You are wrong. What if I build a nuclear reactor next to my oil well? Then I can spend 5 units of (relatively) cheap nuclear energy to get one unit of oil energy, and I will probably turn a profit. People are willing to pay more for energy they can drive around with.
Which would be 20% efficiency, which is terrible. You would be much better off using the nuclear energy to produce hydrogen for fuel cells, or even charging conventional batteries for pure electric vehicles.
Another fun fact is the pre-1982 cents in the US (which are 95% copper) are currently worth over twice their face value in copper metal. The nickel is also worth more than face value in metal (about 7 cents IIRC). Even the cheap copper coated zinc cents are almost worth face value in zinc! The price of metal has gone nuts the past few years.
Sounds like a driver issue - you had USB2 ports on the computer, old Windows XP did not recognize them as such, and the drivers for them never got installed. Upgraded to SP2, and one of the included drivers was a match for your hardware, and suddenly you got USB2 speeds.
I had an Aiwa CD player that seemed to pull something off of the CD for it's seed. Which meant that while it was more random than the Sony one, the same CD would always get played in the same random order everytime. They should have used something like the amount of time the CD player had been on in milliseconds or something instead (the CD player didn't have a clock, so you couldn't use the time/date).
To be fair, the iRiver 20GB model is only twice as thick as a 30GB iPod, and less than twice the thickness of the 80GB model. I also don't recall seeing a HDD player that runs on AA or AAA batteries - probably because the battery life would be terrible.
I suspect the killer disadvantage of the iPod will be: - It's another device, and it only plays music.
I'm guessing in a few years, the iPod will start to lose marketshare to devices that do a bunch of other stuff (cell phone, PDA, ???) and also plays music too. There will probably always be a market for those people who do want a dedicated device, but for the masses they will prefer the single device that does it all.
I hope you didn't have to pay the electric bill in that apartment...
Anyway, my Mom just had her fridge die. It was about 7 years old too. When she mentioned it to her friend who she sold her previous fridge to (early 80's model), the friend said that the old fridge was still going strong.
iRiver still sells some of its flash players that take AA or AAA batteries. I have an older one. Featurewise, they they can do just about everything the iPod can do plus more - the only things I can think of that it can't do is play Apple's DRM and display photos (if you compare to a Nano). The battery life is excellent.
You can talk all day long about how many civil rights you protected at all funerals you will be attending if we DON'T do the surveillance.
What's wrong with going ahead and doing the surveillance, but getting a warrant for it too? It's not like we don't already have a procedure already set up for the specific purpose of rubberstamping warrants. The FISA court has approved 99.8% of all warrant requests - if they are going after a suspected terrorist they should have no problem getting a warrant under the current situation. I see absolutely no purpose in granting these powers to the government, the only thing the government is going to do with them is abuse them.
I was wondering about that, as I noticed some computers from a smaller OEM where the CD-Key on the side of computer (as well as the one on the Office disk) did not match the one that keyfinder found. I've been able to then use the CD Key on the sticker to successfully install Windows XP on a second machine, and Microsoft thinks both copies are totally legit. Though I suspect if the first computer craps out and needs a reinstall, I'm screwed.
Microsoft will force people off of XP and 2000 by refusing to support the OS and stop issuing security patches.
Extended support for Windows 98 was only ended a few months ago. Likely, people will be able to run Windows 2000 for atleast another 2 years (probably longer), and Windows XP for another 4 (probably longer too) and still stay patched up. Remember, a lot of coporate clients are still on Windows 2000 right now.
And even without patches, anyone with a firewall and a good dose of common sense should be able to keep a Windows 2000/XP box on the internet for a long time to come.
If I wanted to send a fax that way, I would have to pick a machine, install a modem in it, then run a phone cord to the machine. Luckily for me I literally have a box of near-useless old modems sitting around, though most (all?) of them are for ISA slots.
Probably easier just to borrow the fax machine at work for a few minutes.
In my own experience, it's not necessary to upgrade at all. Just offer to "recycle" other people's discarded hardware for no charge. You'll still be about 3 years behind the curve, but you'll have it all at others' expense. Plus, it's helping the environment.
On the other hand, the new computers at my office are 3.0Ghz P4's with 512MB of ram, and are less powerful than my aging Socket A system. Even 3 year old technology is still considered "new" by many people - certainly different from the old days. Back when 300Mhz was all the rage, no one was still trying to sell Pentium 90 systems as new.
