This is about as close as you are going to get. Just google for "Marklar". It'd be nice to see, but Apple makes a nice margin on its hardware, and x86 would destroy it.
What a good idea; I'm very skeptical about the application to e.g. fabrics (don't see how it could help, and if you're not careful it can do a lot of damage), but am quite interested in applying it to plastics/metals.
Nearly everything that is solid in Earth's atmosphere has some sort of regular structure(ex: crystalline) except for metallic and organic glasses and a few other unusual compounds which are uncommon in nature and usually man made. Even though many solids have regular structures, they usually aren't close to being in perfect formation with rest of the molecules. By slowly heating and cooling the product to each extreme you can coax the molecules to accept a more uniform position. As we all know, a diamond is much stronger than graphite because of the uniformity in its' atomic arrangement.
Cryo treating isn't a cure all though. The less uniform structure there is in a compound, the less benefit you will see. Many fibers work because even they have structure, especially silk. If you could zoom in on a small group of silk proteins you would see that they have interlocking amino groups that overlap their neighbors. Also, just drooping a piece of metal into a vat of LN2 and letting it thaw in the air is going to make it more brittle. You have to drop and raise temperatures very slowly, and once you do get it cold you have to let it sit for a while to make sure that temperature permeates the entire product. Even single digit temperature variations between the skin and the core of the material can weaken the whole thing. If you find a local place that treats things, don't be suprised if the turn around time is the better portion of a week, or even longer if you are also heat treating.
Then why doesn't some renegade small company come out with these everlasting products and put the megacorps out of business.
The same reason that every company (that I know of) which makes 100 year incandescent light bulbs goes belly up. Anyone who has toured Edison's home has probably seen the light bulbs that he made which are still in use with no modifications or reconstruction. The term "engineered lifetime" is nothing new. Any old timer should be able to tell you stories of people making the news or celebrating when their "old iron" Detroit car passed 100K miles. Then people got a taste of some Japanese cars during the [original] oil crisis and realized 100K isn't impossible and isn't too much to ask for. We mustn't forget that a "free market" isn't necessarily interested in making better products unless it translates into its true intended goal, more profit. Longer product lifetimes usually means less repeat business. Imagine how long your razor business would last if you put freeze treated, diamond edged carbide in your products.
It cost me $15 for a pack of replacement razor blades. It cost me $30 to have them cryogenically treated. I've been using my current set for about 2 months now. The other ones got about 3-4 months of use before I threw them out. At this rate I've got about a 2 year supply left. There's a reason razor companies use the softest steel possible and charge between $5-8 dollars for a pack of 4 blades. It's also the same reason it can often be cheaper to buy a new printer instead of replacement cartridges.
Cryogenic treating is nothing new. Top automotive racers have been freezing engine parts for over a decade now. Aeronautical companies have been doing it for longer. Did you just spend a lot of money on a special silk piece of clothing for your girl? Have it treated too. You'd be surprised how long silk will last, or how much stronger it will be after treatment. Tired of sharpening lawn mower blades? Did you buy your kid some expensive plastic toy you know he/she will destroy within a week? Damn near everything can be treated. Metals, fibers, and plastics (and other polymer compounds) are incredibly resilient afterwards.
If you choose to live in a glass house, when blinds are cheap, you for-go the right to bitch about people looking in on you. An ounce of prevention goes a long way. Now, if a hacker breaks your encryption and your MAC filtering, then you can complain.
I support either much higher taxes on gated commuties, or the removal of publicly funded services for them. Why should my taxes contribute to things like roads and grounds keeping for a plot of land that I'm not even allowed to be on?
That's very interesting. I would like to see a comparison between the cost of the proposed cyber crimes division and the cost of sending high school nerds house to house to show these fools how to enable WAP/WEP encryption keys, MAC address filtering, and other proper precautions that most people are too lazy to read the instructions about, but concerned enough to perpetually bitch over. For real people, what the hell? If I knew I was living in a high crime area, I wouldn't leave home with the doors and windows wide open and then pretend that my ineptitude isn't at least part of the reason I was robbed clean. I also wouldn't recommend starting another bureaucracy who is responsible for cleaning up a mess that is easier to prevent in the first place.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I've been under the impression that directly exposing matter and anti-matter, while resulting in annihilation, wouldn't directly result in an explosion in the traditional sense. I thought that it would only result in the annihilation of local matter (on a 1:1 ratio) and the release of excess energy in the form of heat, light, and/or radiation.
