ALL of the other reasons he cited were good enough, he should've left out the one that hints that he may desire becoming a fascist dictator.
That said, now that our boys are out there and they might actually be in danger (although more likely in danger of dying of thirst), I will not oppose them.:) Let's not repeat the shit that happened over Vietnam, where the protestors were just as bad as they accused the military of being.
I may or may not agree with the foreign policy of my government, but the soldier who volunteers to take a bullet for my freedom deserves my respect.
I've got some paraphrased patton for you. It's not that he volunteers to take a bullet for my freedom that deserves my respect, it's that he has volunteered to make the bastard on the other side take a bullet for my freedom that deserves my respect.:)
Look, I'm certainly no fan of Bush, but to compare him to Hitler is just idiocy. It's nearly as bad as the people who compare Hussein to Hitler (although this is slightly more justified).
You are obviously making the same assumption of Bush that the German people made of Hitler, i.e. that he is a good and just man. We can look at Hitler with the benefit of hindsight and say he was evil, but we do not have that benefit when looking at Bush. How will we see him in 20 years, I wonder? Will we look back and say "Yep, he was as bad as Hitler" or will we look back and say "Turns out that Hitler's actions weren't into and of themselves evil, but rather his motivations, because Bush did a lot of the same shit and it was a wonderful thing."
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, and this is a prime example of why we need to remember Hitler's rise to power. *IF* Bush is working on a similar rise (or his puppetmaster), then we must protect ourselves against it and prevent it. If Bush is benign, then we should help him as much as we can. But what's most important right now is that we judge him with objectivity and not allow his maneuverings to grab us emotionally, because that's the weakness that HItler exploited in the German people. If Bush is benign, then objective observation and participation should reveal it. If he is evil, then emotionalism will allow him to seize total power.
its funny that you should say this; for some reason the iraqis seem relatively quiet about the whole situation. anyone notice that they haven't got any of their migs in the air? why aren't they fighting back, offering atleast minimal resistance?
I'd like to point out that the media machine told America during the vietnam war that they weren't meeting any real resistance either, and they told us the same crap during the first Gulf War. Granted, there wasn't a lot, but there was real fighting and we had casualties in the hundreds, at least (I seem to recall the final number being less than 1000, but I could be wrong). During the play-by-play CNN Sports-like coverage of the war, though, they kept telling us we weren't losing anybody.
Besides that, I tend to think that Saddam's got something up his sleeve as well. The rules of attack specifically state (according to Chiun, the reigning Master of Sinanju) that you allow your opponent to attack, because in attacking he will reveal his weakness, and then you hit him in his weakness.
Taking that into consideration, the only places for guerrilla warfare that I can see (looking at topological maps and so forth) in Iraq are in the cities and around developments, but not in the desert itself. The purpose of a bombing campaign is to reduce the opportunities for such warfare in the cities and keep people inside. So what else can he be planning?
*I* think he's going to produce the documents and stuff that he was asked for before, or that we're going to find the signs that he had done as he promised, and then the US is gonna look *really* bad for going into the war. His magical maneuver almost has to be a political one, rather than a matter of warfare.
Finally, I think that instead of going to war we should've just let Microsoft go in and do what they wanted. Iraq may not be free, but at least we'd know that Gates and Co. had Saddam's neck in a firm noose, and then when Free Software takes its course, it would find Saddam hanging.
I'd forgotten about that. Didn't Iran mostly keep it, too?
They might've kept both planes, but I don't recall. Seriously, I think there was only like 4 planes or so in the whole Iraqi air force, so it's not like there's much for us to fear. AFAIK, Saddam has been unable (for one reason or another) to acquire a larger air force. But I definitely don't remember if Iran let the planes go back to Iraq.
In all reality, if there are weapons that are hidden, tanks that are hidden, then surely enough, there are planes that are hidden. Deductive reasoning, that is all.
I'd like to remind you that in the original Gulf War (with Captain Kirk), Iraq hid their air force in...IRAN!
It does this every night at around the same time. Been doing it for at least a year. Why the server power cord gets accidentally kicked out of the socket at the same time each night is best left to private speculation.
Call it flamebait, but I'm starting to wonder if slashdot has to reboot every day for some reason or other....