This doesn't show the president playing with jacks and making his only concern to be butterflies and bubles. He states clealry why he thinks Bin Laden isn't a threat that he once was. So i guess my point is still valid. It isn't being show in the context people are trying to make it seem like. Democrate are making trying to make it out as if he is incompetent when it shows different. They are doing this to remove themsleve from the stigma of most americans believing republicans will do better with "the war on terror" You may or may not be one of them doing it. It doesn't matter. All i'm trying to do on this is make sure the whole story is being repeated. One thing that pisses the people off the most is finding out thier government was elected on lies. And presenting this out of context to mean something it doesn't is a lie.
And my point still stands. Bin Laden is a criminal, responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and billions of dollars of damage to the American economy. He should be brought to justice. He should have been brought to justice years ago. Not to mention the demoralizing effect his capture would mean, and it would be nice to show the world that we are actually serious about this War on Terror thing. For Bush to say he's not concerned about him, in my mind, is simply unbelievable. Yes, even in context presented. I mean, the police don't give up on capturing some criminal when the criminal is marginalized and hiding out in the mountains, why should Bin Laden be any different?
This doesn't show the president playing with jacks and making his only concern to be butterflies and bubles. He states clealry why he thinks Bin Laden isn't a threat that he once was. So i guess my point is still valid. It isn't being show in the context people are trying to make it seem like. Democrate are making trying to make it out as if he is incompetent when it shows different. They are doing this to remove themsleve from the stigma of most americans believing republicans will do better with "the war on terror" You may or may not be one of them doing it. It doesn't matter. All i'm trying to do on this is make sure the whole story is being repeated. One thing that pisses the people off the most is finding out thier government was elected on lies. And presenting this out of context to mean something it doesn't is a lie.
This whole thing got started with people blaming Clinton for the failure of dealing with Bin Laden. Given this argument, how can you then turn around and blame Clinton for not getting Bin Laden? Atleast Clinton (or, more generally, the US Government during the time he was the President) kept tabs on Bin Laden, and knew his location at serveral points during the Clinton years, even if he decided not to act upon it. That seems to be more than I can say about the nine months Bush was the President.
No, those comments were made durring a presidential campain debate after the Iraq war had started. And they weren't lies, at that time even the news papers were reporting that we have him cornered and it was just a matter of time. We also got several near misses at that time wer eapearently Bin Ladin escape death by a matter of minutes.
You make alot about a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In U.S.". Have your read that document? If not go read it and then come back. Tell me what should have been done in a pre 9/11 enviroment by what that document actualy says. Please tell me because i have read it and it doesn't say anything about what happened on 9/11. It names a few buildings as potential targets but no were near 9/11. It mentions verry little about Bin Ladin, and draws no conclusion about an inement attack inside the US. In fact, the title is really misleading at best.
You keep saying things about what we knew pre-9/11. So the report didn't say anything about flying planes into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. What did Bush do about the things the report did say?
I guess that my fault for adding the hold up in a cave for five years watching everyone around you die thing. But that doesn't detract from Bushes point when the comment was being made, People are pursuing Bin Ladin, they have him cornered, they have removed most if not all his ability to make terror, and it is just a matter of time before he is dealt with. And this was in responce to a question about not capturing him.
Well, I could forgive Bush for that if there were actually pressing issues on the table that precluded him from pursuing Bin Laden. However, remember those comments were made during Bush's big push to invade Iraq, and those other issues were nothing more than misinformation and plain out lies from the Bush administration, and at best are still a diversion from the War on Terror. The only other pressing issue I could see would be trying to stabilize Afganistan, but at that time Afganistan had already been pushed aside in favor of Iraq.
He did take actions. What you mean is he didn't take any action or measures that you would consider prudent knowing what you know today but didn't back then. These kind of misleading answers stright out of the busher's "lets get democrates elected this election" playbook is exactly what I mean. It is all the sudden "it wouldn't matter" because he wouldn't do anything. Well what was there to do? There was no publicly known information pointing to 9/11 and documents clearly state they were trying to collect and analize information concerning Al Qeada and Bin Ladin.
What actions? I'm sure the CIA were still doing their jobs, making connections and whatnot - but Bush seemed to be very uninterested in foriegn affairs before 9/11. He was too busy pushing his tax cuts, taking acations, photo ops, and what not. He took no actions based upon the security briefing he recieved in August titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In U.S." None. Not any attempt at action. Not even misguided actions. Not even a meeting to discuss possible actions. Quite simply, none. Of course we make a big stink of it now, and if 9/11 never happened the security briefing and subsequent ignoring of it would have been long forgotten. But this was all before the attacks.
Well, to answer your question, if it was up to me, I would not of created the monster in the first place. We (speaking as an American) sorely need to learn that an enemy of our enemy is not automatically our friend. We've been burned by this in the past, we're being burned by it right now, and amazingly, we are still doing it. Undoubtably so, we'll be burned by it again in the future when one of our so-called "allies" in the War On Terror decides to turn against us.