If y'all would tone down the rhetoric, you would have Bush out of office, but instead you use inflammatory terms like the headline here. You wind up turning off the undecideds/moderates out there with the over-the-top Bush bashing.
I've got a feeling that's not a problem. Something tells me Bush's base won't have a clue what Disputed != Lied means. You see, in order for one to understand this sort of logical statement, one would probably have to have some sort of higher education, or at least above par. There is a reason the majority of the educated/educational community tends to be anti-Bush. There is one thing that college is much better at than K-12 schools: teaching people to think for themselves. Believe me, I'm not suggesting that everyone who attends college is capable of it (there are many MBAs out there), but the odds are better that they know how to.
Why don't you prove that YOU don't have weapons. Let us know how that goes. Good luck!
Well, if the armies of the UN kicked my ass all over the block a decade back, and one of the many conditions I was offered in return for them to stop was allowing inspectors to lounge around my property all day, then I would have to say I don't have to prove a damn thing. Let the inspectors prove it for me. I wonder how those inspectors did anyway? Any WMDs turn up yet?
I have to question one thing concerning the comparison between Clinton and Bush lying. To this day, I don't see how people think Clinton lied about having sex. Take the word virgin by its definition. Think about the definition, and what a person must do to not comply it. Suppose a virgin female preforms oral sex on a male. Is she still, by definition, a virgin. Would he be? Now reverse roles. Does the same hold true? If two virgins preform oral sex on each other, and they remain virgins, then sexual intercourse can not have taken place. Every time I try to analyze politics I get a headache.
I seriously doubt the money you pay in taxes gives you the right to steal music worth hundreds of times what you've paid in these taxes. This is a red herring.
Fine. Then lets stop the corporate welfare to companies that abuse the legal system by pressuring people who don't have the money to prove their innocnece. They know we live in an age where most times it's cheaper to settle than defend ones self. I will not shed a single tear for money grubbing, power hungry, executives and their "plight" of suposed damage to their bottom line until they answer to their damage of society, culture, and exploitation of the working class. Until that day comes, any bitching from their camp falls on deaf ears.
But trusted computing to the OSS world really means that no processes will run on my machines that I didn't specifically authorize.
That technology already exists. What trusted computing really means is that no processes will run on your machine that Microsoft, IBM, Sun, etc didn't specifically authorize.
Here is a short list. Some are in America, others are global. Remember the blank audio tape tax passed in the 80's? It's still in effect as well as a more modern blank CD and CD/DVD burner tax.
And here is some info on blank CD taxes in the US and around the world.
Please note that not all of these "taxes" are government taxes in the traditional sense. There are a couple of important questions you should ask yourself though. If every blank CD and new CD/DVD recorder has a tax that is paid to the RIAA (not the artists) as compensation for copyrigt violations, does that mean that we are now free to pirate music since the fine has been paid in advance? Do you believe in corporate welfare? Also, should the public allow tax money to be used to fund governmental investigations into civil matters, such as copyright violations, if said findings are only used to support the corporation (favoring a corporate entity over individual citizen)? Please keep in mind, unless it is bootleging on a massive scale and/or the fradulent copies are sold for profit, it is a civil matter.
Don't forget, we have allowed our rights to me limited more and more over the last couple decades. The media taxes, DMCA, copyright extensions, and many others have made the corporate job of enforcement easier at the expense of personal liberties. The DMCA in paticular only added a few new corporate rights, but was intended to make enforcement/prevention easier at the expense of, lets say, fair use or personal privacy. Not only have we given these corporations laws to make their lives easier, they have the nerve to turn around and say they need tax money because they don't have enough of their own to spend in their defense. It's the equavilent of erasing the fifth ammendment, handing over incriminating evidence, and funding the prosecution.
You are assuming that people will only listen to pristine recordings with all sorts of post production editing. What would the world be like if every artist had their humble beginnings and worked their way up on talent instead of corporate promotions. That means that anyone with marketable talent could still make a career in music, but people like Jessica and Brittney would proably have to become models instead.
