In today's market, most people just want to be like everyone else. Apple has a monopoly power over their market segment and they are happy with that. Their policies may push away 90% of the developers, hackers, and enthusiasts. Unfortunately, this stopped being an important market segment years ago.
I can't believe that Parent was modded insightful! -- My scientific prediction based on evidence I believe: the world will end on January 1, 2000. oops, guess I "miscalculated".
My scientific prediction based on evidence I believe: the world will end on January 1, 2001 which is the "real" end of the millennium. I guess I will need to fix my model, but don't worry, this is settled science.
My scientific prediction based on evidence I believe: the world will end on January 1, 2004. predicting this is difficult, but the evidence is irrefutable. I need to make an adjustment.
My scientific prediction based on evidence I believe: the world will end on January 1, 2007. My data can't be flawed. I know exactly what I am talking about. Even if you don't believe my evidence, other people also have evidence. I just need to apply a trick to fix my prediction.
My scientific prediction based on evidence I believe: the world will end on January 1, 2010. You don't believe me? You are basically telling us that we should dismiss my research, because (according to you) some of the early predictions got it wrong. Can you see the problem with your "reasoning"? -- Repent damn you!
It seems that the service department is having intermitant trouble with printing and network access. Wonder why? Be creative. In a month they'll demand to move bact into their old space.
Ever since "journalism" rather than medicine or sciences became the field of choice for people who wanted to change the world, newspapers have been less about news and more about political viewpoint.
I really can't call you a swing-voter if you believe
I Live in a state that the TV people claim is a swing state.
I am a registered independent.
If I had to vote right now, I'd cast a protest vote for Nader, reluctantly. If forced to choose between the Dem and Rep... I don't know yet... both of 'em suck.
Firstly what sort of record would be deemed noteworthy of a Senator and, more importantly, recommend him as a candidate for the Presidency? . . . . that the deal-making that goes on in the senate leaves them too exposed or compromised to function effectively in a Presidential race
Being a Senator with the associated deal-making and maneuvering is a liability because of the appearance of frequent flip-flopping. The (swing) electorate as a whole has trouble seeing past this... The news sources that might inform them are all biased (one way or the other) and always have been, and the candidates themselves often do a poor job explaining it.
The reason why Kerry is so easily portrayed as a flip-flopper however, even among more educated (swing) voters, is that in addition to often voting both ways on some issues, he tries to take credit for each of those votes. To abuse a glaring and oft cited example 'so you see I voted for the [87 billion to support the Iraq war] before I voted against it'. I'm sure that John Kerry cringes every time he hears the quote played back, but worse than having made a sound-bite for Bush has been the way he himself has used the issue...
When appearing before veteran groups, Kerry often takes credit for having voted to get soldiers the equipment they need while at the same time criticizing how the money is being used (this was a popular talking point earlier this year when there was a problem getting armor fabricated and transported for some vehicles). Then, at (notoriously anti-war) student rallies, he'll highlight his opposition to the war, or at least its current execution, and highlight his votes against that war. In essence he tries to take credit for both supporting and opposing a particular measure... sure it's deeper than that, more complex, or is it?
John Kerry's Senate voting record defies analysis. I submit that (swing) voters dismiss it rather than analyze it... and that those like myself who do try to analyze it (the US Government maintains websites that track congressional voting records by bill, issue, etc.) don't have any clearer view of Mr. Kerry.
So what kind of record would be noteworthy or appropriate for a Senator with Presidential aspirations? Speaking for myself, I would look for someone with a consistent record on two or three issues, someone who had authored and sought passage for bills that addressed those issues, and could be seen as a champion or advocate of those issues... In short, somebody that clearly stands for something. A senator need not be solid and predictable on all issues or even most issues (because of that deal making you mentioned), but needs to be reliable on at least some issues. IMH(SV)O.
he did a lot of the groundwork digging into the Iran-Contra mess
IMO, He doesn't talk about it for four reasons:
1) Reagan and his legacy is untouchable for the present. He was and is popular amongst Independents and "swing voters". Americans are still building him up as a hero... we won't really get around to tearing him down of a decade or so. Bringing up Iran-Contra as a campaign issue would be suggesting that "The Gipper" was dishonest right now would be political suicude.
2) Iran-Contra is really only an issue today for the true Partisans. The non-partisans and alleged swing voters (at least those who know or remember what a "contra" is) tend to view the scandal in about the same light as the Lewinsky matter. The fact that one was a policy scandal and the other was not matters little.
3) Speaking of the Lewinsky matter, the resulting impeachment hinged on a charge of perjury (even if it was just about sex). Kerry really can't claim to be a champion of governmental integrity after not voting to convict Clinton for that Perjury.
4) As you mentioned, even if all the rest could be ignored or worked around, there really isn't any way to make it into a good sound-bite.
Bush's website will perhaps tell us why Americans are so divided to be split even on how they'll vote? And let us do the research. There may yet be something Bush does that no one outside the US knows and it's posted on his website. The international community has been wrong before - I don't know, maybe Bush is a really great guy - but at least it will help us find out why the preferences are so skewed.
Yours is one of the most informed and insightful comments on this topic that I have yet read. It asks a question that I will try to (perhaps imperfectly) answer.
The first mistake non-Americans make when analyzing American politics is the over emphasis of political parties and positions. The American system of government is one that emphasizes election of individuals rather than of parties or ideas. In America, politicians may claim membership in a (Republican, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, etc.) party, but they have no obligation to the party platform... nor do the voters expect them to. If you doubt this, look at Zell Miller (Democrat?) or John McCain (Republican?).