Um, nevermind. It wouldn't show anything if that were the case, eh? Still, it irritates me that this fancy linux cluster has daily problems like this. Maybe it's intentional stuff that they do and they don't bother telling us about it?
Each distro should have a vote on their site for the best of each app to distribute with their package, and write it, nice and tight into their distro.
You work for Mandrake, don't ya?
Seriously, has anybody else noticed that for all the bitching people do about the download edition taking 3 CDs, they had to REJECT packages that wouldn't fit on 3 CDs?
Thus do I declare hypocrisy has officially set in. Previously, it was unofficial and largely denied (using such excuses as "we're a group of individuals with our own opinions each).:)
Now mod me into oblivion, that's blatant flamebait.
stealth fighters (and presumably the stealth bombers).
Um, I'd like to point out something about why the stealth are called fighters. It's because at the time they were originally built, Congress wouldn't fund *another* bomber program, so they called them fighters.
The primary mission of the slowest fighters in the world (the stealth) is to BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, and COME HOME so that they can BOMB AGAIN.
Well, his two favourites were actually M.U.L.E. and Castle Wolfenstein (way before id/Raven remade it as RtCW). Personally, I never played them (they weren't flashy enough for my superficial self back then), but I remember thinking that they must be pretty special.
Those are easily my favorite games of all time. In fact, I recently went in search of them and a c64 emulator (found VICE) and I've been playing them. Then slashdot posts an article about it. Kinda freaky, huh? But those two games still stand out as excellent games, in my opinion. They each have something that has been sorely lacking in games for years, with the possible exception of Civilization.
It seemed to have too slow tempo now to keep my interest. I'll give it another go tomorrow when I have better time. (And am well rested)
I've got it with VICE, and I set the speed to 150%. It's much more playable that fast. I can't tell if the 100% speed (perfect emulation) is too slow for this game, or if the game was really that slow. But 150% makes it perfectly playable, not too fast, and not too slow.
That actually worked? If I tried this, I would just get into more trouble. What I've discovered is that when she says, "We never spend any time together," what she really means is, "You're not paying attention to me right now."
Now that you mention it, I do usually also have to say "What you really mean is that you want attention right now." Or had, rather. She's straightened out a lot over the years.
Of course, I can sum this whole thread up with 3 words.:) "Women are psycho."
That's nice, good luck to the both of you. Could you please give me a few pointers on how to achieve this. My wife care's for me, except for the developer part, she appear to believe it interferes with our social life and keeps me from giving her the attention she deserves. I'm afraid I'll have to start keeping my computer in a locked room lest it'll be the victim of a jealousey murder:)
My solution was to itemize to my wife all the time I spend each day/week with her and with the kids, then compare it to time spent in front of the computer. When I put facts in front of her, she had to give in.:) Keep in mind, women don't use facts. They've come to rely entirely on "women's intuition", which is a sexist way of saying "imagination".
To each his own. I hate "live" music. It's so... imperfect. I have a friend who swears up and down that live jazz sounds better, but all the jazz shows I've gone to see (a good number since my wife loves jazz) have pretty crappy production values. On the other hand, give me any album by Lyle Mays and I'll be on cloud nine. There is just something wonderful about well produced music that retains artistic integrity.
Actually, you're both right.:) That's what makes the two completely different mediums thrive.
A Concert in the Park is one of the most exhilirhating experiences I've ever had, personally, (and yes, when you come from Texas, you have a lot of sex). Evening at town lake is a beautiful place, and to add music to the mix along with all the friendly drunk Texans. It's just a great thing. Hell, even the stupid 4th of July fireworks at town lake is cool, even with the stupid symphony playing.
There's also quite a few stupid little bars that have nothing but a bar, a few tables, and a stage. Literally half the joint will be the stage. Then they get some stupid blues guys up there that don't give a shit, just want to make some music and take a few tips. Warmest music I've ever heard. Or you can check the The Jazz, if they're still around. That's a pretty entertaining place. Good drinks, I never ate the food there.
On the other hand, there are all kinds of flaws in the sound of live music. That's the nature of the medium. With recorded music, you lose the atmosphere (or you create your own), you lost any chance the artist has at creating an atmosphere for you, and it's just you and the music. Luckily, there's plenty that can be offered here.