Forget about corporate radio, payola and semi-legal backdoor payola are horrible ways to judge popularity and what should be played. Radio stations are just like any other free service provider; they rely on advertisements and the largest customer base to play them to. It is in their best interest to play what people want to hear. They don't need any corporate lobby to sell them music.
I'm not saying that no industry is the only way, but it can still be done without one... and the sky won't fall. I'm just opposed to the whole business of art concept. Art should be about personal expression, not about whos art can buy the biggest house, or most plastic surgery, or fanciest diamond encrusted dog collar. It's just that corporations like to reinforce the entire materalistic concept by whoring out the most marketable face & body instead of the most marketable talent.
Because lots and lots and lots of people are now used to getting music for free. They don't care enough about the artists to pay for it now, why would that change?
So the pirates are to blame for the price fixing and monopolistic behavior of the record industry? Are they also to blame for the fact that most pop/rock albums are released that have one or two good tracks and the rest filled with studio B sides? Recordings like "Best Of" compilations and Live recordings are pirated at a much, much lower rate than the average album.
Your argument of "Won't anyone please think of the artists" would be much more paletable if the money for recodes went to the artists. Unfortunately, the reason the RIAA is a lot pissier than the artists is because the overwhelming majority goes to the corporations. When artists collect royalties for albums measured in cents, I don't think the RIAA is doing all of this because of their deep concern for their artists profits.
There is a reason that this sort of payment system is ludicrous. The recording industry already gets federal subsidies from our taxes to compensate them for the "inevitable" acts of copyright violation that every citizen already commits. Their lobby convinced the politicians that everyone is a pirate and the only way to stop it is to have the government reimburse them for it. They are already getting paid by us once; they shouldn't get to put their hand in the cookie jar a second time. As far as I'm concerned my taxes have already paid for any and all copyright violations, which gives me the legal right to do as I damn well please with p2p software.
Wouldn't any sort of API call, or anything like it, also be a violation? How about OLE? Isn't there anybody out there with the ability to say "Come on now, that's bullshit", and the mess disappears?
That wouldn't be the best idea. But you must admit that fear is the best motivation around. During the cold war our mutual fear for each other kept us both in check. Our fear of agnostics keep politicians in office that whore their religion every election year (as if it were an accurate sign of morality). Our fear of terrorists led the public blindly into Iraq. The grandparent post was accurate in describing how, without fear, we have no problem spreading fear around the world to all other countries, regardless of them being friend or foe. There is a fine line between preemtive action and imperialism.
First of all, China is the least of our threats. They know damn well that the principals of MAD are still in effect between them and us. Second, it probably would have been more accurate to use the phrase "anyone but Bush" instead of "democrat". As far as this election is concerned, most Kerry voters won't vote for him because they believe in him, they just believe Bush less. Third, for the EMP of a nuke to really do strategic military damage, the thermal and sonic blasts will destroy anything that the EMP would have knocked out anyway. Fourth, terrorists don't have the means to form any sort of "star wars" initiatives. I'm not sure why you brought terrorists up anyway, they have nothing to do with the militirization of space. Fifth, these weapons are not to protect us from a current threat, but a *possible* future threat. No country is going to have the balls to throw a nuke at us as long as we have this massive stockpile. Unfortunately, this program can not defend from terrorists. Sixth, thank you for standing up for Bush. It's kind people like yourself who stood up to protect the LD kids from the jocks in high school. It's not his fault God made him special, and I'm glad that some people like yourself realize that and do the right thing. Stand your ground and ensure that the one thing the right is remembered for is sticking to the topics that matter and arguing the facts.
It's very simple. I have the highest respect for the military and its ability to push the bleeding edge of technology. They have the ability to preform some of the most evil deeds the world has ever known, yet are relatively docile when compared to what they could do if they wanted to. The role of military is protection. However, the ONE thing that kept me from signing up is the fact that they are controlled by some of the most evil, self centered and self riteous race ever to set foot on Earth... politicians. I can trust the military much more than politicians simply because the chain of command is much better at filtering out idiots than the electoral system.
The difference in popular culture: If a person, in any way, does't agree with Bush, then he is a "left wing extremist" or "liberal hippie" or "unpatriotic". If someone from the left ran across someone else who didn't like Kerry they wouldn't necesarly assume he is a "conservative, gun lovin, bible burnin nut job" until he gave proper evidence for that assumption.