But the fact that we trained and provided weapons to Bin Laden is Reagan's fault, and it's 1993, so what to do about Bin Laden? I think the best thing to do would be to take on more of an isolationist foriegn policy. Quite simply, the reason why people like Bin Laden are so pissed at us is that we keep meddling in the Middle East. If we simply left well enough alone, they would likewise ignore us, and keep themselves busy with killing each other instead (much like modern day central Africa). Without our foriegn policy as motivaton, Bin Laden would not exist as we know him - or even if he did, he would have a much harder time finding support and funding. As a nice side affect, if we aren't over there, that also provides less oppertunities for them to hit us. The USS Cole would not have been hit under my watch, as she would have been safely at home, possibly helping to patrol the waters off out coastline.
Sorry, but I don't feel like providing references and whatnot right now, as this is a slashdot post and not a research paper.
President Bill Clinton failed the country by not addressing the problem when it arose and George W. Bush had to try to address his failure to act. I just saw the film on the news with Osama and the 9/11 terrorists having a pow-wow a year and one half before 9/11, which President Clinton likely knew about. Why didn't he get Osama then?
As a matter of fact, isn't it harder to catch a thief after he has committed his crime? President Clinton had the opportunity to catch Osama while he was planning, yet President Bush had to try to catch a terrorist after he committed his crime. Logic would say that a criminal will try harder to hide after he has committed a crime, wouldn't you say? President Clinton had more time and a better opportunity to catch Osama and did not.
President Clinton failed... sorry.
I'm not disagreeing with this. And it's easy to say that now. Clinton knew that he couldn't take Bin Laden out without stirring some shit up, so he was cautious. Obviously the wrong choice, but not so unreasonable at the time - especially since any action on his part was greeted with accusations of "Wagging the dog" by the Republicans.
Also, I would like to say that I have seen very little evidence of any addressing Clinton's failure to act by Bush. Remember, it's been five years and Osama Bin Laden has yet to be captured or killed.
While President Clinton didn't invade Iraq when he likely had access to intelligence which pointed to Iraq as a terrorist threat. I was over in Turkey for Operation Provide Comfort, as a civilian, from '95-'97 and know that Iraq was violating the No Fly Zone and killing Kurds, while we were providing humanitarian aid. They were challenging our fighters and should have been addressed appropriately.
While President Clinton did not invade Iraq, his perpetual and continual ineffectiveness on the international front in regards to volatile situations prompted Iraq, as well as other countries, to take greater and bolder liberties with the expectation that the US would not retaliate. The reason Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein felt they could buffalo the US was based on what they had learned from the previous 8 years, the Clinton Administration.
Clinton was not stupid, and if we've learned anything the last few years, it's that taking out Saddam turns out to be a fiasco. Saddam Hussien was a real saber-rattler. He likes to make threats and act hostile. Part of this is undoubtly due to his overly inflated ego, and part of it was certainly an attempt to keep his neighbors and factions inside his country from trying to kick his ass (I'm sure he wouldn't of lasted long if the truth became widely known that he did not actually have any significant quanties of WMD). Saddam was certainly annoying, but he was not a real threat - and Clinton knew this. He also know that taking out Saddam would create a vacuum of power, which would be filled by people even more extreme than Saddam who would pose a much greater threat to America than Saddam. Quite simply, ignoring Iraq except for lobbing the occasional missle when things got too annoying was probably the best course of action, and also the simpliest.
Additionally, most terrorists are wanting publicity, so by a person saying that they don't care about them, it would likely strike the terrorist ego and make them pop up their heads, so they can be easier targets. I find it hard to believe that George W. Bush does not care about Osama. that argument does not follow logic.
So the whole quote was actually an elaborate ploy to get Osama to crawl out of his cave? I kind of doubt that, especially since Osama has not been captured anyhow. When Bush publicly stated he was not concerned about Bin Laden, I think he actually meant it.
The "But Clinton" argument is only around after 6 years because it was at time, and before that time, that the plan to attack the United States was conceived. A year later the United States was attacked. The truth never becomes stale
Anyone willing to go further then the sound byte offered by the democrate fundraisers and election commities, the would quickly see that the debate had some more concerning those comments. He said in conection with that comment something to the effect of bin ladin being hold up in a cave and not able to be influential to Al Qeada at the moment. He then spoke of several other threats he said was a more concerning at that time.
So to suggest that this comment means bush wasn't doing anything or actualy didn't care, is plainly wrong. And run free for five years? If you consider a good portion of those five years in hiding while watching people you know die because you gave them orders to do something "free", then i guess your correct. I'm not sure it is "free" though.