I used to prefer recorded music myself, because live music is such a pain in the ass to see. Then I found myself down in the middle of the mosh pit when Anthrax opened for that stupid Texas metal band and I finally got a good, strong understanding of what live music is all about.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally i get bothered more by the media and govt. Claiming you either protest the war or support the troops. Hell yes i supports the troops so dont get them killed? Isn't that supporting both sides? This is all part of the "your with us or your with the terrorists" mentality that is causing so much confusion.
I've gotta agree with what I think you said. :) I oppose the war for reasons not appearing in this post. However, I support the troops. Those are the same troops that will be expected to stand up and fight for my freedom, and that of my family. Hell yeah I support them! Just because I disagree with my government's actions doesn't mean I shouldn't support my military.
Regardless of what they're doing right at this moment, the military is there to ensure my freedom and those of the people I love. Granted it's a different world now than it was when the US military was created, but it's still their primary mission.
Of course, you also won't see me showing up for a protest. Heh. I think we learned well that protests don't work, especially if you're trying to change something. It just makes people pissed at your side of the coin and less likely to look at that side. Imagine the widespread adoption of GNU/Linux if we all hit the streets and protested against microsoft waving penguin flags and banners and crap.
Yeah, who uses a graphics system to play games, except, uh, the _overwhelming majority_ of computer users.
Mod me flamebait, but people who are willing to wear hand cuffs for the sake of entertainment deserve neither freedom nor respect.
The problem is that you have no authority.
Whoa. Haven't seen that one before.
First time in a forum discussing X? Personally, I think we all need to remember who put the X in sex.
if this statement isn't dripping with conspiracy-theory thinking, I don't know what is.
Talk about out-of-context usage. I presented two possibilities and a course of action to help distinguish between them while providing contingencies for both of them.
I just wanna know, were you dropped as a baby, 'cause brains you lack?
give me a fucking break. you people over dramatize this! what everyone seems to forget is that there WILL be another election in 2004. and i bet you ANYTHING that bush won't win re-election. there will be a new (democrat) bozo in the white house for people to bitch about. take the tin foil hat off -- it's tacky.
Better yet, why don't you pull your head out of your ass? I didn't say shit about conspiracy, I just pointed out that there is a historical precedent for the idea that Bush is trying to become a fascist dictator. Go read up some more of your history. Read about Gaius Julius Caesar, and don't just read the stupid Shakespeare play. Go read about the Russian Communist revolution. Read about the various power struggles in China. The war of the rose? How about finding out some more about Napolean?
How can you predict that there will be an election in 2004? Have you a time machine with which you have already seen the results? I agree that it's very likely there will be an election in 2004, and I will walk down and vote for the democrat that opposes Bush, even though I don't care for democrats either.
Bottom line, troll, is pull your head out of your ass. We learn history so that we can learn from its mistakes. If you ahve a problem with that, then maybe you don't need your brain at all anymore, eh?
Because if we allow our leader to use the attacks on the Trade Center as an excuse to justify war anywhere he wants, then we will be opening ourselves to dismantling our own government and letting in a new, less-free government.
The *only* reason I opposed the war was because Bush had to throw it all under the banner of "fighting terrorism because of September 11th". ALL of the other reasons he cited were good enough, he should've left out the one that hints that he may desire becoming a fascist dictator.
That said, now that our boys are out there and they might actually be in danger (although more likely in danger of dying of thirst), I will not oppose them. :) Let's not repeat the shit that happened over Vietnam, where the protestors were just as bad as they accused the military of being.
I may or may not agree with the foreign policy of my government, but the soldier who volunteers to take a bullet for my freedom deserves my respect.
I've got some paraphrased patton for you. It's not that he volunteers to take a bullet for my freedom that deserves my respect, it's that he has volunteered to make the bastard on the other side take a bullet for my freedom that deserves my respect. :)
Look, I'm certainly no fan of Bush, but to compare him to Hitler is just idiocy. It's nearly as bad as the people who compare Hussein to Hitler (although this is slightly more justified).
You are obviously making the same assumption of Bush that the German people made of Hitler, i.e. that he is a good and just man. We can look at Hitler with the benefit of hindsight and say he was evil, but we do not have that benefit when looking at Bush. How will we see him in 20 years, I wonder? Will we look back and say "Yep, he was as bad as Hitler" or will we look back and say "Turns out that Hitler's actions weren't into and of themselves evil, but rather his motivations, because Bush did a lot of the same shit and it was a wonderful thing."