This election year, people are so polarized that they forget to see that most of America doesn't like being forced into only 2 different camps. Are we to believe that America is the most diverse society in the world, yet these 2 parties are able to accurately represent the majority of our views? I stand back and laugh at how each side does everything short of picking up arms and declaring each other enemies, rather than opponents. I believe that time will make fools of us all.
Or maybe there is no incentive for higher authorities to give the resources to get the job done. After all, doing so would not pay off for the administration. There is more "profit" to be made by making people feel secure instead of going through the time and expense to actually make them safer. We are living in the age where the false sense of security is just as politically effective as providing functional security solutions, but the former costs much less.
The founding fathers weren't terrorists because their motive wasn't terror, but was freedom.
In all fairness, they used guerilla tactics. Relative to they era, targeting the highest ranking officers first and firing from the shadows could be considered a form of terrorism because it did not uphold the "accepted rules" of war. When compared to today's standards, a sniper targeting a cornel back then is not too different than a terrorist beheading a hostage today. It can be argued that guerilla fighters in the American Revolution were just as much terrorists as the Vietcong were in the Vietnam War. The key difference is that the Vietnam War was more gruesome and dragged on longer because of the technology gap.
Bin Laden didn't attack the US to promote his people's freedom, he attacked for revenge or somthing to that order.
The key to defeating an enemy is to understand his goal and methods to reach that goal. Osama is fighting what he perceives as American imperialism. Our reluctance to leave the region after the first Iraq war was interpreted by him, and hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) of Middle Eastern citizens to be all the proof they needed to confirm their suspicions. They perceive us as a foreign invader, and they perceive themselves as patriots liberating their people. Based on this, you can see how the word patriot is highly subjective based on its point of view. That is why your last sentence " That's why the words patriot and terrorist aren't synonymous" isn't entirely accurate. The phrase "Guerilla combatants" would have made for a much more accurate comparison to terrorists.
The words "guerilla fighter" and "terrorist" are also not synonyms, but they have similar methods to a common ends. It all depends on the point of view. "Guerilla insurgents" in Iraq are bad because they are against us, and "guerilla insurgents" in the Vietnam War are bad because they were against us; but "guerilla insurgents" in the Revolutionary War were good because they fought for us. People use the word "patriot" to describe "guerilla insurgents" who fight on their side and "terrorist" to describe the ones that oppose us.
Some may bring up the point about targeting civilians. This suggests either intent, or a lack of it, that results in civilian deaths to achieve a military goal. Al Qaeda intent was to kill civilians on 9/11. Our carpet bombing in Vietnam was intended to target combatants, but unfortunately carpet bombing does not differentiate between soldiers and civilians. As a result, our (in)actions resulted in massive civilian casualties. Now, our carpet bombing and the 9/11 attacks produced the same results (large civilian casualties). The important question I am getting at is: When the dust settles, does intent make a difference if the end result is the same? When answering this question, please keep in mind the scale that the question was posed on. I am not talking about criminal intent in a homicide case. Please don't interpret this post as justifying Al Qaeda's actions, or shaming America's actions in Vietnam. I just want other peoples' opinions of a reasonable comparison. I'm having a hard time answering my own question.
Kerry don't need Bush at the debate because he can debate against himself for 90 minutes front of the audience.
And we can watch Bush flip-flop just as much. All canidates do it, except that both parties would rather watch the people argue over pointless crap ratherer than charge their prosepctive leaders with real questions about topics that matter. It's American politics, Jerry Springer style. Why ask a question about trade bias China recieves compared to Cuba concerning trade and embargo status when you can have the people steamed up over who did what during a war? Why question why America isn't being seriously persuaded to develop alternitive feuls despite dwindling reserves when the people can fight each other over gay rights? It is a tool to distract the people from what matters, so please quit falling for thier rhetoric and think for yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Not going to happen any time soon.
6 _os_named_sized/ s _200208/ai_ziff30554
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/09/02/apples_x8
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdewk/i
This is about as close as you are going to get. Just google for "Marklar". It'd be nice to see, but Apple makes a nice margin on its hardware, and x86 would destroy it.