I guess you could make some argument that Americans aren't "free" because we pay taxes or something. Whatever. How about bringing a known CRIMINAL who has killed thousands of Americans over a period YEARS to JUSTICE? How about showing the world that you cannot attack the United States of America and get away with it? The fact that people will critize Clinton for not going after Bin Laden, then in the next breath will defend Bush for basically doing the same thing is simply amazing.
First, what did clintons warning say? Did it say Bin Ladin was going to hijack some planes and run them into buildings? Did it say look out for this guy, he is trouble? Did they say it in more then one sentence in more then just a passing "oh yea, look out for Al Queada" and the end of a briefing? Or was it something that was on the agenda but someone did actualy get to it durring the meeting? I'm really wanting to know exactly what the warning was and how it relates to actions taken or not.
Second the two reports that we know of offered incorect targets as posssible threats, offered little conclusive information on Al Qeada's intended actions and in the only one of the two reports that mentioned planes, suggested a hijacking for the release of two terrorist but timeline. The report also included a statment that the FBI was conducting investigations wich would make a reasonable person belive the FBI would have more information that could be acted on.
It would be one thing if Bush took some measures against the threats, and despite his efforts, the terrorists still managed to attack. But Bush did nothing. I guess in that sense, it wouldn't have mattered at all what the reports actually said.
By the way, does anybody remember that Bill Clinton knew of Bin Laden, as well? Perhaps everybody should watch a little interview he had sometime last week or so where he said he went after Bin Laden and failed, and became quite hot and bothered regarding an issue of national security... perhaps the only time he ever became hot and bothered for a legitimate reason relating to his duties as Commander in Chief.
It's easy to say Clinton should have done more to catch Osama Bin Laden, given the events that transpired after he left office. But on the other hand, who has let Osama run free for the last 5 years, and has even publicly stated that he is not concerned with Bin Laden?
Also, the Clinton administration so emasculated the military that it is no wonder they are not properly trained. No president in history has done more to cause the death of our soldiers than Bill Clinton.
Last time I checked, it wasn't Bill Clinton's administration that invaded Iraq.
President George W. Bush was sworn into office on January 20, 2001 and we were attacked on September 11, 2001, 9 months later. Do you think that Bin Laden was not planning this for at least a year or two in advance of President Bush's presidency? C'mon, think about the logistics here.
On the other hand, George W. Bush was president for nine months, and after being warned about Bin Laden by the previous administration, as well as being warned by reports explicitly warned that Bin Laden was determined to attack the US, he did nothing.
C'mon now, the "But Clinton" argument is getting pretty stale after 6 years.
That's actually a pretty nice machine there. I would guess that if the original poster is not lying, and his Powerbook is not broken, that he's running the stock 256MB of ram in the machine.
Well, how about this - what other purpose do warrantless wiretaps serve other than abuse? If there is a valid reason for the wiretap, then there should not be any problem getting a warrant from a judge. Remember, we already have the FISA court, which is pretty much only exists to rubberstamp these requests - and can do so even after surveillance begins. The only reason I can see for circumventing the system in place is to abuse it.
You could always argue time. AMD folks are used to living a long time on a socket type. 939 was only around about a year before AM2 came, whereas 754 and the previous socket 7 were very, very long lived. In another couple years, maybe AM2/3 will pick up steam, but it's too early.
Socket A was a bit of an anomoly, actually. Socket 754 was very short lived. Socket 939 only lasted a year as you mentioned. Slot A was very short lived. Socket 7 was actually an Intel thing, but after Intel bailed out on it with the Pentium II, it was effectively AMD's socket once Cyrix left the CPU market shortly thereafter. AMD stuck to Socket 7 for far too long - it seemed that they were scared to introduce their own standard into the market.
Besides, Intel's Socket 478 has lasted a long time, an so has LGA775. Though the people I know who bought Socket 423 are still bitter about it.
Most of these drives are exactly the same mechanically, and some of them even use the same controller - just with a different connector on the end for the SATA version. My theory is that the latest generation of harddrives just aren't as reliable as previous generations, possibly due to the data densities and mechanical tolerances involved in creating 200GB+ drives. It's just that many people have switched over to SATA at the same time they picked up these drives, and are blaming SATA when their newer drives don't last as long as yesterday's drives.
With that said, I haven't had a harddrive failure (SATA or PATA) for several years. The last one was a PATA 80GB IBM Deathstar (well, actually several - I had bought 3 of them sadly).
It's just the reasons *I* don't like the design, that's all. I can live with cables, portability is not a big concern, I like the flexibility of being able to have the monitor seperate from the computer (yes, my monitor does height adjustment), and I like the upgradability of a tower over an all in one. So yes, the iMac does not appeal to me.
