Yep. They pretty much have to be caught having sex with a dead baby on the White House lawn to get into any trouble these days. And then, there's the still the risk that Congress will just stage seven months of hearings to determine whether or not there's just cause to establish a committee to investigate the possibility of opening discussion on the feasability of issuing a statement condeming the behavior.
I just love seeing true American values in action.
Why not just save time and money and have one standard?
Good point, however, the problem is that it doesn't appear this will be saving Great Britain any time or money. Their project has been underway for some time already, and its budget has steadily increased from an original 3.1 billion to 5.8 billion. Changing directions at this point in the game would only add more time and money.
Long and short of it is, there's got to be greater cooperation between the world's countries for something like this to work, and with the state of today's politics . . . Well, let's just say no one should start holding their breath.
Its astonishing to contemplate the turn around from previous American apathy to a nation which now readily embarks on politically motivated military action.
Our freedom to worship the one true God, as long as He doesn't remind us of that whole "be kind to others" socialist crap.
Our freedom to demand accountability from our elected political officials, provided, of course, such accountability never results in any embarassment or actual discipline to said elected officials.
Our freedom to march pridefully forward into our future role as China's economic bitch^H^H^H^H^Hpartner, secure in the knowloedge that we will always be able to buy whatever we want, as long as its at Wal-Mart.
Our freedom to enjoy quality sports and reality programming.
There's probably some more, but I haven't had a chance to get the latest list from Fox . . . these things change so frequently these days . ..
That little escapade with russian missiles in the 60's didn't help Castro's case much...
I forgot... that was 40 years ago... he's changed... riiiiiggghhhttt.
To help demonstrate the concept of "perspective", try changing the above quote to:
Those little escapades with alcohol in the 70's didn't help Bush's case much...
I forgot... that was 30 years ago... he's changed... riiiiiggghhhttt.
Thirty years, forty years, whatever. Time passes and situations have changed for both sides. Baiting old arguments with statements like the above is just silly, unproductive, and does nothing to address the core issues.
A while back I got a call at around 4:30 P.M. from a credit card company requesting that I verify I had applied for a Home Depot card via one of those "just sign the line below" forms. I hadn't, so I immediately began the tedious process of requesting credit reports and contacting my bank to check up on unusual activity.
Later, at about 7:00 P.M. the same night, I got an pre-recorded call requesting that I call an 800 number and reference a specific "case code". I wrote down the telephone number and the code, and the next day spent a few minutes on Google shagging down the number. Turns out it was for a law firm in Utah that specialises in handling collection cases (unfortunately, I cannot remember their name). I remember thinking, a) "I don't owe anyone any money" and b) "how in the hell did they get my number?".
Now, I guess I know.
The story ended well for me - there were attempts to steal my identity, but they were all apparently stopped. I never did call the collection firm, so I have no idea what they may have wanted to chat about - seems to me if it was important, they would have used a human instead of a tape. The links I followed from Google were mostly to blogs and forum entries relating to how other folks had recieved similar calls from this agency, and upon returning them had been informed by the collection agency that they owed some form of money to an bank/credit card company they were representing. The kicker was that they also tried to add an additional fee (some as high as $275 US), payable to the collection agency alone. Other links mentioned how this same company had been banned from business in a lot of states for trying to add this extra fee, and, in essence, refusing to clear the original debt until their extra fee had been paid.
I do remember thinking at the time that some of the dialog was a bit syrupy in spots, but, if you look at Cameron's earlier work, it can be just as sappy (think of the drowning/revival in The Abyss). I think that, deep in his soul, Cameron is just a hopeless romantic and Titanic was just the place where he let it all hang out. It worked for me, largely because the story of the two lovers helped ease my emotions into grasping the loss of so many, so quickly. I felt grief at the end, whereas with so many other films the emotional response is just not there.
I gotta admit though, the Billy Zane character did annoy the shit out of me . . . I kept expecting him to pull a Snidely Whiplash and sneer and twist his moustache.
