[Michael Moore mode]Why did nearly 70% of Americans believe there was a link, with no evidence of one? Could it have to do with nearly every speech for the past two years alternating between Iraq and terrorism? Why did the Whitehouse not attempt to correct people's mistaken beliefs? Could it have to do with what the Whitehouse would have to gain from people believing it?[/Michael Moore mode]
You are making my point for me (even though I already made it). You have a double standard: you are agreeing with me that saying they came from Iran does not mean that the Iranian government is involved in the IED attacks, so how does saying Atta met with Iraq mean that Iraq's government was involved with 9/11?
That's PRECISELY my point. Did the meeting between Atta and Iraq have anything to do with 9/11? Maybe, maybe not - chances are we may never know. HOWEVER, Cheney still presented that piece of evidence to imply a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Exactly the same way that they use the fact that explosives are coming from somewhere in Iran to imply that the Iranian government is involved in the Iraqi conflict.
Not quite. He said intelligence exists that says such links exist, not that they do actually exist.
You're trying to split hairs again. He still attempting to link 9/11 and Iraq together by repeating a bit of intelligence. Otherwise, why bring it up at all?
Incorrect. At most, even if we accept that Atta did meet with Iraqi officials, it suggests that this MIGHT be evidence of a link to 9/11.
Hence I said that Cheney IMPLIED that they were involved.
It's like the Iranian IED stuff. We have evidence those IEDs came from Iran. That does not mean that the Iranian government is arming Iraqi insurgents. It COULD mean that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that, and simply noting the fact that we have intelligence tying those IEDs to Iranian origin does not mean anyone is implying the Iranian government is involved.
When I hear talk about doing something about Iran, that is one of the things that often comes up. Note how (just as you just did) that they just say "Iran", not "Groups within Iran", or "Terrorists hiding in Iran", or similar. Of course, the implication is that it is the Iranian government somehow behind it, hence a justification to act against them.
He said that Saddam was linked to the WTC attacks in 1993, then immediately thereafter he says that there were ties between Atta and the Iraqi government. Which, of course, implies that Iraq had ties to 9/11. That's what he said, carefully worded so that people you can defend him once they figure out they were mislead. But hey, you can keep on believing whatever you want to believe.
Yep. That's a fact, of course. And it does not imply there was necessarily any connection between Iraq and 9/11, even if there was such a meeting with Iraq and Atta.
Cheney stating that the lead attacker met with Iraqi government officials is an implication from Cheney that Iraq had ties to 9/11. What else could he possibly have meant when he made that statement?
People hear what they want to hear. I never heard that. And on the other hand, we have people who think Joe Wilson actually disproved Bush's "16 words," that Bush lied pushed the aluminum tubes story contrary to what everyone was telling him, and that Bush didn't very explicitly and publicly reject the 9/11-Iraq back in 2003. None of those things are true, but people hear what they want to hear.
And a good politician uses this to their advantage. Take a look a speech from any canidate or political figure in recent memory. They are very good at filling a 10-15 minute speech while actually saying very little of substance, but at the same time people hear what the politician wants them to hear. They (or atleast their political advisors and speech writers) know exactly what they are doing.
I would also point out that you will also find very little statements directly connecting Afganistan to 9/11. Rather, the Whitehouse linked the Taliban to the Al Queada, then Al Queada to 9/11, then used the fact that the Taliban ruled Afganistan that to justify the Afganistan invasion. People accepted this for Afganistan as the connections were obvious. They figured they could play the same game with Iraq but it didn't work the second time around.
Shrug. Then how come nobody can come up with a single example?
"Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in 93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, weve had the story thats been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but weve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just dont know." - Cheney, September 14th 2003. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
Of course, you're right there isn't many statements where they said straight up that Iraq = 9/11. As you aluded too, they simply linked Al Queada to 9/11, then linked Al Queda to Iraq, then repeated it enough until people just heard Iraq = 9/11.
2003 is also very expensive desktop OS. I know some people who are running it as such, and I even installed it myself once. However, I would guess that nearly everyone who runs 2003 Server as their desktop OS probably pirated it.
Back when Windows 2000 was new, which was over 7 years ago, USB thumbdrives were not common, and most people weren't unplugging and plugging in USB devices all the time. Furthermore, most PCs of the time had 2 USB ports, max. Atleast they fixed that little annoyance in 2001 with XP.
To be fair, it wasn't that long ago when I was using a Linux distro that automounted my USB thumbdrive (nice), but I couldn't figure out how to unmount it without using sudo.