Slashdot Mirror
You are wrong. What if I build a nuclear reactor next to my oil well? Then I can spend 5 units of (relatively) cheap nuclear energy to get one unit of oil energy, and I will probably turn a profit. People are willing to pay more for energy they can drive around with.
Which would be 20% efficiency, which is terrible. You would be much better off using the nuclear energy to produce hydrogen for fuel cells, or even charging conventional batteries for pure electric vehicles.
Another fun fact is the pre-1982 cents in the US (which are 95% copper) are currently worth over twice their face value in copper metal. The nickel is also worth more than face value in metal (about 7 cents IIRC). Even the cheap copper coated zinc cents are almost worth face value in zinc! The price of metal has gone nuts the past few years.
Sounds like a driver issue - you had USB2 ports on the computer, old Windows XP did not recognize them as such, and the drivers for them never got installed. Upgraded to SP2, and one of the included drivers was a match for your hardware, and suddenly you got USB2 speeds.
I had an Aiwa CD player that seemed to pull something off of the CD for it's seed. Which meant that while it was more random than the Sony one, the same CD would always get played in the same random order everytime. They should have used something like the amount of time the CD player had been on in milliseconds or something instead (the CD player didn't have a clock, so you couldn't use the time/date).
To be fair, the iRiver 20GB model is only twice as thick as a 30GB iPod, and less than twice the thickness of the 80GB model. I also don't recall seeing a HDD player that runs on AA or AAA batteries - probably because the battery life would be terrible.
I suspect the killer disadvantage of the iPod will be:
- It's another device, and it only plays music.
I'm guessing in a few years, the iPod will start to lose marketshare to devices that do a bunch of other stuff (cell phone, PDA, ???) and also plays music too. There will probably always be a market for those people who do want a dedicated device, but for the masses they will prefer the single device that does it all.
I hope you didn't have to pay the electric bill in that apartment...
Anyway, my Mom just had her fridge die. It was about 7 years old too. When she mentioned it to her friend who she sold her previous fridge to (early 80's model), the friend said that the old fridge was still going strong.
iRiver still sells some of its flash players that take AA or AAA batteries. I have an older one. Featurewise, they they can do just about everything the iPod can do plus more - the only things I can think of that it can't do is play Apple's DRM and display photos (if you compare to a Nano). The battery life is excellent.
You can talk all day long about how many civil rights you protected at all funerals you will be attending if we DON'T do the surveillance.
What's wrong with going ahead and doing the surveillance, but getting a warrant for it too? It's not like we don't already have a procedure already set up for the specific purpose of rubberstamping warrants. The FISA court has approved 99.8% of all warrant requests - if they are going after a suspected terrorist they should have no problem getting a warrant under the current situation. I see absolutely no purpose in granting these powers to the government, the only thing the government is going to do with them is abuse them.
I was wondering about that, as I noticed some computers from a smaller OEM where the CD-Key on the side of computer (as well as the one on the Office disk) did not match the one that keyfinder found. I've been able to then use the CD Key on the sticker to successfully install Windows XP on a second machine, and Microsoft thinks both copies are totally legit. Though I suspect if the first computer craps out and needs a reinstall, I'm screwed.
Microsoft will force people off of XP and 2000 by refusing to support the OS and stop issuing security patches.
Extended support for Windows 98 was only ended a few months ago. Likely, people will be able to run Windows 2000 for atleast another 2 years (probably longer), and Windows XP for another 4 (probably longer too) and still stay patched up. Remember, a lot of coporate clients are still on Windows 2000 right now.
And even without patches, anyone with a firewall and a good dose of common sense should be able to keep a Windows 2000/XP box on the internet for a long time to come.
If I wanted to send a fax that way, I would have to pick a machine, install a modem in it, then run a phone cord to the machine. Luckily for me I literally have a box of near-useless old modems sitting around, though most (all?) of them are for ISA slots.
Probably easier just to borrow the fax machine at work for a few minutes.
In my own experience, it's not necessary to upgrade at all. Just offer to "recycle" other people's discarded hardware for no charge. You'll still be about 3 years behind the curve, but you'll have it all at others' expense. Plus, it's helping the environment.
On the other hand, the new computers at my office are 3.0Ghz P4's with 512MB of ram, and are less powerful than my aging Socket A system. Even 3 year old technology is still considered "new" by many people - certainly different from the old days. Back when 300Mhz was all the rage, no one was still trying to sell Pentium 90 systems as new.
This doesn't show the president playing with jacks and making his only concern to be butterflies and bubles. He states clealry why he thinks Bin Laden isn't a threat that he once was. So i guess my point is still valid. It isn't being show in the context people are trying to make it seem like. Democrate are making trying to make it out as if he is incompetent when it shows different. They are doing this to remove themsleve from the stigma of most americans believing republicans will do better with "the war on terror" You may or may not be one of them doing it. It doesn't matter. All i'm trying to do on this is make sure the whole story is being repeated. One thing that pisses the people off the most is finding out thier government was elected on lies. And presenting this out of context to mean something it doesn't is a lie.