Contrast this then with the rest of the world... In many (most?) other constitutional democracies, it is possible to vote for a PARTY in addition to a local representative. The local rep is beholden to his party and platform for advancement (the locals may elect him, but he can never become Prime Minister unless he does as he is told).
In those countries that are NOT democracies, PARTY is still important... In communist nations (China, Cuba, etc) an official owes EVERYTHING to the party and must do as they are told... and the same is basically true in the Dictatorships and Monarchies around the world. In SOVIET RUSSIA, the PARTY FINDS YOU! (Sorry, had to get that in.)
So the world reads the platforms of the Democratic and Republican Party, and of the two Candidates, and notices that the Democrats claim to be more receptive to the "needs" and "wishes" of the "world" and especially the "UN"... it's no surprise they find this preferable.
The "world", and especially the "UN" resents it when the US goes out and does things without being told. Bush has done this, and asserts the right of the US to do so again... Kerry has not. Go figure.
So why do Americans not see Bush and Kerry in the same light as "The World" does?
1) Americans really could care less what the rest of the world thinks about what it does. We spend plenty of time with our historical revisionism and tearing down our heroes and leaders and don't need any outside help, thank you! Moreover, Americans know that the "World" lacks the capability to do what we do, so we are naturally skeptical when that same "World" tries to tell us how we MUST use that ability.
The "World" may view America is Arrogant and Ill Informed, but Americans generally think the same of the "World".
2) Americans (or at least the famous group of "SWING VOTERS" that gets so much press) look more at personality and performance than at platform or party. And to complicate things for the foreign observers, we don't look for the same things every election...
Performance wise.... Bush doesn't have a perfect record (and "The World" thinks he has a poor record indeed), but Kerry has no record (Hasn't authored any legislation, has no "cause" except opposition to military action, but surprisingly, claims to support (in substance if not in form) current policy toward Iraq, at least last time I checked). So.... performance is moot to Americans.
That leaves personality... Kerry comes across as an upper-crust/elitist/knows what's best for you Snob. Bush comes across more as an "average joe"... opinionated, but not necessarily the smartest guy in the neighborhood, certainly not a know-it-all (Americanism for snob). Frankly, we like the Bush personality better, but not much better. Some of us are put off by his being opinionated, and many of us wish he "looked" smarter
Link me to where he said that, or tell me what book and page to look at in the library. Before, you said that he said "he wasn't sure", now you're saying that he said he was. Link me where he said, before the invasion, Iraq lacks WMDs, and I will concede the point. You (claim to) work at a 24/7 news agency. You have a huge advantage for this kind of research. I am truly interested. Link it.
No, Mr. Out-Of-Context... My "1 rifleman vs. 100 tanks" was the metaphor.
It was a poor metaphor because the example given was topical. Better to claim a field mouse against a tiger, or something to that effect. Anyway, it's still untrue.
you can count on France... to surrender.
Do you have proof of this, or is it just bigotted claptrap?
Ok, I admit I was enjoying a joke at the expense of a whole nation of wine snobs, but yes, there is some real hard truth to it. I'll get to that in a second.
The US Army, in a conventional war, has never lost.
False. War of 1812. None of Pre-war objectives were achieved. Washington DC was burned by British troops.
In the modern age, one can also make the argument that the Korean War was a defeat. The US was pushed back significantly from it's point of furthest advance. China showed the US the truth of the Russian maxim: Quantity has a Quality all its own.
The Bay of Pigs mess might also qualify as a US defeat, though the army involved was technically Cuban. (Kennedy should have resigned after that one. Not for sending the invasion, but for failing to back it up as promised).
France surrendered to the Axis when, at the time, they had no other options. The US had not entered the war, nor had England
False. True. And again, False.
Ever heard of the BEF? Dunkirk?
Britain, Like France, Declared war on Germany in response to the German invasion of Poland. Belgium, not England, tried to remain Neutral until it was too late, and as a result, No fortification or preparation was made in the Ardennes until it was far too late. When Battle began in earnest, poor morale amongst the largely conscript French infantry led to several mass surrenders. HOWEVER, some French formations actually did put up a fair resistance, and French armored units were never fully utilized. France surrendered with the bulk of its army intact. It surrendered with its fleet intact. Most units had access to adequate supplies and were available to receive orders. Also Several fresh formations were in Eastern France and were COMPLETELY untouched. These units could have reinforced the main French line, had it faltered, or flanked the German Blitzkrieg and broken German Supply lines through Belgium.
The French were far from powerless, and their decision NOT to fight, and NOT to continue the battle in their colonies (Algeria for starters), and NOT to use their fleet to keep Germany out of the Mediterranean and North Atlantic prolonged WWII in the Atlantic & Europe AT LEAST a year.
After the French Surrender, Germany turned toward Britain, and also North Africa. Blah. blah. Blah. Premature French TOTAL surrender cost the US and UK hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of lives.
If you want to know how it actually happened, I'd be glad to recommend some books...
So, you say that if France and the US met on the battlefield in Iraq, and France used nuclear weapons
I submit that, with the exception of POSSIBLY North Korea, the Acknowledged and Suspected Nuclear Powers would only use nukes a) if nuked, and b) in direct defense of their homeland (with the longest established powers using them only as a last defense). That includes both the US and France.
That makes no sense. "Their requewst for more time indicates that... in fact there were weapons to find.
How about "Their request for more time indicates a belief that... in fact there were weapons to find" ?? Or your own:
They weren't certain yet. That's all it means.
You had suggested Mr. Blix as a credible source disputing the consensus "Iraq has WMDs" that existed pre-invasion. By your own analysis here, Mr. Blix's presentation was one of uncertainty rather than one that challenged the consensus.