Ubuntu gets it more right than Windows. The applications themselves are less important, partly because they're mostly free, they get out of the way. Then you have the folders right there on the desktop so you can access the documents themselves directly. The application becomes just a tool to work on the information, which is what it's supposed to be. Ubuntu is actually easier to use than Windows. The metaphor makes sense.
How exactly is Windows any different? Default set up for Windows is to put icons for My Computer, My Documents, Network Places, and the Recycling bin right on the desktop. Most Windows people I know prefer to find the document in the file system and open it that way too.
I haven't noticed this on any LCD screen I have used, laptop or regular desktop screens. Even 486 laptops look as good a new. I am aware that the flourescent tube is supposed to dim as it ages, but I have not observed this - if they fail they just stop working. Perhaps it is due to the fact that I usually don't run my screens at the "burn your eyeballs out" default full brightness most of them seem to come set at?
The Apple key is not the same as the near-useless Windows key.
Actually, the Windows key is pretty useful as it adds a bunch of shortcuts that would have been a lot harder to have without it's presence. To name a few:
Windows+M (or +D): Minimize all/Show desktop Windows+L: Lock computer Windows+E: Windows Explorer Windows+Pause: System properties Windows+R: Run dialog
Now the really useless one (IMHO) is the context menu aka right mouse button key. Which ironically, would be a whole lot more useful if it was found on a Mac keyboard. Though in terms of keeping the Windows interface completely usable without a mouse, I guess it was needed.
If you are considering an interface where the user needs to know 32 different ways to click a goddamn mouse button, I hope like hell I never have to use any software you had a hand in.
You mean like all the different ways you can click on the touchpad to do different things on a Mac notebook?
I've never liked touchpads. They are imprecise and slow, and generally a pain to use. I find the clicking feature they have to be even more imprecise, and constantly registering false clicks. I haven't used a newer Apple notebook, but I can imagine all the different ways clicks on the pad can be registered would end up infuriating me. Furthermore, with touchpads you have to move your hands off the keyboard to use it.
Combined with the two-finger-swipe to scroll in all directions, the Mac trackpad really trashes the competition.
Actually, the Lenovo Thinkpads trash the competition as far as I'm concerned. I have a trackpoint (the little eraser thing), a touchpad, and 3 physical mouse buttons. I can configure the two mousing devices to do different things - I have the trackpoint act as mouse, and the touchpad as a 2D scroll wheel-like thing, which it is much better suited for. Far better than anything else, including the Macbooks.
The battery can get pretty hot when it's charging, generally when it's doing so the area with the battery is the hottest part of my laptop's case. That's why I wouldn't want the harddrive right up against the battery. The CPU can get pretty hot too, but most laptops have a fan blowing the heat from the CPU right out of the machine, so the CPU won't heat up the entire laptop (unless you have an early MacBook Pro that is).
Complaining that the mac mini is not upgradeable enough for a power user is like complaining that a geo metro is unsuitable for towing a boat.
Well, to use your car analogy, imagine that Ford had a vehicle that could toe a boat for the same price as the Metro, while all that GM offered at that price was the Metro. That's what a Mac Mini vs. a PC is like.
Same here. I have several of the last generation 5400RPM 160GB drives from Samsung. They are completely silent, very reliable, and can run all day in a fanless external enclosure and be barely warm to the touch. I would like to get more 5400RPM drives, as I see the only drive that really needs to be fast in the computer is the boot/programs/swap drive, while the mass media storage drives would be perfectly happy on a 5400RPN drive.
So, at the end of the day, a hybrid SUV still struggles to even approach the economy of a standard car. Ditto for hybrid cars and compact cars. While they are still a good thing (there is a need for trucks and SUVs as true utility vehicles, so an effort to build them better is not a total waste), we still need to be encouraging people to switch to more efficient forms of transportation, not just taking what they have now and marginally improving it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, like I say you can believe what you want to believe. However, what did Americans believe? Well:
6 -poll-iraq_x.htm/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-0
[Michael Moore mode]Why did nearly 70% of Americans believe there was a link, with no evidence of one? Could it have to do with nearly every speech for the past two years alternating between Iraq and terrorism? Why did the Whitehouse not attempt to correct people's mistaken beliefs? Could it have to do with what the Whitehouse would have to gain from people believing it?[/Michael Moore mode]
Anyhow, I'm done.
You are making my point for me (even though I already made it). You have a double standard: you are agreeing with me that saying they came from Iran does not mean that the Iranian government is involved in the IED attacks, so how does saying Atta met with Iraq mean that Iraq's government was involved with 9/11?