And my point still stands. Bin Laden is a criminal, responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and billions of dollars of damage to the American economy. He should be brought to justice. He should have been brought to justice years ago. Not to mention the demoralizing effect his capture would mean, and it would be nice to show the world that we are actually serious about this War on Terror thing. For Bush to say he's not concerned about him, in my mind, is simply unbelievable. Yes, even in context presented. I mean, the police don't give up on capturing some criminal when the criminal is marginalized and hiding out in the mountains, why should Bin Laden be any different?
This doesn't show the president playing with jacks and making his only concern to be butterflies and bubles. He states clealry why he thinks Bin Laden isn't a threat that he once was. So i guess my point is still valid. It isn't being show in the context people are trying to make it seem like. Democrate are making trying to make it out as if he is incompetent when it shows different. They are doing this to remove themsleve from the stigma of most americans believing republicans will do better with "the war on terror" You may or may not be one of them doing it. It doesn't matter. All i'm trying to do on this is make sure the whole story is being repeated. One thing that pisses the people off the most is finding out thier government was elected on lies. And presenting this out of context to mean something it doesn't is a lie.
This whole thing got started with people blaming Clinton for the failure of dealing with Bin Laden. Given this argument, how can you then turn around and blame Clinton for not getting Bin Laden? Atleast Clinton (or, more generally, the US Government during the time he was the President) kept tabs on Bin Laden, and knew his location at serveral points during the Clinton years, even if he decided not to act upon it. That seems to be more than I can say about the nine months Bush was the President.
No, those comments were made durring a presidential campain debate after the Iraq war had started. And they weren't lies, at that time even the news papers were reporting that we have him cornered and it was just a matter of time. We also got several near misses at that time wer eapearently Bin Ladin escape death by a matter of minutes.
0 020313-8.html
Wrong. The comments were first made in March of 2002. Here's a link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/2
You make alot about a PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In U.S.". Have your read that document? If not go read it and then come back. Tell me what should have been done in a pre 9/11 enviroment by what that document actualy says. Please tell me because i have read it and it doesn't say anything about what happened on 9/11. It names a few buildings as potential targets but no were near 9/11. It mentions verry little about Bin Ladin, and draws no conclusion about an inement attack inside the US. In fact, the title is really misleading at best.
You keep saying things about what we knew pre-9/11. So the report didn't say anything about flying planes into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. What did Bush do about the things the report did say?
I guess that my fault for adding the hold up in a cave for five years watching everyone around you die thing. But that doesn't detract from Bushes point when the comment was being made, People are pursuing Bin Ladin, they have him cornered, they have removed most if not all his ability to make terror, and it is just a matter of time before he is dealt with. And this was in responce to a question about not capturing him.
Well, I could forgive Bush for that if there were actually pressing issues on the table that precluded him from pursuing Bin Laden. However, remember those comments were made during Bush's big push to invade Iraq, and those other issues were nothing more than misinformation and plain out lies from the Bush administration, and at best are still a diversion from the War on Terror. The only other pressing issue I could see would be trying to stabilize Afganistan, but at that time Afganistan had already been pushed aside in favor of Iraq.
He did take actions. What you mean is he didn't take any action or measures that you would consider prudent knowing what you know today but didn't back then. These kind of misleading answers stright out of the busher's "lets get democrates elected this election" playbook is exactly what I mean. It is all the sudden "it wouldn't matter" because he wouldn't do anything. Well what was there to do? There was no publicly known information pointing to 9/11 and documents clearly state they were trying to collect and analize information concerning Al Qeada and Bin Ladin.
What actions? I'm sure the CIA were still doing their jobs, making connections and whatnot - but Bush seemed to be very uninterested in foriegn affairs before 9/11. He was too busy pushing his tax cuts, taking acations, photo ops, and what not. He took no actions based upon the security briefing he recieved in August titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In U.S." None. Not any attempt at action. Not even misguided actions. Not even a meeting to discuss possible actions. Quite simply, none. Of course we make a big stink of it now, and if 9/11 never happened the security briefing and subsequent ignoring of it would have been long forgotten. But this was all before the attacks.
Well, to answer your question, if it was up to me, I would not of created the monster in the first place. We (speaking as an American) sorely need to learn that an enemy of our enemy is not automatically our friend. We've been burned by this in the past, we're being burned by it right now, and amazingly, we are still doing it. Undoubtably so, we'll be burned by it again in the future when one of our so-called "allies" in the War On Terror decides to turn against us.