Perhaps "deep down" he believed that there was nothing to find, or that Saddam & Co. had used up all of their Chem. Weapons on the Kurds. Perhaps. But he didn't say so when it might have mattered. For those that believed the consensus (which was, as I have said, basically every intelligence service that you and I would consider to be "reputable"), his request for more time certainly lent support to the idea that such time would not be wasted. Perhaps they saw what they wanted to see, but Mr. Blix certainly presented it in sufficiently ambiguous light to permit this.
His position was VERY self serving. By asking for more time, if after the invasion, the coalition had found huge stockpiles of nerve agents, he could have claimed "given more time we would have surely found them". And if, as actually happened, no WMDs were found, he could later claim to have "known all along" and to have been asking for more time to prevent a "needless" conflict. Either way, he'd be a celebrity with the news networks.
the sheer fact that SETI wants to spend more time looking for aliens means that aliens must exist?
No. It indicates that the Seti people believe that their efforts looking are not wasted. IE, they believe that there are ETs to find... whether there actually are or not. Similar analysis on your related examples.
It's a metaphor. The combined might of France, Germany, and Russia could not stand up to the United States armed forces, except by using nuclear weapons.
Um... a metaphor? More like a claim, or an assertion I think. And a false or unsupported one at that.
I'd like to believe that I am a suitably patriotic, or even occasionally nationalistic, American. But even -I- do not belong to the cult of American military invincibility. I have to wonder why you do... What evidence have you been reading? The fact that the US Army never loses in Tom Clancy's world does not translate into assurance of victory for US forces in the field.
It would be more correct to assert that opposing forces must be willing to absorb lopsided casualties in order to fight the US military. Those casualty figures -might- be unacceptable... on the order of 100 to 1 for may Middle Eastern powers (Saddam's Iraq) or of 10 to 1 for China perhaps. But France and Germany and Russia do not operate with the same technological deficit. Loss ratios on the order of 3 to 1 are likely...
3 to 1 loss ratios are sustainable, if a nation or government has the will to do so. Union losses for most of the US Civil War hovered around this level. Losses in US armored units vs. Germany in WWII were about this level. It can be done. the problem is that few Western nations in modern time have the kind of will power to sustain any significant casualties.
So if you meant to claim that France and the others lack the national will to sustain casualties in a war, I'd probably agree. That's why even reputed Liberal strategists don't worry much about France: When the chips are down, and the casualties begin to mount, you can count on France... to surr
In 2001, no intelligence agency that you (or I) would consider reputable asserted that Iraq lacked WMDs.
Not so - Hans Blix, and his team of on-site inspectors.
Mr. Blix and his inspectors BEFORE THE INVASION made it quite clear that they had not located any WMDs. HOWEVER they/he were emphatic in their request for additional time to continue inspections.
Their request for more time indicates a belief that such time would not be wasted; that in fact there were weapons to find. At BEST their findings were inconclusive, but their actions and request for time gave support to the "consensus" conclusion.
POST INVASION, Blix has talked about always having had some doubt about Iraqi WMDs and such. To be clear, his hindsight is almost as good as mine... but your news agency interviews him and not me. (If I'm wrong on this, which I doubt, post a link. If he publicly said "Iraq does not possess banned weapons or banned weapons programs" prior to the invasion, someone someplace would have made a note.) Mr. Blix had a chance to be courageous. He had at least two (televised) occasions to report to the UNSC about his findings. If at either he had stood up and said "Iraq is free of banned XYZ, I recommend lifting sanctions" BELIEVE ME, we'd have heard about it.
As for your military assertions... France and Germany and Russia all have tanks of their own... They COULD have acted. I am also quite certain that if any of these nations had committed troops in support of Saddam's government, the US would have at the very least, paused a few months to reconsider.
The price of INACTION is that one must accept what comes.
It was the consensus of the "intelligence community" in 2001 that Iraq had WMDs.
Not so. Read the 9/11 Report or check out Fahrenheit 911
I have. F911 was incomplete, and must be taken with lots of salt. Mr. Moore sought the conclusion he reached (much as you suggest the Bush team did)... The 9/11 commission report is another matter of course. Have you actually read it?
The 9/11 report analyzed mainly 9/11 related intel. It contains little conclusive information about Iraqi WMD intel... because Iraqi WMDs were not involved in the 9/11 attack. Therefore the commission report doesn't shed much light on the Iraqi situation because their attention was focused elsewhere. The information the present on point is incomplete, and they acknowledge this.
I do not dispute that contrary opinions did exist, just as they do with regard to environmental matters, but rather point out that a consensus (in both cases) exists despite the contrary voices. Intelligence analysis reads much like a weather report: "it'll rain for sure... but there's a chance it won't".
In 2001, no intelligence agency that you (or I) would consider reputable asserted that Iraq lacked WMDs. This doesn't excuse the CIA or the DIA or the Bushys their failure to realize the truth, but it does lend plenty of credence to the idea that that their failure was due to a lack of perception rather than to an intent to mislead.
As for France's notable inaction... they could have built a coalition from the (un)willing. Russia, Germany, Maybe even China could have gone in. And don't forget the Iraqi army! The US army is not invincible. It could have been done (with a cost for sure, but still). Unless of course you are suggesting that nobody sane would want France as an ally?
It was the consensus of the "intelligence community" in 2001 that Iraq had WMDs. France and others called for "further inspections" not because they had any real doubt of this, but rather because it gave them an excuse to do nothing. They wanted to do nothing because maintaining the status-quo was in their (economic) interest. THEY weren't currently the target of Islamic terrorists. Their aircraft weren't involved in enforcing UN no-fly-zones. They stood only to profit.