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, and this is a prime example of why we need to remember Hitler's rise to power. *IF* Bush is working on a similar rise (or his puppetmaster), then we must protect ourselves against it and prevent it. If Bush is benign, then we should help him as much as we can. But what's most important right now is that we judge him with objectivity and not allow his maneuverings to grab us emotionally, because that's the weakness that HItler exploited in the German people. If Bush is benign, then objective observation and participation should reveal it. If he is evil, then emotionalism will allow him to seize total power.
its funny that you should say this; for some reason the iraqis seem relatively quiet about the whole situation. anyone notice that they haven't got any of their migs in the air? why aren't they fighting back, offering atleast minimal resistance?
I'd like to point out that the media machine told America during the vietnam war that they weren't meeting any real resistance either, and they told us the same crap during the first Gulf War. Granted, there wasn't a lot, but there was real fighting and we had casualties in the hundreds, at least (I seem to recall the final number being less than 1000, but I could be wrong). During the play-by-play CNN Sports-like coverage of the war, though, they kept telling us we weren't losing anybody.
Besides that, I tend to think that Saddam's got something up his sleeve as well. The rules of attack specifically state (according to Chiun, the reigning Master of Sinanju) that you allow your opponent to attack, because in attacking he will reveal his weakness, and then you hit him in his weakness.
Taking that into consideration, the only places for guerrilla warfare that I can see (looking at topological maps and so forth) in Iraq are in the cities and around developments, but not in the desert itself. The purpose of a bombing campaign is to reduce the opportunities for such warfare in the cities and keep people inside. So what else can he be planning?
*I* think he's going to produce the documents and stuff that he was asked for before, or that we're going to find the signs that he had done as he promised, and then the US is gonna look *really* bad for going into the war. His magical maneuver almost has to be a political one, rather than a matter of warfare.
Finally, I think that instead of going to war we should've just let Microsoft go in and do what they wanted. Iraq may not be free, but at least we'd know that Gates and Co. had Saddam's neck in a firm noose, and then when Free Software takes its course, it would find Saddam hanging.
I'd forgotten about that. Didn't Iran mostly keep it, too?
They might've kept both planes, but I don't recall. Seriously, I think there was only like 4 planes or so in the whole Iraqi air force, so it's not like there's much for us to fear. AFAIK, Saddam has been unable (for one reason or another) to acquire a larger air force. But I definitely don't remember if Iran let the planes go back to Iraq.
In all reality, if there are weapons that are hidden, tanks that are hidden, then surely enough, there are planes that are hidden. Deductive reasoning, that is all.
I'd like to remind you that in the original Gulf War (with Captain Kirk), Iraq hid their air force in...IRAN!
It does this every night at around the same time. Been doing it for at least a year. Why the server power cord gets accidentally kicked out of the socket at the same time each night is best left to private speculation.
Call it flamebait, but I'm starting to wonder if slashdot has to reboot every day for some reason or other....
Um, nevermind. It wouldn't show anything if that were the case, eh? Still, it irritates me that this fancy linux cluster has daily problems like this. Maybe it's intentional stuff that they do and they don't bother telling us about it?
Each distro should have a vote on their site for the best of each app to distribute with their package, and write it, nice and tight into their distro.
You work for Mandrake, don't ya?
Seriously, has anybody else noticed that for all the bitching people do about the download edition taking 3 CDs, they had to REJECT packages that wouldn't fit on 3 CDs?
Thus do I declare hypocrisy has officially set in. Previously, it was unofficial and largely denied (using such excuses as "we're a group of individuals with our own opinions each). :)
Now mod me into oblivion, that's blatant flamebait.
What's that you say? You don't want your kid to be embarassed for being the only one standing and saying the pledge?
Nah, I'll just tell your kid to take his stupid fuckin' religion home and practice it where it don't bother nobody.
stealth fighters (and presumably the stealth bombers).
Um, I'd like to point out something about why the stealth are called fighters. It's because at the time they were originally built, Congress wouldn't fund *another* bomber program, so they called them fighters.
The primary mission of the slowest fighters in the world (the stealth) is to BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, and COME HOME so that they can BOMB AGAIN.