That's PRECISELY my point. Did the meeting between Atta and Iraq have anything to do with 9/11? Maybe, maybe not - chances are we may never know. HOWEVER, Cheney still presented that piece of evidence to imply a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Exactly the same way that they use the fact that explosives are coming from somewhere in Iran to imply that the Iranian government is involved in the Iraqi conflict.
I still think that the "Silicon Age" is what is ultimately going to stick.
Not quite. He said intelligence exists that says such links exist, not that they do actually exist.
You're trying to split hairs again. He still attempting to link 9/11 and Iraq together by repeating a bit of intelligence. Otherwise, why bring it up at all?
Incorrect. At most, even if we accept that Atta did meet with Iraqi officials, it suggests that this MIGHT be evidence of a link to 9/11.
Hence I said that Cheney IMPLIED that they were involved.
It's like the Iranian IED stuff. We have evidence those IEDs came from Iran. That does not mean that the Iranian government is arming Iraqi insurgents. It COULD mean that, but it doesn't necessarily mean that, and simply noting the fact that we have intelligence tying those IEDs to Iranian origin does not mean anyone is implying the Iranian government is involved.
When I hear talk about doing something about Iran, that is one of the things that often comes up. Note how (just as you just did) that they just say "Iran", not "Groups within Iran", or "Terrorists hiding in Iran", or similar. Of course, the implication is that it is the Iranian government somehow behind it, hence a justification to act against them.
You're just wrong.
You're pretty delusional.
Stop pretending he said something he didn't.
He said that Saddam was linked to the WTC attacks in 1993, then immediately thereafter he says that there were ties between Atta and the Iraqi government. Which, of course, implies that Iraq had ties to 9/11. That's what he said, carefully worded so that people you can defend him once they figure out they were mislead. But hey, you can keep on believing whatever you want to believe.
Then buy a Mac Mini. As cute as the Mac Mini is though, most people are willing to put up with a larger box to save some money.
Um, maybe what he said? That we had evidence they had ties to someone who was involved in 9/11. But not necessarily 9/11 itself.
Stop being silly and go look up the word "imply" in the dictionary.
Yep. That's a fact, of course. And it does not imply there was necessarily any connection between Iraq and 9/11, even if there was such a meeting with Iraq and Atta.
Cheney stating that the lead attacker met with Iraqi government officials is an implication from Cheney that Iraq had ties to 9/11. What else could he possibly have meant when he made that statement?
People hear what they want to hear. I never heard that. And on the other hand, we have people who think Joe Wilson actually disproved Bush's "16 words," that Bush lied pushed the aluminum tubes story contrary to what everyone was telling him, and that Bush didn't very explicitly and publicly reject the 9/11-Iraq back in 2003. None of those things are true, but people hear what they want to hear.
And a good politician uses this to their advantage. Take a look a speech from any canidate or political figure in recent memory. They are very good at filling a 10-15 minute speech while actually saying very little of substance, but at the same time people hear what the politician wants them to hear. They (or atleast their political advisors and speech writers) know exactly what they are doing.
I would also point out that you will also find very little statements directly connecting Afganistan to 9/11. Rather, the Whitehouse linked the Taliban to the Al Queada, then Al Queada to 9/11, then used the fact that the Taliban ruled Afganistan that to justify the Afganistan invasion. People accepted this for Afganistan as the connections were obvious. They figured they could play the same game with Iraq but it didn't work the second time around.
Shrug. Then how come nobody can come up with a single example?
"Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in 93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, weve had the story thats been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but weve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just dont know." - Cheney, September 14th 2003.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
Of course, you're right there isn't many statements where they said straight up that Iraq = 9/11. As you aluded too, they simply linked Al Queada to 9/11, then linked Al Queda to Iraq, then repeated it enough until people just heard Iraq = 9/11.
2003 is also very expensive desktop OS. I know some people who are running it as such, and I even installed it myself once. However, I would guess that nearly everyone who runs 2003 Server as their desktop OS probably pirated it.
Back when Windows 2000 was new, which was over 7 years ago, USB thumbdrives were not common, and most people weren't unplugging and plugging in USB devices all the time. Furthermore, most PCs of the time had 2 USB ports, max. Atleast they fixed that little annoyance in 2001 with XP.
To be fair, it wasn't that long ago when I was using a Linux distro that automounted my USB thumbdrive (nice), but I couldn't figure out how to unmount it without using sudo.