Unfortunately, an great analogous situation exists.
It is the consensus of the scientific community that "global warming and climate change" is real and is impacted (at least in part) by human activity. However the US and some other countries call the evidence unconvincing and inconclusive. They do this not because they disbelieve the evidence, but rather because altering their behavior is not in their (economic) interests.
There is ALWAYS a case for inaction. Inaction requires no courage; no conviction.
If France and others believed that there was no case for WMDs, they should have DONE SOMETHING. Even at this late stage, they could intervene with their military and try to return Iraq to its rightful (?) Baathist rulers. But they don't.
They sit on the sidelines and quibble. They do not ACT.
Now for the trivia challenge: What momentous event in the 1930s and 1940s was brought about, in large part, by the unwillingness of France and the UK to ACT?
I know it is difficult for most/. Freedom-Of-Speech Libertarians, but especially when a topuc is blatantly political, it is necessary to mod UP (or at least leave modded up) posts that you STRONGLY disagree with.
Well, that depends. If you believe that your only choices (if you are in the USA at least) are Bush or Kerry, or Democrats or Republicans if you prefer, then your vote will be meaningless. Both persons and parties are certainly part of the ESTABLISHMENT. They aren't going to disband the TSA of DHS. And they certainly have no intention of repealing the DMCA.
So your vote CANNOT and will not precipitate a REVOLUTION. Or at least not if you Vote for a Democrat or a Republican.
But to NOT VOTE AT ALL?? That just indicates your acceptance of the status-quo. It indicates your willingness to be a sheep. It signifies your disinterest in controlling your own destiny.
You want real change? Vote for Nader. Vote for the Libertarian candidate. Or vote for yourself. Seriously.
Most Americans fail to realize that there would be REAL consequences if 25% or more of ballots cast in a major (IE presidential or congressional) election were write-ins! Certainly on one of the "major" candidates would still "win", but with such a wide expression of dissatisfaction, there would be no "mandate" for the winner. And while we would be stuck with whichever buffoon was the "victor", the parties, mainstream and fringe, would present some real options for the next go-round. But this can only work if the dissatisfied vote.
Voting for change does not mean change occurs tomorrow. Politics is not about instant gratification. (unless you are in the position to receive Oval Office BJ's I suppose) Real change takes years. Real change is worth working for.
A vote for Bush OR a vote for Kerry is a vote for more of the same. THINK! And Vote!
Sure! Mod me down! I'm not pumping Kerry, so on slashdot I must be an Overrated Troll.
A newspaper acting as a propaganda instrument is something very alarming to happen in a democratic country.
The reason that the (US) Bill of Rights enshrines Freedom of the Press is presicely because the the press is ALWAYS a propaganda instrument. You doubt this?
The proximate cause for the inclusion of this "right" was the restriction of the pro-revolution press during the American Revolution. The winners (the Americans) found that offensive of course, and so we see the US "First Ammendment".
The thing that galls the NYT (and perhaps you as well?) is that they wound up being an instrument of propaganda FOR a group that for the past 50++ years they have been a willing instrument for propaganda AGAINST. (thats the "Republicans" for those with their head in the sand).
The NYT should have an interest in presenting itself as objective for marketing purposes... Just as WSJ, ABC News and Foxnews have the same interest. If they present themselves this way... and do so loudly enough, some fool somewhere might just believe it.
The NYT is a propaganda instrument. That is WHY it requires constitutional protection.
Q: Why is a comet's tail always directed AWAY from the sun.
A: Solar Wind.
The solar wind is ionized, so the Earth's magnetic field deflects to a large degree. Gravity also plays a large role. Shear from the solar wind would be a real concern for any terraforming project on Mars.
Titan is protected by the incredibly strong field around Saturn, and also by its distance from the sun. As for Venus... for some reason I always thought venus had a meaningful magnetic field... But I suppose that we could just be looking at the result of "recent" (last million years or so) volcanic activity.
Um. Even in theory, how would you suggest this be done? We don't even know (for sure) how Earth's magnetic field is generated. IIRC, we THINK that it might have something to do with the flow of liquid metal (iron) around a core of solid metal, but since we can't observe it...
IF this theory is correct, we'd have to find a way to (re)melt the outer portion of Mars' core... then find a way to get it moving in the 'right' (or any) direction.
NASA (or whoever) could always mount a sophisticated "laser" on the moon (err "Death Star") to do this, but I'm not sure that it's practical.:-)
* Major terraforming prospects; estimated workforce needed to terraform Mars to 1atm=10,000 people; procodes enough pressure and CO2 for plants, which over about 100 years can produce enough O2 for humans to breathe
The much lower gravity on mars combined with the lack of useful magnetic field will make it virtually impossible to hold a surface pressure anywhere near 1 atm. The best you can reasonably hope for is a 1/2 atm surface pressure (in the deep valleys mind you) and a high fraction of oxygen to yeild a breathable atmosphere.
Keep in mind also that the atmosphere of mars is really all of the radiation shielding there is. With no magnetic field to speak of, the martian atmosphere is exposed to solar wind and all of the other hard radiation that the sun throws at it. That's one of the reasons they have such a hard time keeping probes and robotic explorers "alive" on the partian surface.
His guilt is completely separate from those stupid messages. The idea that the courts determine whether or not someone ACTUALLY IS GUILTY is a stupid and common American fallacy.
If this goes to trial, I'd expect those messages to be critical evidence for the defense OR the prosecution. They may not prove guilt per se, but they could prove non-guilt and will certainly prove state of mind.