I've become increasingly fond of Kenneth Turan's reviews for both the L.A. Times and NPR. He's very similar to Ebert in that he looks at every aspect of the movie, from story arc to character development, to shooting style and overall "playability". He's always fair, and he displays a genuine love for film that's getting harder to find in the snarky world of in-your-face journalism.
He's also written a nice little book called, Never Coming to a Theatre Near You about movies that he particularly enjoyed, that barely got any screen time. It gives a great insight into the mind of a critic.
1.) Market virus-prone OS
2.) Market protection from aformentioned viral threat.
I think this pretty much defines the core of the problem.
To me, one of the largest reasons MS software is so vulnerable is that it seems to be designed to also serve as a marketing platform. Eliminate the hooks that marketeers are allowed to exploit, and you may eliminate a large numbers of holes exploited by the l33t h4X0r5.
I, for one, could do well without executable HTML in my e-mail.
Would the proposed tax cut rescindment have actually paid for the funding in question?
The inadequate complaint is not meaningless to the families of the soldiers who died without it.
The shortages had little to do with cutbacks - Genral Abizaid himself admitted there no good reason "why we started this war with protective vests that were in short supply." - and everything to do with poor planning. The DOD just didn't order them, and when they finally did, they selected a single vendor with no experience with mass production. Soldiers families were able to buy the stuff and ship it to Iraq, and the other members of the coalition, upon realizing that they too were facing shortages, ordered directly from a manufacturer in Michigan and saw delivery in 12 days (Link here. There was also a TV news report (don't remember where or when exactly, but I'm still looking) where the president of one company that manufactures the stuff said they had plenty of capacity to make more armor, but were never asked.
The Iraqi vote was a good thing, but it is a long way from an opened armed embrace of America, or even American ideals. The truth will only be know once/if the U.S. ever leaves the Iraqis to define their own future. I don't need memory to tell me that (and mine works fine, BTW), just eyes.
The vote "for" was for the 87 billion add-on that included a Kerry sponsored measure to reverse the Bush tax cuts for folks making over $400,000 a year.
The vote "against" was for the additional 87 billion without that measure.
The Bush ads that targeted Kerry's comments overlooked the fact that Bush sent troops to war without proper armour, both for their bodies and their vehicles. If the Bush administration had slowed down the mad rush to get revenge for daddy just a tad and had actually planned the war with realistic goals instead of vengeful and overly optimistic pipedreams, there may not have been a need for an additional 87 billion. But that's besides the point.
And for all those interested today marks the 100 day anniversary of Mr. Kerry's promise to fill out Form 180. We still wait breathlessly.
As for his 180, I really don't care - he's obscenely rich, so is Bush. Big deal. I'm still waiting for those Iraqi's that are supposed to be welcoming us with open arms.
The topic was peer pressure, and my opinion that many congress folk vote with the crowd instead of with a firm grasp of the facts. If you want to continue beating the long dead Bush v. Kerry horse, visit MoveOn.org or FoxNews.com.
Yep. It still means the same thing. Kerry's comment was served up by the right as a prime example of his "flip-flopping". It was a bullshit accusation, of course (FactCheck has teh skinny), but it managed to "stick" and he took quite a bit of abuse for it. While it was a silly thing to say, it did highlight the fact that many in congress succombed to "peer" pressure by voting for an Iraq invasion without questioning the facts. Now, hopefully, we know better that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.
You're right, of course. My mistake was that I took your post to mean we should ignore the "600 organizations" simply because you saw it as a variation of "me and my friends say this".
I don't think the original poster's intent was to sway anyone to opposition of the act simply because 600 other organizations already do so. I believe he included the reference as a way to further lure people into checking out the the list of dissenters so that they could do the research for themselves.