I hate to rain on your parade, but Iraq war news is not "news for geeks". It is news for armchair generals
And since when have geeks not been armchair generals?
For the record, I would've posted many many more links, but I'm feeling to lazy to track them down. You get the picture, though, I'm sure.
So some smartass can come along and provide a brief, slashdotty summary of the war:
Bush: Disarm yourself!
Saddam: Fuck you!
Bush: All your base are belong to us.
Radio this morning said "two were shot down and the other two landed in the ocean"
Looks like you need a new radio station. Nothing, butt-fucking *nothing* "lands" in the ocean!
Kind of hard to avoid killing the natives though;
I preferred to play it as historically accurate as possible. THerefore, I always slaughtered the natives and built missions. :)
Well, his two favourites were actually M.U.L.E. and Castle Wolfenstein (way before id/Raven remade it as RtCW). Personally, I never played them (they weren't flashy enough for my superficial self back then), but I remember thinking that they must be pretty special.
Those are easily my favorite games of all time. In fact, I recently went in search of them and a c64 emulator (found VICE) and I've been playing them. Then slashdot posts an article about it. Kinda freaky, huh? But those two games still stand out as excellent games, in my opinion. They each have something that has been sorely lacking in games for years, with the possible exception of Civilization.
It seemed to have too slow tempo now to keep my interest. I'll give it another go tomorrow when I have better time. (And am well rested)
I've got it with VICE, and I set the speed to 150%. It's much more playable that fast. I can't tell if the 100% speed (perfect emulation) is too slow for this game, or if the game was really that slow. But 150% makes it perfectly playable, not too fast, and not too slow.
That actually worked? If I tried this, I would just get into more trouble. What I've discovered is that when she says, "We never spend any time together," what she really means is, "You're not paying attention to me right now."
Now that you mention it, I do usually also have to say "What you really mean is that you want attention right now." Or had, rather. She's straightened out a lot over the years.
Of course, I can sum this whole thread up with 3 words. :) "Women are psycho."
That's nice, good luck to the both of you. Could you please give me a few pointers on how to achieve this. My wife care's for me, except for the developer part, she appear to believe it interferes with our social life and keeps me from giving her the attention she deserves. I'm afraid I'll have to start keeping my computer in a locked room lest it'll be the victim of a jealousey murder :)
My solution was to itemize to my wife all the time I spend each day/week with her and with the kids, then compare it to time spent in front of the computer. When I put facts in front of her, she had to give in. :) Keep in mind, women don't use facts. They've come to rely entirely on "women's intuition", which is a sexist way of saying "imagination".
And if you can't be here, why not listen to it over the net? I really don't understand your gripe...
I forgot to buy my wristband, and KLBJ won't give me one, the bastards.
To each his own. I hate "live" music. It's so... imperfect. I have a friend who swears up and down that live jazz sounds better, but all the jazz shows I've gone to see (a good number since my wife loves jazz) have pretty crappy production values. On the other hand, give me any album by Lyle Mays and I'll be on cloud nine. There is just something wonderful about well produced music that retains artistic integrity.
Actually, you're both right. :) That's what makes the two completely different mediums thrive.
A Concert in the Park is one of the most exhilirhating experiences I've ever had, personally, (and yes, when you come from Texas, you have a lot of sex). Evening at town lake is a beautiful place, and to add music to the mix along with all the friendly drunk Texans. It's just a great thing. Hell, even the stupid 4th of July fireworks at town lake is cool, even with the stupid symphony playing.
There's also quite a few stupid little bars that have nothing but a bar, a few tables, and a stage. Literally half the joint will be the stage. Then they get some stupid blues guys up there that don't give a shit, just want to make some music and take a few tips. Warmest music I've ever heard. Or you can check the The Jazz, if they're still around. That's a pretty entertaining place. Good drinks, I never ate the food there.
On the other hand, there are all kinds of flaws in the sound of live music. That's the nature of the medium. With recorded music, you lose the atmosphere (or you create your own), you lost any chance the artist has at creating an atmosphere for you, and it's just you and the music. Luckily, there's plenty that can be offered here.
I used to prefer recorded music myself, because live music is such a pain in the ass to see. Then I found myself down in the middle of the mosh pit when Anthrax opened for that stupid Texas metal band and I finally got a good, strong understanding of what live music is all about.