What a good idea; I'm very skeptical about the application to e.g. fabrics (don't see how it could help, and if you're not careful it can do a lot of damage), but am quite interested in applying it to plastics/metals.
Nearly everything that is solid in Earth's atmosphere has some sort of regular structure(ex: crystalline) except for metallic and organic glasses and a few other unusual compounds which are uncommon in nature and usually man made. Even though many solids have regular structures, they usually aren't close to being in perfect formation with rest of the molecules. By slowly heating and cooling the product to each extreme you can coax the molecules to accept a more uniform position. As we all know, a diamond is much stronger than graphite because of the uniformity in its' atomic arrangement.
Cryo treating isn't a cure all though. The less uniform structure there is in a compound, the less benefit you will see. Many fibers work because even they have structure, especially silk. If you could zoom in on a small group of silk proteins you would see that they have interlocking amino groups that overlap their neighbors. Also, just drooping a piece of metal into a vat of LN2 and letting it thaw in the air is going to make it more brittle. You have to drop and raise temperatures very slowly, and once you do get it cold you have to let it sit for a while to make sure that temperature permeates the entire product. Even single digit temperature variations between the skin and the core of the material can weaken the whole thing. If you find a local place that treats things, don't be suprised if the turn around time is the better portion of a week, or even longer if you are also heat treating.
Then why doesn't some renegade small company come out with these everlasting products and put the megacorps out of business.
The same reason that every company (that I know of) which makes 100 year incandescent light bulbs goes belly up. Anyone who has toured Edison's home has probably seen the light bulbs that he made which are still in use with no modifications or reconstruction. The term "engineered lifetime" is nothing new. Any old timer should be able to tell you stories of people making the news or celebrating when their "old iron" Detroit car passed 100K miles. Then people got a taste of some Japanese cars during the [original] oil crisis and realized 100K isn't impossible and isn't too much to ask for. We mustn't forget that a "free market" isn't necessarily interested in making better products unless it translates into its true intended goal, more profit. Longer product lifetimes usually means less repeat business. Imagine how long your razor business would last if you put freeze treated, diamond edged carbide in your products.
It cost me $15 for a pack of replacement razor blades. It cost me $30 to have them cryogenically treated. I've been using my current set for about 2 months now. The other ones got about 3-4 months of use before I threw them out. At this rate I've got about a 2 year supply left. There's a reason razor companies use the softest steel possible and charge between $5-8 dollars for a pack of 4 blades. It's also the same reason it can often be cheaper to buy a new printer instead of replacement cartridges.
Cryogenic treating is nothing new. Top automotive racers have been freezing engine parts for over a decade now. Aeronautical companies have been doing it for longer. Did you just spend a lot of money on a special silk piece of clothing for your girl? Have it treated too. You'd be surprised how long silk will last, or how much stronger it will be after treatment. Tired of sharpening lawn mower blades? Did you buy your kid some expensive plastic toy you know he/she will destroy within a week? Damn near everything can be treated. Metals, fibers, and plastics (and other polymer compounds) are incredibly resilient afterwards.
If you choose to live in a glass house, when blinds are cheap, you for-go the right to bitch about people looking in on you. An ounce of prevention goes a long way. Now, if a hacker breaks your encryption and your MAC filtering, then you can complain.
I support either much higher taxes on gated commuties, or the removal of publicly funded services for them. Why should my taxes contribute to things like roads and grounds keeping for a plot of land that I'm not even allowed to be on?
That's very interesting. I would like to see a comparison between the cost of the proposed cyber crimes division and the cost of sending high school nerds house to house to show these fools how to enable WAP/WEP encryption keys, MAC address filtering, and other proper precautions that most people are too lazy to read the instructions about, but concerned enough to perpetually bitch over. For real people, what the hell? If I knew I was living in a high crime area, I wouldn't leave home with the doors and windows wide open and then pretend that my ineptitude isn't at least part of the reason I was robbed clean. I also wouldn't recommend starting another bureaucracy who is responsible for cleaning up a mess that is easier to prevent in the first place.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I've been under the impression that directly exposing matter and anti-matter, while resulting in annihilation, wouldn't directly result in an explosion in the traditional sense. I thought that it would only result in the annihilation of local matter (on a 1:1 ratio) and the release of excess energy in the form of heat, light, and/or radiation.