Peer pressure is exactly the mechanism being used to get this act passed. Seriously you don't expect us to believe that its inclusion into a "support our troops" bill is an unintentional side-effect of an absent minded congressman? No sane congressperson would dare to vote against the troop funding omnibus because all of his peers would immediately label him an enemy of the troops. If that's not peer pressure, I don't know what is.
Slashdot Mirror
I just love seeing true American values in action.
Good point, however, the problem is that it doesn't appear this will be saving Great Britain any time or money. Their project has been underway for some time already, and its budget has steadily increased from an original 3.1 billion to 5.8 billion. Changing directions at this point in the game would only add more time and money.
Long and short of it is, there's got to be greater cooperation between the world's countries for something like this to work, and with the state of today's politics . . . Well, let's just say no one should start holding their breath.
Well . . . it really depends on the targets.
...those 30% are guilty of terrorism...or something...
We should bring them in for questioning just to be safe.
There's probably some more, but I haven't had a chance to get the latest list from Fox . . . these things change so frequently these days . . .
To help demonstrate the concept of "perspective", try changing the above quote to:
Thirty years, forty years, whatever. Time passes and situations have changed for both sides. Baiting old arguments with statements like the above is just silly, unproductive, and does nothing to address the core issues.
True, but eventually, you have to give in to the need for less complexity - after all, there's only so many hours in a day.
Now I keep all my "1"'s and "0"'s in two separate containers. This makes it tremendously easy to find exactly what I looking for . . .
Don't all banks belong to the FDIC ('cept, of course, Vinnie the Chin's Savings and Loan)?
A while back I got a call at around 4:30 P.M. from a credit card company requesting that I verify I had applied for a Home Depot card via one of those "just sign the line below" forms. I hadn't, so I immediately began the tedious process of requesting credit reports and contacting my bank to check up on unusual activity.
Later, at about 7:00 P.M. the same night, I got an pre-recorded call requesting that I call an 800 number and reference a specific "case code". I wrote down the telephone number and the code, and the next day spent a few minutes on Google shagging down the number. Turns out it was for a law firm in Utah that specialises in handling collection cases (unfortunately, I cannot remember their name). I remember thinking, a) "I don't owe anyone any money" and b) "how in the hell did they get my number?".
Now, I guess I know.
The story ended well for me - there were attempts to steal my identity, but they were all apparently stopped. I never did call the collection firm, so I have no idea what they may have wanted to chat about - seems to me if it was important, they would have used a human instead of a tape. The links I followed from Google were mostly to blogs and forum entries relating to how other folks had recieved similar calls from this agency, and upon returning them had been informed by the collection agency that they owed some form of money to an bank/credit card company they were representing. The kicker was that they also tried to add an additional fee (some as high as $275 US), payable to the collection agency alone. Other links mentioned how this same company had been banned from business in a lot of states for trying to add this extra fee, and, in essence, refusing to clear the original debt until their extra fee had been paid.
Heh heh. Don't feel bad, I liked it too.
I do remember thinking at the time that some of the dialog was a bit syrupy in spots, but, if you look at Cameron's earlier work, it can be just as sappy (think of the drowning/revival in The Abyss). I think that, deep in his soul, Cameron is just a hopeless romantic and Titanic was just the place where he let it all hang out. It worked for me, largely because the story of the two lovers helped ease my emotions into grasping the loss of so many, so quickly. I felt grief at the end, whereas with so many other films the emotional response is just not there.
I gotta admit though, the Billy Zane character did annoy the shit out of me . . . I kept expecting him to pull a Snidely Whiplash and sneer and twist his moustache.
I've become increasingly fond of Kenneth Turan's reviews for both the L.A. Times and NPR. He's very similar to Ebert in that he looks at every aspect of the movie, from story arc to character development, to shooting style and overall "playability". He's always fair, and he displays a genuine love for film that's getting harder to find in the snarky world of in-your-face journalism.
He's also written a nice little book called, Never Coming to a Theatre Near You about movies that he particularly enjoyed, that barely got any screen time. It gives a great insight into the mind of a critic.