Ubuntu gets it more right than Windows. The applications themselves are less important, partly because they're mostly free, they get out of the way. Then you have the folders right there on the desktop so you can access the documents themselves directly. The application becomes just a tool to work on the information, which is what it's supposed to be. Ubuntu is actually easier to use than Windows. The metaphor makes sense.
How exactly is Windows any different? Default set up for Windows is to put icons for My Computer, My Documents, Network Places, and the Recycling bin right on the desktop. Most Windows people I know prefer to find the document in the file system and open it that way too.
I haven't noticed this on any LCD screen I have used, laptop or regular desktop screens. Even 486 laptops look as good a new. I am aware that the flourescent tube is supposed to dim as it ages, but I have not observed this - if they fail they just stop working. Perhaps it is due to the fact that I usually don't run my screens at the "burn your eyeballs out" default full brightness most of them seem to come set at?
The Apple key is not the same as the near-useless Windows key.
Actually, the Windows key is pretty useful as it adds a bunch of shortcuts that would have been a lot harder to have without it's presence. To name a few:
Windows+M (or +D): Minimize all/Show desktop
Windows+L: Lock computer
Windows+E: Windows Explorer
Windows+Pause: System properties
Windows+R: Run dialog
Now the really useless one (IMHO) is the context menu aka right mouse button key. Which ironically, would be a whole lot more useful if it was found on a Mac keyboard. Though in terms of keeping the Windows interface completely usable without a mouse, I guess it was needed.
If you are considering an interface where the user needs to know 32 different ways to click a goddamn mouse button, I hope like hell I never have to use any software you had a hand in.
You mean like all the different ways you can click on the touchpad to do different things on a Mac notebook?
I've never liked touchpads. They are imprecise and slow, and generally a pain to use. I find the clicking feature they have to be even more imprecise, and constantly registering false clicks. I haven't used a newer Apple notebook, but I can imagine all the different ways clicks on the pad can be registered would end up infuriating me. Furthermore, with touchpads you have to move your hands off the keyboard to use it.
Combined with the two-finger-swipe to scroll in all directions, the Mac trackpad really trashes the competition.
Actually, the Lenovo Thinkpads trash the competition as far as I'm concerned. I have a trackpoint (the little eraser thing), a touchpad, and 3 physical mouse buttons. I can configure the two mousing devices to do different things - I have the trackpoint act as mouse, and the touchpad as a 2D scroll wheel-like thing, which it is much better suited for. Far better than anything else, including the Macbooks.
Anyone Else Notice the new MacBook Pro is Windows Vista ULTIMATE Ready?
With real tech specs, not like the people trying to sell you a Vista machine with 512 MB of RAM.
Well, I would hope so at a price tag of $2000. Just like I would expect from any PC laptop in the same price range.
The battery can get pretty hot when it's charging, generally when it's doing so the area with the battery is the hottest part of my laptop's case. That's why I wouldn't want the harddrive right up against the battery. The CPU can get pretty hot too, but most laptops have a fan blowing the heat from the CPU right out of the machine, so the CPU won't heat up the entire laptop (unless you have an early MacBook Pro that is).
Wow, they put the harddrive next to the battery, thus ensuring that it will get very hot and die an early heat death? I think I'll pass on that.
Complaining that the mac mini is not upgradeable enough for a power user is like complaining that a geo metro is unsuitable for towing a boat.
Well, to use your car analogy, imagine that Ford had a vehicle that could toe a boat for the same price as the Metro, while all that GM offered at that price was the Metro. That's what a Mac Mini vs. a PC is like.
Same here. I have several of the last generation 5400RPM 160GB drives from Samsung. They are completely silent, very reliable, and can run all day in a fanless external enclosure and be barely warm to the touch. I would like to get more 5400RPM drives, as I see the only drive that really needs to be fast in the computer is the boot/programs/swap drive, while the mass media storage drives would be perfectly happy on a 5400RPN drive.
Then I would probably use RAID0. I don't get using RAID in a MythTV box - it's not like there is anything important stored on there, just TV shows.
If your controller sizzles, you still need to obtain another controller that can talk to the disks, which is sometimes harder than it sounds.
So, at the end of the day, a hybrid SUV still struggles to even approach the economy of a standard car. Ditto for hybrid cars and compact cars. While they are still a good thing (there is a need for trucks and SUVs as true utility vehicles, so an effort to build them better is not a total waste), we still need to be encouraging people to switch to more efficient forms of transportation, not just taking what they have now and marginally improving it.
Yes, because Al Gore is a climatologist, and has never had any political bias at all. Moron.
The fact that scientists believe in global warming does not mean that anyone who belives in global warming is a scientist. You fail Logic 101.