Currently in the great sandbox of life. Can't talk about where you are, but in Iraq, I would go with a commercial provider. About 20 people in my unit got together on a satallite package. Total cost worked out to about $800/year each (a little higher than I paid for comcast in the states, but we happen to not be in the states)- including splitting the hardware and setup costs. This gave each individual thier own IP address, and at least DSL access speeds.
When you get to Iraq, I would go with that, rather than homebrew. Especially since, if you are a doc, you will probably go to an established base, and run a decent chance of falling in on some kit left by the guys you replace.
All governments rely on the consent (or at least aquiesence) of the governed. As soon as the majority really BELIEVE that there is something better possible, it's all over.
1. Prove they don't still have them. (Remember, that was Iraq's obligation under the terms of the cease fire) 2. Actually, No, the US did NOT sell them to Iraq. Yes, the US did sell items that could be USED to make weapons, but that is not what you claimed. Also, the US sold less than 2% of the materials so used, unlike france, Germany, and Russia, who were all in the double digits.
Iraq documented destorying them, the UN confirmed that they were destoryed, and there is ZERO evidence that any remained in Iraq.
FULL STOP. Do you really believe that? Because, if so, you are beyond help. Yes, Iraq was required to destroy them. No, Iraq did NOT document destroying them. No, the UN did NOT confirm that they were destroyed. The inspectors were thwarted for a number of years, and them thrown out. According the the UN inspector's reports, there were TONS of agents not acounted for (which was the job of Iraq, btw, not of the inspectors). If Iraq had proven they had disarmed, why did the UN continue passing multiple resolutions compelling Iraq to comply? Why did Clinton feel the need to keep the no fly zones going, and to attack targets in Iraq? Was Clinton part of the VRWC? No, please, don't answer. Oh, and just for the sake of completeness, it was NOT a peace treaty, it was a cease fire.
Um.. No... Since they what the found were just alumuniun tubes
Had I meant aluminum tubes, I would have said that. However, I meant missles, which was why I said missles. SCUDs were found after the war, Iraq was not allowed to have SCUDS, as they are capable of delivering chemical payloads. Heck, it even made the news when it happened. Oh, btw, those conventional warhead missles had a limited range that was in excess of the range limit they were allowed by the cease fire. You know, the one that Iraq "documented following", and that the UN "confirmed"...
You are either uninformed, or blinded by your hate towards Bush. I don't care which. Have a life. bye.
No, I say it like it is a true thing. The fact that you seem to hate all things Bush (and my feelings, if any about the war) is irrelevant to what is true.
I made no claim whatsoever as to the morality or legality of Bush, the war, or the doctrine.
Only about your lack of anything approaching comprehension of plain facts.
In point of fact, Iraq could on any given day decide to provide biological or chemical weapons to a third party. Unless you believe that he never had them. Which would be a tough sell to the Kurds and Iranians who were gassed. Further, a chemical-payload capable missile, such as HAS been found since the war, could be launched well within 45 minutes. Thes are simply facts. When you chose to tell me who referred to an "immediate" or "gathering" threat, and in what context, I will be happy to look at that.
However, the plain fact is that the doctrine of premption is an EXPLICIT STATEMENT of intent to act WITHOUT an imminent threat. That is it's POINT.
SCO doesn't like the fact that IBM and Red Hat are both fighting back. They decided it would be bad to have more companies filling suit at the same time.
You do realize that up until said 50's, the culture and traditions did not include the 'under God' bit, right ? Which means that back then culture/traditions were already messed with.
Not to speak for the other guy, but I'm gonna speak for the other guy.:-) That is probably why he said he would be against it in the 50's...
Why do you oppose any notion of the same sort of thing happening now ?
Probably for the same reason he would have opposed the same sort of thing happening then?...
Perhaps, like me, it's thier home number. Not a business expense they can write off. Just a bill that they pay. Maybe an extra $40-$80 expense WILL put them that far back.
There is no need to "keep the market fair." Where is Congress' mandate in the Constitution to interfere in these affairs??
That's one of the few domestic things the government is SUPPOSED to do. That's why we have monopoly laws, etc. To answer your question though, the interstate commerce clause.
why don't they also go and force automobile manufacturers to use each other's engines?
Because it's a faulty analogy. A better analogy would be one where the use of a Cadillac required you to travel on Cadillac Roads, using Cadillac Tolls, and using Genuine Cadillac Gas(tm). And blocking you from putting in a different engine. Btw, you DID know that you CAN put a Honda engine in your Caddy if you want, right?
Or how about forcing all retail stores to accept whatever credit card I have?
Again, an amazingly poor analogy. That would be forcing the store owner to do something with THIER property (sell under terms they don't like). The current situation has to do with what the customer chooses to do with THIER property (The phone, unless it's leased from the company) and the Gvt's property (The number - You did know that the cell phone companies don't have an ownership interest in them, didn't you?). Again, a better analogy of the current situation would be, if you stop using Genuine Cadillac Gas(tm), you need to get a new car and license plates.