For the curious, here's his review of Episode III.
Hee hee. I know what you mean.
Still though, the image of an IBM lawyer holding a SCO lawyer's face to his balls nearly made me snort my soda!
Is it "at their balls" or "by their balls"?
Either way, it's an amusing visual . . . ;-)
I think this pretty much defines the core of the problem.
To me, one of the largest reasons MS software is so vulnerable is that it seems to be designed to also serve as a marketing platform. Eliminate the hooks that marketeers are allowed to exploit, and you may eliminate a large numbers of holes exploited by the l33t h4X0r5.
I, for one, could do well without executable HTML in my e-mail.
Dat is exactly my hypotenuse. Theys just honest biznessmen, tryin' ta oin a livin'. Lilbit money heah, lilbit theah. Fuggedabout it.
Iraq is none of the above.
The shortages had little to do with cutbacks - Genral Abizaid himself admitted there no good reason "why we started this war with protective vests that were in short supply." - and everything to do with poor planning. The DOD just didn't order them, and when they finally did, they selected a single vendor with no experience with mass production. Soldiers families were able to buy the stuff and ship it to Iraq, and the other members of the coalition, upon realizing that they too were facing shortages, ordered directly from a manufacturer in Michigan and saw delivery in 12 days (Link here. There was also a TV news report (don't remember where or when exactly, but I'm still looking) where the president of one company that manufactures the stuff said they had plenty of capacity to make more armor, but were never asked.
The Iraqi vote was a good thing, but it is a long way from an opened armed embrace of America, or even American ideals. The truth will only be know once/if the U.S. ever leaves the Iraqis to define their own future. I don't need memory to tell me that (and mine works fine, BTW), just eyes.
Yes. I do realize that.
The vote "for" was for the 87 billion add-on that included a Kerry sponsored measure to reverse the Bush tax cuts for folks making over $400,000 a year.
The vote "against" was for the additional 87 billion without that measure.
The Bush ads that targeted Kerry's comments overlooked the fact that Bush sent troops to war without proper armour, both for their bodies and their vehicles. If the Bush administration had slowed down the mad rush to get revenge for daddy just a tad and had actually planned the war with realistic goals instead of vengeful and overly optimistic pipedreams, there may not have been a need for an additional 87 billion. But that's besides the point.
As for his 180, I really don't care - he's obscenely rich, so is Bush. Big deal. I'm still waiting for those Iraqi's that are supposed to be welcoming us with open arms.
The topic was peer pressure, and my opinion that many congress folk vote with the crowd instead of with a firm grasp of the facts. If you want to continue beating the long dead Bush v. Kerry horse, visit MoveOn.org or FoxNews.com.
Yep. It still means the same thing. Kerry's comment was served up by the right as a prime example of his "flip-flopping". It was a bullshit accusation, of course (FactCheck has teh skinny), but it managed to "stick" and he took quite a bit of abuse for it. While it was a silly thing to say, it did highlight the fact that many in congress succombed to "peer" pressure by voting for an Iraq invasion without questioning the facts. Now, hopefully, we know better that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.
You mean...its not the same thing?
;-)
Please God, post this to her blog if you can. Great stuff!
And who got hammered for that very same comment?
You're right, of course. My mistake was that I took your post to mean we should ignore the "600 organizations" simply because you saw it as a variation of "me and my friends say this".
I don't think the original poster's intent was to sway anyone to opposition of the act simply because 600 other organizations already do so. I believe he included the reference as a way to further lure people into checking out the the list of dissenters so that they could do the research for themselves.
At least, that's what I hope.
???
Peer pressure is exactly the mechanism being used to get this act passed. Seriously you don't expect us to believe that its inclusion into a "support our troops" bill is an unintentional side-effect of an absent minded congressman? No sane congressperson would dare to vote against the troop funding omnibus because all of his peers would immediately label him an enemy of the troops. If that's not peer pressure, I don't know what is.