Rape is a horrible crime. Why else the long sentences? Why else the (well meaning but misguided imo) rape-shield laws? Given this, we would expect it to have an immediate effect on a victim's behavior. This should be evident in the text messages, or at least that is what will be argued by whomever finds these messages most useful. Remember we don't know what is in them, and nor does the state (or they would be forced to disclose it) or the defense.
What could prove innocence or make a guilty verdict impossible?
A suggestion by any party involved in the messaging that a rape could be faked. Any indication that life was proceeding "normally".
And what could convict Kobe?
If she messaged anyone "Kobe Raped Me" shortly after the event.
This is a he-said/she-said type of case. Regardless of what the jury says, we will NEVER know if a rape occurred. The Prosecution will present Kobe as violent womanizer, the defense will present the nameless woman as opportunist slut. Both characterizations will probably have a great deal of embedded truth. The jury will vote for whichever of these ugly personalities they find to be less disgusting. Guilt or innocence will be a farce.
But, simply put, these messages are huge, or would be if anyone gave a damn about this.
This isn't a case of fault or nonfault, but rather a problem with ease-of-use.
A medium-large corporation with a 20 person IT/support staff and lots of PHBs has the time and expertise to implement security policies (even broken ones like WEP are better than nada), but the home user doesn't. What would be incompetent if done by the IT department at Megacorp (tm) is simply "normal" for home users.
If you implement WEP (or whatever) you have a pile of administrative and technical overhead that simply IS NOT PRESENT in unsecured systems. The typical enduser just wants their new wifi printer to work. And if they get a wifi scanner 18 months from now, they just want that to work as well. And if their brother-in-law brings in his wifi PDA, then THAT should just work.
To have a secure system, it must be designed to NOT WORK except under specified conditions. (A password might be a condition) Security then works directly against ease-of-use. The easier it is to use an OS or Network Device or whatever, the less secure it must be.
If the administrative overhead involved in keeping passwords both secure and ready-on-demand isn't annoying to you, then you're probably PHB material.
If the technical aspects of setting up a new device dont bother you, then you are a geek (like the rest of the/. readership).
If you don't want things just to work, you sure as hell aren't an average user.
Slashdot Mirror
In today's market, most people just want to be like everyone else. Apple has a monopoly power over their market segment and they are happy with that. Their policies may push away 90% of the developers, hackers, and enthusiasts. Unfortunately, this stopped being an important market segment years ago.
I can't believe that Parent was modded insightful!
--
My scientific prediction based on evidence I believe: the world will end on January 1, 2000. oops, guess I "miscalculated".
My scientific prediction based on evidence I believe: the world will end on January 1, 2001 which is the "real" end of the millennium. I guess I will need to fix my model, but don't worry, this is settled science.
My scientific prediction based on evidence I believe: the world will end on January 1, 2004. predicting this is difficult, but the evidence is irrefutable. I need to make an adjustment.
My scientific prediction based on evidence I believe: the world will end on January 1, 2007. My data can't be flawed. I know exactly what I am talking about. Even if you don't believe my evidence, other people also have evidence. I just need to apply a trick to fix my prediction.
My scientific prediction based on evidence I believe: the world will end on January 1, 2010. You don't believe me? You are basically telling us that we should dismiss my research, because (according to you) some of the early predictions got it wrong. Can you see the problem with your "reasoning"?
--
Repent damn you!
Now, if only we can make these diodes from Ironium and Boranium as well we will be able to conquer the universe!
"(NT 4.0 based, IIRC)"
The Aegis system predates 'NT 4.0' by quite a bit. GC-47 USS Ticonderoga, the first ship to use the Aegis system, was comissioned in 1983.
It seems that the service department is having intermitant trouble with printing and network access. Wonder why? Be creative. In a month they'll demand to move bact into their old space.
Mod Parent up!
Ever since "journalism" rather than medicine or sciences became the field of choice for people who wanted to change the world, newspapers have been less about news and more about political viewpoint.
I am a registered independent.
If I had to vote right now, I'd cast a protest vote for Nader, reluctantly. If forced to choose between the Dem and Rep... I don't know yet... both of 'em suck.
I will certainly vote.
How would YOU define "Swing Voter"?
I sure know how I would define Anonymous COWARD.
Being a Senator with the associated deal-making and maneuvering is a liability because of the appearance of frequent flip-flopping. The (swing) electorate as a whole has trouble seeing past this... The news sources that might inform them are all biased (one way or the other) and always have been, and the candidates themselves often do a poor job explaining it.
The reason why Kerry is so easily portrayed as a flip-flopper however, even among more educated (swing) voters, is that in addition to often voting both ways on some issues, he tries to take credit for each of those votes. To abuse a glaring and oft cited example 'so you see I voted for the [87 billion to support the Iraq war] before I voted against it'. I'm sure that John Kerry cringes every time he hears the quote played back, but worse than having made a sound-bite for Bush has been the way he himself has used the issue...
When appearing before veteran groups, Kerry often takes credit for having voted to get soldiers the equipment they need while at the same time criticizing how the money is being used (this was a popular talking point earlier this year when there was a problem getting armor fabricated and transported for some vehicles). Then, at (notoriously anti-war) student rallies, he'll highlight his opposition to the war, or at least its current execution, and highlight his votes against that war. In essence he tries to take credit for both supporting and opposing a particular measure... sure it's deeper than that, more complex, or is it?