Maybe we should force every book manufacturer to publish their books in every language
Dude, are you secretly trying to give libertarians a bad name? Again, your analogy is faulty. The book manufacuters (publishers or authors, actually) OWN the book. Your example is forcing someone to do something with thier OWN property against thier will. That IS NOT what is being discussed here.
The idea of a fair market is garbage -- manufacturers offer you a service, and if that service is what you want at a price you're willing to pay, you'll buy it. No one is forcing you to buy or use a cell phone.
Sigh. One more time, with feeling. The cell phone manufacturers own NEITHER the phone or the phone numbers. What this does is ACTUALLY force them to compete on services, just like the landline companies have to. What it does is REMOVE the artificial lock in that forces people to continue with the providers that give POOR service.
If a manufacturer sees they can efficiently incorporate a feature, they will do it. And others will fall into line, or they will disappear, if it is a feature that is important to cell phone users.
The phone number is NOT a feature of a cell phone (since you mentioned manufacturers) NOR the cell phone service provider. It is a number allocated to an area by the federal government. The reason that cell providers DON'T want to offer number portabiliy is the same reason that the baby bells would rather it go away. It forces the company to compete on quality, not lock in.
It really bugs me that I am going to have to pay ANOTHER charge on my bill for a service I will never use.
Well, to quote yourself, "No one is forcing you to buy or use a cell phone." I hope you write long diatribes against the Universal Access Fee that appears on your bill too (esp since there are VALID arguements against that!). Don't worry, though, once the cell providers have a little time to see how competition actually works, those prices will go down.
Here's a simple idea:
5 Gig/mo = $ x
50 Gig/mo = $ y
100 Gug/mo = $ z
unlimited = $Big_Num
Of course, that would be rational, and lead to happy customers. Never happen.
The person would think they're a theme hotel. Since they are and all..
More important though, the average person would NOT think they were connected with the owner of the DDC, for the simple reason that most people would assume (rationally) that something that has been around so long, used in the nation's public libraries and schools, and FREAKEN TAUGHT in grade school was not "owned".
I don't have the time right now, but we can all agree that I inserted a 50 page "why IP sucks" rant here.;->
Slashdot Mirror
About 20 people in my unit got together on a satallite package. Total cost worked out to about $800/year each (a little higher than I paid for comcast in the states, but we happen to not be in the states)- including splitting the hardware and setup costs. This gave each individual thier own IP address, and at least DSL access speeds.
When you get to Iraq, I would go with that, rather than homebrew. Especially since, if you are a doc, you will probably go to an established base, and run a decent chance of falling in on some kit left by the guys you replace.
All governments rely on the consent (or at least aquiesence) of the governed. As soon as the majority really BELIEVE that there is something better possible, it's all over.
When did that happen?!!!!
What's next? Water is wet! Film at 11.
You just had to go and open your mouth, didn't you?! Thanks.
Nothing will ever top the good old keyboard interface error.
I have some relatives who demonstrate numerous error conditions.
That'll happen. Sometime after the trial, where they prove they have anything worthy of licensing.
1. Prove they don't still have them. (Remember, that was Iraq's obligation under the terms of the cease fire)
2. Actually, No, the US did NOT sell them to Iraq. Yes, the US did sell items that could be USED to make weapons, but that is not what you claimed. Also, the US sold less than 2% of the materials so used, unlike france, Germany, and Russia, who were all in the double digits.
Iraq documented destorying them, the UN confirmed that they were destoryed, and there is ZERO evidence that any remained in Iraq.
FULL STOP. Do you really believe that? Because, if so, you are beyond help. Yes, Iraq was required to destroy them. No, Iraq did NOT document destroying them. No, the UN did NOT confirm that they were destroyed. The inspectors were thwarted for a number of years, and them thrown out. According the the UN inspector's reports, there were TONS of agents not acounted for (which was the job of Iraq, btw, not of the inspectors). If Iraq had proven they had disarmed, why did the UN continue passing multiple resolutions compelling Iraq to comply? Why did Clinton feel the need to keep the no fly zones going, and to attack targets in Iraq? Was Clinton part of the VRWC? No, please, don't answer. Oh, and just for the sake of completeness, it was NOT a peace treaty, it was a cease fire.
Um.. No... Since they what the found were just alumuniun tubes
Had I meant aluminum tubes, I would have said that. However, I meant missles, which was why I said missles. SCUDs were found after the war, Iraq was not allowed to have SCUDS, as they are capable of delivering chemical payloads. Heck, it even made the news when it happened. Oh, btw, those conventional warhead missles had a limited range that was in excess of the range limit they were allowed by the cease fire. You know, the one that Iraq "documented following", and that the UN "confirmed"...
You are either uninformed, or blinded by your hate towards Bush. I don't care which. Have a life. bye.
No, I say it like it is a true thing. The fact that you seem to hate all things Bush (and my feelings, if any about the war) is irrelevant to what is true.