I have to question one thing concerning the comparison between Clinton and Bush lying. To this day, I don't see how people think Clinton lied about having sex. Take the word virgin by its definition. Think about the definition, and what a person must do to not comply it. Suppose a virgin female preforms oral sex on a male. Is she still, by definition, a virgin. Would he be? Now reverse roles. Does the same hold true? If two virgins preform oral sex on each other, and they remain virgins, then sexual intercourse can not have taken place. Every time I try to analyze politics I get a headache.
Here is a short list. Some are in America, others are global. Remember the blank audio tape tax passed in the 80's? It's still in effect as well as a more modern blank CD and CD/DVD burner tax.
_ moreschools/ 0 120018251.htm
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-891781.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/28/riaa_sues
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Jan/gee2003
And here is some info on blank CD taxes in the US and around the world.
Please note that not all of these "taxes" are government taxes in the traditional sense. There are a couple of important questions you should ask yourself though. If every blank CD and new CD/DVD recorder has a tax that is paid to the RIAA (not the artists) as compensation for copyrigt violations, does that mean that we are now free to pirate music since the fine has been paid in advance? Do you believe in corporate welfare? Also, should the public allow tax money to be used to fund governmental investigations into civil matters, such as copyright violations, if said findings are only used to support the corporation (favoring a corporate entity over individual citizen)? Please keep in mind, unless it is bootleging on a massive scale and/or the fradulent copies are sold for profit, it is a civil matter.
Don't forget, we have allowed our rights to me limited more and more over the last couple decades. The media taxes, DMCA, copyright extensions, and many others have made the corporate job of enforcement easier at the expense of personal liberties. The DMCA in paticular only added a few new corporate rights, but was intended to make enforcement/prevention easier at the expense of, lets say, fair use or personal privacy. Not only have we given these corporations laws to make their lives easier, they have the nerve to turn around and say they need tax money because they don't have enough of their own to spend in their defense. It's the equavilent of erasing the fifth ammendment, handing over incriminating evidence, and funding the prosecution.
You are assuming that people will only listen to pristine recordings with all sorts of post production editing. What would the world be like if every artist had their humble beginnings and worked their way up on talent instead of corporate promotions. That means that anyone with marketable talent could still make a career in music, but people like Jessica and Brittney would proably have to become models instead.
Forget about corporate radio, payola and semi-legal backdoor payola are horrible ways to judge popularity and what should be played. Radio stations are just like any other free service provider; they rely on advertisements and the largest customer base to play them to. It is in their best interest to play what people want to hear. They don't need any corporate lobby to sell them music.
I'm not saying that no industry is the only way, but it can still be done without one... and the sky won't fall. I'm just opposed to the whole business of art concept. Art should be about personal expression, not about whos art can buy the biggest house, or most plastic surgery, or fanciest diamond encrusted dog collar. It's just that corporations like to reinforce the entire materalistic concept by whoring out the most marketable face & body instead of the most marketable talent.
Your argument of "Won't anyone please think of the artists" would be much more paletable if the money for recodes went to the artists. Unfortunately, the reason the RIAA is a lot pissier than the artists is because the overwhelming majority goes to the corporations. When artists collect royalties for albums measured in cents, I don't think the RIAA is doing all of this because of their deep concern for their artists profits.
There is a reason that this sort of payment system is ludicrous. The recording industry already gets federal subsidies from our taxes to compensate them for the "inevitable" acts of copyright violation that every citizen already commits. Their lobby convinced the politicians that everyone is a pirate and the only way to stop it is to have the government reimburse them for it. They are already getting paid by us once; they shouldn't get to put their hand in the cookie jar a second time. As far as I'm concerned my taxes have already paid for any and all copyright violations, which gives me the legal right to do as I damn well please with p2p software.
Wouldn't any sort of API call, or anything like it, also be a violation? How about OLE? Isn't there anybody out there with the ability to say "Come on now, that's bullshit", and the mess disappears?
That wouldn't be the best idea. But you must admit that fear is the best motivation around. During the cold war our mutual fear for each other kept us both in check. Our fear of agnostics keep politicians in office that whore their religion every election year (as if it were an accurate sign of morality). Our fear of terrorists led the public blindly into Iraq. The grandparent post was accurate in describing how, without fear, we have no problem spreading fear around the world to all other countries, regardless of them being friend or foe. There is a fine line between preemtive action and imperialism.