John Kerry's Senate voting record defies analysis. I submit that (swing) voters dismiss it rather than analyze it... and that those like myself who do try to analyze it (the US Government maintains websites that track congressional voting records by bill, issue, etc.) don't have any clearer view of Mr. Kerry.
So what kind of record would be noteworthy or appropriate for a Senator with Presidential aspirations? Speaking for myself, I would look for someone with a consistent record on two or three issues, someone who had authored and sought passage for bills that addressed those issues, and could be seen as a champion or advocate of those issues... In short, somebody that clearly stands for something. A senator need not be solid and predictable on all issues or even most issues (because of that deal making you mentioned), but needs to be reliable on at least some issues. IMH(SV)O.
IMO, He doesn't talk about it for four reasons:
1) Reagan and his legacy is untouchable for the present. He was and is popular amongst Independents and "swing voters". Americans are still building him up as a hero... we won't really get around to tearing him down of a decade or so. Bringing up Iran-Contra as a campaign issue would be suggesting that "The Gipper" was dishonest right now would be political suicude.
2) Iran-Contra is really only an issue today for the true Partisans. The non-partisans and alleged swing voters (at least those who know or remember what a "contra" is) tend to view the scandal in about the same light as the Lewinsky matter. The fact that one was a policy scandal and the other was not matters little.
3) Speaking of the Lewinsky matter, the resulting impeachment hinged on a charge of perjury (even if it was just about sex). Kerry really can't claim to be a champion of governmental integrity after not voting to convict Clinton for that Perjury.
4) As you mentioned, even if all the rest could be ignored or worked around, there really isn't any way to make it into a good sound-bite.
Yours is one of the most informed and insightful comments on this topic that I have yet read. It asks a question that I will try to (perhaps imperfectly) answer.
The first mistake non-Americans make when analyzing American politics is the over emphasis of political parties and positions. The American system of government is one that emphasizes election of individuals rather than of parties or ideas. In America, politicians may claim membership in a (Republican, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, etc.) party, but they have no obligation to the party platform... nor do the voters expect them to. If you doubt this, look at Zell Miller (Democrat?) or John McCain (Republican?).
Contrast this then with the rest of the world... In many (most?) other constitutional democracies, it is possible to vote for a PARTY in addition to a local representative. The local rep is beholden to his party and platform for advancement (the locals may elect him, but he can never become Prime Minister unless he does as he is told).
In those countries that are NOT democracies, PARTY is still important... In communist nations (China, Cuba, etc) an official owes EVERYTHING to the party and must do as they are told... and the same is basically true in the Dictatorships and Monarchies around the world. In SOVIET RUSSIA, the PARTY FINDS YOU! (Sorry, had to get that in.)
So the world reads the platforms of the Democratic and Republican Party, and of the two Candidates, and notices that the Democrats claim to be more receptive to the "needs" and "wishes" of the "world" and especially the "UN"... it's no surprise they find this preferable.
The "world", and especially the "UN" resents it when the US goes out and does things without being told. Bush has done this, and asserts the right of the US to do so again... Kerry has not. Go figure.
So why do Americans not see Bush and Kerry in the same light as "The World" does?
1) Americans really could care less what the rest of the world thinks about what it does. We spend plenty of time with our historical revisionism and tearing down our heroes and leaders and don't need any outside help, thank you! Moreover, Americans know that the "World" lacks the capability to do what we do, so we are naturally skeptical when that same "World" tries to tell us how we MUST use that ability.
The "World" may view America is Arrogant and Ill Informed, but Americans generally think the same of the "World".
2) Americans (or at least the famous group of "SWING VOTERS" that gets so much press) look more at personality and performance than at platform or party. And to complicate things for the foreign observers, we don't look for the same things every election...
Performance wise.... Bush doesn't have a perfect record (and "The World" thinks he has a poor record indeed), but Kerry has no record (Hasn't authored any legislation, has no "cause" except opposition to military action, but surprisingly, claims to support (in substance if not in form) current policy toward Iraq, at least last time I checked). So.... performance is moot to Americans.
That leaves personality... Kerry comes across as an upper-crust/elitist/knows what's best for you Snob. Bush comes across more as an "average joe"... opinionated, but not necessarily the smartest guy in the neighborhood, certainly not a know-it-all (Americanism for snob). Frankly, we like the Bush personality better, but not much better. Some of us are put off by his being opinionated, and many of us wish he "looked" smarter
Link me to where he said that, or tell me what book and page to look at in the library. Before, you said that he said "he wasn't sure", now you're saying that he said he was. Link me where he said, before the invasion, Iraq lacks WMDs, and I will concede the point. You (claim to) work at a 24/7 news agency. You have a huge advantage for this kind of research. I am truly interested. Link it.
It was a poor metaphor because the example given was topical. Better to claim a field mouse against a tiger, or something to that effect. Anyway, it's still untrue.
Ok, I admit I was enjoying a joke at the expense of a whole nation of wine snobs, but yes, there is some real hard truth to it. I'll get to that in a second.
False. War of 1812. None of Pre-war objectives were achieved. Washington DC was burned by British troops.
In the modern age, one can also make the argument that the Korean War was a defeat. The US was pushed back significantly from it's point of furthest advance. China showed the US the truth of the Russian maxim: Quantity has a Quality all its own.
The Bay of Pigs mess might also qualify as a US defeat, though the army involved was technically Cuban. (Kennedy should have resigned after that one. Not for sending the invasion, but for failing to back it up as promised).
False. True. And again, False.
Ever heard of the BEF? Dunkirk?