I made no claim whatsoever as to the morality or legality of Bush, the war, or the doctrine.
Only about your lack of anything approaching comprehension of plain facts.
In point of fact, Iraq could on any given day decide to provide biological or chemical weapons to a third party. Unless you believe that he never had them. Which would be a tough sell to the Kurds and Iranians who were gassed.
Further, a chemical-payload capable missile, such as HAS been found since the war, could be launched well within 45 minutes. Thes are simply facts. When you chose to tell me who referred to an "immediate" or "gathering" threat, and in what context, I will be happy to look at that.
However, the plain fact is that the doctrine of premption is an EXPLICIT STATEMENT of intent to act WITHOUT an imminent threat. That is it's POINT.
You got it. But they claim to. (present unbiased accounts of the news)
You fail it.
SCO doesn't like the fact that IBM and Red Hat are both fighting back. They decided it would be bad to have more companies filling suit at the same time.
Which means that back then culture/traditions were already messed with.
Not to speak for the other guy, but I'm gonna speak for the other guy. :-)
That is probably why he said he would be against it in the 50's...
Why do you oppose any notion of the same sort of thing happening now ?
Probably for the same reason he would have opposed the same sort of thing happening then?...
t'was the least I could do. ;->
You can tell. 'Cuz it's what I did.
There is no need to "keep the market fair." Where is Congress' mandate in the Constitution to interfere in these affairs??
That's one of the few domestic things the government is SUPPOSED to do. That's why we have monopoly laws, etc. To answer your question though, the interstate commerce clause.
why don't they also go and force automobile manufacturers to use each other's engines?
Because it's a faulty analogy. A better analogy would be one where the use of a Cadillac required you to travel on Cadillac Roads, using Cadillac Tolls, and using Genuine Cadillac Gas(tm). And blocking you from putting in a different engine. Btw, you DID know that you CAN put a Honda engine in your Caddy if you want, right?
Or how about forcing all retail stores to accept whatever credit card I have?
Again, an amazingly poor analogy. That would be forcing the store owner to do something with THIER property (sell under terms they don't like). The current situation has to do with what the customer chooses to do with THIER property (The phone, unless it's leased from the company) and the Gvt's property (The number - You did know that the cell phone companies don't have an ownership interest in them, didn't you?). Again, a better analogy of the current situation would be, if you stop using Genuine Cadillac Gas(tm), you need to get a new car and license plates.
Maybe we should force every book manufacturer to publish their books in every language
Dude, are you secretly trying to give libertarians a bad name? Again, your analogy is faulty. The book manufacuters (publishers or authors, actually) OWN the book. Your example is forcing someone to do something with thier OWN property against thier will. That IS NOT what is being discussed here.
The idea of a fair market is garbage -- manufacturers offer you a service, and if that service is what you want at a price you're willing to pay, you'll buy it. No one is forcing you to buy or use a cell phone.
Sigh. One more time, with feeling. The cell phone manufacturers own NEITHER the phone or the phone numbers. What this does is ACTUALLY force them to compete on services, just like the landline companies have to. What it does is REMOVE the artificial lock in that forces people to continue with the providers that give POOR service.
If a manufacturer sees they can efficiently incorporate a feature, they will do it. And others will fall into line, or they will disappear, if it is a feature that is important to cell phone users.
The phone number is NOT a feature of a cell phone (since you mentioned manufacturers) NOR the cell phone service provider. It is a number allocated to an area by the federal government. The reason that cell providers DON'T want to offer number portabiliy is the same reason that the baby bells would rather it go away. It forces the company to compete on quality, not lock in.
It really bugs me that I am going to have to pay ANOTHER charge on my bill for a service I will never use.
Well, to quote yourself, "No one is forcing you to buy or use a cell phone." I hope you write long diatribes against the Universal Access Fee that appears on your bill too (esp since there are VALID arguements against that!). Don't worry, though, once the cell providers have a little time to see how competition actually works, those prices will go down.
They don't need to *win*.
What happens if they loose?...The courts will have held that IP is not an absolute. Victories like that are NOT what the $$AA's want.
Interesting. The one that I remember is "the most cigarettes"
Here's a simple idea:
5 Gig/mo = $ x
50 Gig/mo = $ y
100 Gug/mo = $ z
unlimited = $Big_Num
Of course, that would be rational, and lead to happy customers. Never happen.
The person would think they're a theme hotel. Since they are and all..
;->
More important though, the average person would NOT think they were connected with the owner of the DDC, for the simple reason that most people would assume (rationally) that something that has been around so long, used in the nation's public libraries and schools, and FREAKEN TAUGHT in grade school was not "owned".
I don't have the time right now, but we can all agree that I inserted a 50 page "why IP sucks" rant here.
Dr. Evil was in SWAT? I missed that part of the movie...
He is no more.
He is an un-actor.
And now you don't have an incentive to ever plot down $7 because YOU ALREADY HAVE IT.
YMMV
Parent said: if some western democracy decided
And you bring up france?