First of all, China is the least of our threats. They know damn well that the principals of MAD are still in effect between them and us.
Second, it probably would have been more accurate to use the phrase "anyone but Bush" instead of "democrat". As far as this election is concerned, most Kerry voters won't vote for him because they believe in him, they just believe Bush less.
Third, for the EMP of a nuke to really do strategic military damage, the thermal and sonic blasts will destroy anything that the EMP would have knocked out anyway.
Fourth, terrorists don't have the means to form any sort of "star wars" initiatives. I'm not sure why you brought terrorists up anyway, they have nothing to do with the militirization of space.
Fifth, these weapons are not to protect us from a current threat, but a *possible* future threat. No country is going to have the balls to throw a nuke at us as long as we have this massive stockpile. Unfortunately, this program can not defend from terrorists.
Sixth, thank you for standing up for Bush. It's kind people like yourself who stood up to protect the LD kids from the jocks in high school. It's not his fault God made him special, and I'm glad that some people like yourself realize that and do the right thing. Stand your ground and ensure that the one thing the right is remembered for is sticking to the topics that matter and arguing the facts.
It's very simple. I have the highest respect for the military and its ability to push the bleeding edge of technology. They have the ability to preform some of the most evil deeds the world has ever known, yet are relatively docile when compared to what they could do if they wanted to. The role of military is protection. However, the ONE thing that kept me from signing up is the fact that they are controlled by some of the most evil, self centered and self riteous race ever to set foot on Earth... politicians. I can trust the military much more than politicians simply because the chain of command is much better at filtering out idiots than the electoral system.
The difference in popular culture: If a person, in any way, does't agree with Bush, then he is a "left wing extremist" or "liberal hippie" or "unpatriotic". If someone from the left ran across someone else who didn't like Kerry they wouldn't necesarly assume he is a "conservative, gun lovin, bible burnin nut job" until he gave proper evidence for that assumption.
This election year, people are so polarized that they forget to see that most of America doesn't like being forced into only 2 different camps. Are we to believe that America is the most diverse society in the world, yet these 2 parties are able to accurately represent the majority of our views? I stand back and laugh at how each side does everything short of picking up arms and declaring each other enemies, rather than opponents. I believe that time will make fools of us all.
The key to defeating an enemy is to understand his goal and methods to reach that goal. Osama is fighting what he perceives as American imperialism. Our reluctance to leave the region after the first Iraq war was interpreted by him, and hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) of Middle Eastern citizens to be all the proof they needed to confirm their suspicions. They perceive us as a foreign invader, and they perceive themselves as patriots liberating their people. Based on this, you can see how the word patriot is highly subjective based on its point of view. That is why your last sentence " That's why the words patriot and terrorist aren't synonymous" isn't entirely accurate. The phrase "Guerilla combatants" would have made for a much more accurate comparison to terrorists.
The words "guerilla fighter" and "terrorist" are also not synonyms, but they have similar methods to a common ends. It all depends on the point of view. "Guerilla insurgents" in Iraq are bad because they are against us, and "guerilla insurgents" in the Vietnam War are bad because they were against us; but "guerilla insurgents" in the Revolutionary War were good because they fought for us. People use the word "patriot" to describe "guerilla insurgents" who fight on their side and "terrorist" to describe the ones that oppose us.
Some may bring up the point about targeting civilians. This suggests either intent, or a lack of it, that results in civilian deaths to achieve a military goal. Al Qaeda intent was to kill civilians on 9/11. Our carpet bombing in Vietnam was intended to target combatants, but unfortunately carpet bombing does not differentiate between soldiers and civilians. As a result, our (in)actions resulted in massive civilian casualties. Now, our carpet bombing and the 9/11 attacks produced the same results (large civilian casualties). The important question I am getting at is: When the dust settles, does intent make a difference if the end result is the same? When answering this question, please keep in mind the scale that the question was posed on. I am not talking about criminal intent in a homicide case. Please don't interpret this post as justifying Al Qaeda's actions, or shaming America's actions in Vietnam. I just want other peoples' opinions of a reasonable comparison. I'm having a hard time answering my own question.