Britain, Like France, Declared war on Germany in response to the German invasion of Poland. Belgium, not England, tried to remain Neutral until it was too late, and as a result, No fortification or preparation was made in the Ardennes until it was far too late. When Battle began in earnest, poor morale amongst the largely conscript French infantry led to several mass surrenders. HOWEVER, some French formations actually did put up a fair resistance, and French armored units were never fully utilized. France surrendered with the bulk of its army intact. It surrendered with its fleet intact. Most units had access to adequate supplies and were available to receive orders. Also Several fresh formations were in Eastern France and were COMPLETELY untouched. These units could have reinforced the main French line, had it faltered, or flanked the German Blitzkrieg and broken German Supply lines through Belgium.
The French were far from powerless, and their decision NOT to fight, and NOT to continue the battle in their colonies (Algeria for starters), and NOT to use their fleet to keep Germany out of the Mediterranean and North Atlantic prolonged WWII in the Atlantic & Europe AT LEAST a year.
After the French Surrender, Germany turned toward Britain, and also North Africa. Blah. blah. Blah. Premature French TOTAL surrender cost the US and UK hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of lives.
If you want to know how it actually happened, I'd be glad to recommend some books...
I submit that, with the exception of POSSIBLY North Korea, the Acknowledged and Suspected Nuclear Powers would only use nukes a) if nuked, and b) in direct defense of their homeland (with the longest established powers using them only as a last defense). That includes both the US and France.
How about "Their request for more time indicates a belief that... in fact there were weapons to find" ?? Or your own:
You had suggested Mr. Blix as a credible source disputing the consensus "Iraq has WMDs" that existed pre-invasion. By your own analysis here, Mr. Blix's presentation was one of uncertainty rather than one that challenged the consensus.
Perhaps "deep down" he believed that there was nothing to find, or that Saddam & Co. had used up all of their Chem. Weapons on the Kurds. Perhaps. But he didn't say so when it might have mattered. For those that believed the consensus (which was, as I have said, basically every intelligence service that you and I would consider to be "reputable"), his request for more time certainly lent support to the idea that such time would not be wasted. Perhaps they saw what they wanted to see, but Mr. Blix certainly presented it in sufficiently ambiguous light to permit this.
His position was VERY self serving. By asking for more time, if after the invasion, the coalition had found huge stockpiles of nerve agents, he could have claimed "given more time we would have surely found them". And if, as actually happened, no WMDs were found, he could later claim to have "known all along" and to have been asking for more time to prevent a "needless" conflict. Either way, he'd be a celebrity with the news networks.
No. It indicates that the Seti people believe that their efforts looking are not wasted. IE, they believe that there are ETs to find... whether there actually are or not. Similar analysis on your related examples.
Um... a metaphor? More like a claim, or an assertion I think. And a false or unsupported one at that.
I'd like to believe that I am a suitably patriotic, or even occasionally nationalistic, American. But even -I- do not belong to the cult of American military invincibility. I have to wonder why you do... What evidence have you been reading? The fact that the US Army never loses in Tom Clancy's world does not translate into assurance of victory for US forces in the field.
It would be more correct to assert that opposing forces must be willing to absorb lopsided casualties in order to fight the US military. Those casualty figures -might- be unacceptable... on the order of 100 to 1 for may Middle Eastern powers (Saddam's Iraq) or of 10 to 1 for China perhaps. But France and Germany and Russia do not operate with the same technological deficit. Loss ratios on the order of 3 to 1 are likely...
3 to 1 loss ratios are sustainable, if a nation or government has the will to do so. Union losses for most of the US Civil War hovered around this level. Losses in US armored units vs. Germany in WWII were about this level. It can be done. the problem is that few Western nations in modern time have the kind of will power to sustain any significant casualties.
So if you meant to claim that France and the others lack the national will to sustain casualties in a war, I'd probably agree. That's why even reputed Liberal strategists don't worry much about France: When the chips are down, and the casualties begin to mount, you can count on France... to surr
Mr. Blix and his inspectors BEFORE THE INVASION made it quite clear that they had not located any WMDs. HOWEVER they/he were emphatic in their request for additional time to continue inspections.
Their request for more time indicates a belief that such time would not be wasted; that in fact there were weapons to find. At BEST their findings were inconclusive, but their actions and request for time gave support to the "consensus" conclusion.
POST INVASION, Blix has talked about always having had some doubt about Iraqi WMDs and such. To be clear, his hindsight is almost as good as mine... but your news agency interviews him and not me. (If I'm wrong on this, which I doubt, post a link. If he publicly said "Iraq does not possess banned weapons or banned weapons programs" prior to the invasion, someone someplace would have made a note.) Mr. Blix had a chance to be courageous. He had at least two (televised) occasions to report to the UNSC about his findings. If at either he had stood up and said "Iraq is free of banned XYZ, I recommend lifting sanctions" BELIEVE ME, we'd have heard about it.
As for your military assertions... France and Germany and Russia all have tanks of their own... They COULD have acted. I am also quite certain that if any of these nations had committed troops in support of Saddam's government, the US would have at the very least, paused a few months to reconsider.
The price of INACTION is that one must accept what comes.
The 9/11 report analyzed mainly 9/11 related intel. It contains little conclusive information about Iraqi WMD intel... because Iraqi WMDs were not involved in the 9/11 attack. Therefore the commission report doesn't shed much light on the Iraqi situation because their attention was focused elsewhere. The information the present on point is incomplete, and they acknowledge this.
I do not dispute that contrary opinions did exist, just as they do with regard to environmental matters, but rather point out that a consensus (in both cases) exists despite the contrary voices. Intelligence analysis reads much like a weather report: "it'll rain for sure... but there's a chance it won't".