But the fact that we trained and provided weapons to Bin Laden is Reagan's fault, and it's 1993, so what to do about Bin Laden? I think the best thing to do would be to take on more of an isolationist foriegn policy. Quite simply, the reason why people like Bin Laden are so pissed at us is that we keep meddling in the Middle East. If we simply left well enough alone, they would likewise ignore us, and keep themselves busy with killing each other instead (much like modern day central Africa). Without our foriegn policy as motivaton, Bin Laden would not exist as we know him - or even if he did, he would have a much harder time finding support and funding. As a nice side affect, if we aren't over there, that also provides less oppertunities for them to hit us. The USS Cole would not have been hit under my watch, as she would have been safely at home, possibly helping to patrol the waters off out coastline.
Sorry, but I don't feel like providing references and whatnot right now, as this is a slashdot post and not a research paper.
President Bill Clinton failed the country by not addressing the problem when it arose and George W. Bush had to try to address his failure to act. I just saw the film on the news with Osama and the 9/11 terrorists having a pow-wow a year and one half before 9/11, which President Clinton likely knew about. Why didn't he get Osama then?
... sorry.
As a matter of fact, isn't it harder to catch a thief after he has committed his crime? President Clinton had the opportunity to catch Osama while he was planning, yet President Bush had to try to catch a terrorist after he committed his crime. Logic would say that a criminal will try harder to hide after he has committed a crime, wouldn't you say? President Clinton had more time and a better opportunity to catch Osama and did not.
President Clinton failed
I'm not disagreeing with this. And it's easy to say that now. Clinton knew that he couldn't take Bin Laden out without stirring some shit up, so he was cautious. Obviously the wrong choice, but not so unreasonable at the time - especially since any action on his part was greeted with accusations of "Wagging the dog" by the Republicans.
Also, I would like to say that I have seen very little evidence of any addressing Clinton's failure to act by Bush. Remember, it's been five years and Osama Bin Laden has yet to be captured or killed.
While President Clinton didn't invade Iraq when he likely had access to intelligence which pointed to Iraq as a terrorist threat. I was over in Turkey for Operation Provide Comfort, as a civilian, from '95-'97 and know that Iraq was violating the No Fly Zone and killing Kurds, while we were providing humanitarian aid. They were challenging our fighters and should have been addressed appropriately.
While President Clinton did not invade Iraq, his perpetual and continual ineffectiveness on the international front in regards to volatile situations prompted Iraq, as well as other countries, to take greater and bolder liberties with the expectation that the US would not retaliate. The reason Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein felt they could buffalo the US was based on what they had learned from the previous 8 years, the Clinton Administration.
Clinton was not stupid, and if we've learned anything the last few years, it's that taking out Saddam turns out to be a fiasco. Saddam Hussien was a real saber-rattler. He likes to make threats and act hostile. Part of this is undoubtly due to his overly inflated ego, and part of it was certainly an attempt to keep his neighbors and factions inside his country from trying to kick his ass (I'm sure he wouldn't of lasted long if the truth became widely known that he did not actually have any significant quanties of WMD). Saddam was certainly annoying, but he was not a real threat - and Clinton knew this. He also know that taking out Saddam would create a vacuum of power, which would be filled by people even more extreme than Saddam who would pose a much greater threat to America than Saddam. Quite simply, ignoring Iraq except for lobbing the occasional missle when things got too annoying was probably the best course of action, and also the simpliest.
Additionally, most terrorists are wanting publicity, so by a person saying that they don't care about them, it would likely strike the terrorist ego and make them pop up their heads, so they can be easier targets. I find it hard to believe that George W. Bush does not care about Osama. that argument does not follow logic.
So the whole quote was actually an elaborate ploy to get Osama to crawl out of his cave? I kind of doubt that, especially since Osama has not been captured anyhow. When Bush publicly stated he was not concerned about Bin Laden, I think he actually meant it.
The "But Clinton" argument is only around after 6 years because it was at time, and before that time, that the plan to attack the United States was conceived. A year later the United States was attacked. The truth never becomes stale
Anyone willing to go further then the sound byte offered by the democrate fundraisers and election commities, the would quickly see that the debate had some more concerning those comments. He said in conection with that comment something to the effect of bin ladin being hold up in a cave and not able to be influential to Al Qeada at the moment. He then spoke of several other threats he said was a more concerning at that time.
So to suggest that this comment means bush wasn't doing anything or actualy didn't care, is plainly wrong. And run free for five years? If you consider a good portion of those five years in hiding while watching people you know die because you gave them orders to do something "free", then i guess your correct. I'm not sure it is "free" though.
I guess you could make some argument that Americans aren't "free" because we pay taxes or something. Whatever. How about bringing a known CRIMINAL who has killed thousands of Americans over a period YEARS to JUSTICE? How about showing the world that you cannot attack the United States of America and get away with it? The fact that people will critize Clinton for not going after Bin Laden, then in the next breath will defend Bush for basically doing the same thing is simply amazing.
First, what did clintons warning say? Did it say Bin Ladin was going to hijack some planes and run them into buildings? Did it say look out for this guy, he is trouble? Did they say it in more then one sentence in more then just a passing "oh yea, look out for Al Queada" and the end of a briefing? Or was it something that was on the agenda but someone did actualy get to it durring the meeting? I'm really wanting to know exactly what the warning was and how it relates to actions taken or not.
Second the two reports that we know of offered incorect targets as posssible threats, offered little conclusive information on Al Qeada's intended actions and in the only one of the two reports that mentioned planes, suggested a hijacking for the release of two terrorist but timeline. The report also included a statment that the FBI was conducting investigations wich would make a reasonable person belive the FBI would have more information that could be acted on.
It would be one thing if Bush took some measures against the threats, and despite his efforts, the terrorists still managed to attack. But Bush did nothing. I guess in that sense, it wouldn't have mattered at all what the reports actually said.
By the way, does anybody remember that Bill Clinton knew of Bin Laden, as well? Perhaps everybody should watch a little interview he had sometime last week or so where he said he went after Bin Laden and failed, and became quite hot and bothered regarding an issue of national security ... perhaps the only time he ever became hot and bothered for a legitimate reason relating to his duties as Commander in Chief.
It's easy to say Clinton should have done more to catch Osama Bin Laden, given the events that transpired after he left office. But on the other hand, who has let Osama run free for the last 5 years, and has even publicly stated that he is not concerned with Bin Laden?
Also, the Clinton administration so emasculated the military that it is no wonder they are not properly trained. No president in history has done more to cause the death of our soldiers than Bill Clinton.
Last time I checked, it wasn't Bill Clinton's administration that invaded Iraq.
President George W. Bush was sworn into office on January 20, 2001 and we were attacked on September 11, 2001, 9 months later. Do you think that Bin Laden was not planning this for at least a year or two in advance of President Bush's presidency? C'mon, think about the logistics here.
On the other hand, George W. Bush was president for nine months, and after being warned about Bin Laden by the previous administration, as well as being warned by reports explicitly warned that Bin Laden was determined to attack the US, he did nothing.
C'mon now, the "But Clinton" argument is getting pretty stale after 6 years.
That's actually a pretty nice machine there. I would guess that if the original poster is not lying, and his Powerbook is not broken, that he's running the stock 256MB of ram in the machine.
Well, how about this - what other purpose do warrantless wiretaps serve other than abuse? If there is a valid reason for the wiretap, then there should not be any problem getting a warrant from a judge. Remember, we already have the FISA court, which is pretty much only exists to rubberstamp these requests - and can do so even after surveillance begins. The only reason I can see for circumventing the system in place is to abuse it.
You could always argue time. AMD folks are used to living a long time on a socket type. 939 was only around about a year before AM2 came, whereas 754 and the previous socket 7 were very, very long lived. In another couple years, maybe AM2/3 will pick up steam, but it's too early.
Socket A was a bit of an anomoly, actually. Socket 754 was very short lived. Socket 939 only lasted a year as you mentioned. Slot A was very short lived. Socket 7 was actually an Intel thing, but after Intel bailed out on it with the Pentium II, it was effectively AMD's socket once Cyrix left the CPU market shortly thereafter. AMD stuck to Socket 7 for far too long - it seemed that they were scared to introduce their own standard into the market.
Besides, Intel's Socket 478 has lasted a long time, an so has LGA775. Though the people I know who bought Socket 423 are still bitter about it.
Most of these drives are exactly the same mechanically, and some of them even use the same controller - just with a different connector on the end for the SATA version. My theory is that the latest generation of harddrives just aren't as reliable as previous generations, possibly due to the data densities and mechanical tolerances involved in creating 200GB+ drives. It's just that many people have switched over to SATA at the same time they picked up these drives, and are blaming SATA when their newer drives don't last as long as yesterday's drives.
With that said, I haven't had a harddrive failure (SATA or PATA) for several years. The last one was a PATA 80GB IBM Deathstar (well, actually several - I had bought 3 of them sadly).
Or are you just Mac Bashing for the heck of it?
It's just the reasons *I* don't like the design, that's all. I can live with cables, portability is not a big concern, I like the flexibility of being able to have the monitor seperate from the computer (yes, my monitor does height adjustment), and I like the upgradability of a tower over an all in one. So yes, the iMac does not appeal to me.