In 2001, no intelligence agency that you (or I) would consider reputable asserted that Iraq lacked WMDs. This doesn't excuse the CIA or the DIA or the Bushys their failure to realize the truth, but it does lend plenty of credence to the idea that that their failure was due to a lack of perception rather than to an intent to mislead.
As for France's notable inaction... they could have built a coalition from the (un)willing. Russia, Germany, Maybe even China could have gone in. And don't forget the Iraqi army! The US army is not invincible. It could have been done (with a cost for sure, but still). Unless of course you are suggesting that nobody sane would want France as an ally?
It was the consensus of the "intelligence community" in 2001 that Iraq had WMDs. France and others called for "further inspections" not because they had any real doubt of this, but rather because it gave them an excuse to do nothing. They wanted to do nothing because maintaining the status-quo was in their (economic) interest. THEY weren't currently the target of Islamic terrorists. Their aircraft weren't involved in enforcing UN no-fly-zones. They stood only to profit.
Unfortunately, an great analogous situation exists.
It is the consensus of the scientific community that "global warming and climate change" is real and is impacted (at least in part) by human activity. However the US and some other countries call the evidence unconvincing and inconclusive. They do this not because they disbelieve the evidence, but rather because altering their behavior is not in their (economic) interests.
There is ALWAYS a case for inaction. Inaction requires no courage; no conviction.
If France and others believed that there was no case for WMDs, they should have DONE SOMETHING. Even at this late stage, they could intervene with their military and try to return Iraq to its rightful (?) Baathist rulers. But they don't.
They sit on the sidelines and quibble. They do not ACT.
Now for the trivia challenge: What momentous event in the 1930s and 1940s was brought about, in large part, by the unwillingness of France and the UK to ACT?
I know it is difficult for most /. Freedom-Of-Speech Libertarians, but especially when a topuc is blatantly political, it is necessary to mod UP (or at least leave modded up) posts that you STRONGLY disagree with.
So your vote CANNOT and will not precipitate a REVOLUTION. Or at least not if you Vote for a Democrat or a Republican.
But to NOT VOTE AT ALL?? That just indicates your acceptance of the status-quo. It indicates your willingness to be a sheep. It signifies your disinterest in controlling your own destiny.
You want real change? Vote for Nader. Vote for the Libertarian candidate. Or vote for yourself. Seriously.
Most Americans fail to realize that there would be REAL consequences if 25% or more of ballots cast in a major (IE presidential or congressional) election were write-ins! Certainly on one of the "major" candidates would still "win", but with such a wide expression of dissatisfaction, there would be no "mandate" for the winner. And while we would be stuck with whichever buffoon was the "victor", the parties, mainstream and fringe, would present some real options for the next go-round. But this can only work if the dissatisfied vote.
Voting for change does not mean change occurs tomorrow. Politics is not about instant gratification. (unless you are in the position to receive Oval Office BJ's I suppose) Real change takes years. Real change is worth working for.
A vote for Bush OR a vote for Kerry is a vote for more of the same. THINK! And Vote!
Sure! Mod me down! I'm not pumping Kerry, so on slashdot I must be an Overrated Troll.
I think you were refering to this !!
The proximate cause for the inclusion of this "right" was the restriction of the pro-revolution press during the American Revolution. The winners (the Americans) found that offensive of course, and so we see the US "First Ammendment".
The thing that galls the NYT (and perhaps you as well?) is that they wound up being an instrument of propaganda FOR a group that for the past 50++ years they have been a willing instrument for propaganda AGAINST. (thats the "Republicans" for those with their head in the sand).
The NYT should have an interest in presenting itself as objective for marketing purposes... Just as WSJ, ABC News and Foxnews have the same interest. If they present themselves this way... and do so loudly enough, some fool somewhere might just believe it.
The NYT is a propaganda instrument. That is WHY it requires constitutional protection.
More likely they'll think they are in ET.
The "new" ET that is by the new, no-vison Spielberg.
Ok class, the question for today is:
Q: Why is a comet's tail always directed AWAY from the sun.
A: Solar Wind.
The solar wind is ionized, so the Earth's magnetic field deflects to a large degree. Gravity also plays a large role. Shear from the solar wind would be a real concern for any terraforming project on Mars.
Titan is protected by the incredibly strong field around Saturn, and also by its distance from the sun. As for Venus... for some reason I always thought venus had a meaningful magnetic field... But I suppose that we could just be looking at the result of "recent" (last million years or so) volcanic activity.
Um. Even in theory, how would you suggest this be done? We don't even know (for sure) how Earth's magnetic field is generated. IIRC, we THINK that it might have something to do with the flow of liquid metal (iron) around a core of solid metal, but since we can't observe it...
:-)
IF this theory is correct, we'd have to find a way to (re)melt the outer portion of Mars' core... then find a way to get it moving in the 'right' (or any) direction.
NASA (or whoever) could always mount a sophisticated "laser" on the moon (err "Death Star") to do this, but I'm not sure that it's practical.
Keep in mind also that the atmosphere of mars is really all of the radiation shielding there is. With no magnetic field to speak of, the martian atmosphere is exposed to solar wind and all of the other hard radiation that the sun throws at it. That's one of the reasons they have such a hard time keeping probes and robotic explorers "alive" on the partian surface.
If this goes to trial, I'd expect those messages to be critical evidence for the defense OR the prosecution. They may not prove guilt per se, but they could prove non-guilt and will certainly prove state of mind.
Rape is a horrible crime. Why else the long sentences? Why else the (well meaning but misguided imo) rape-shield laws? Given this, we would expect it to have an immediate effect on a victim's behavior. This should be evident in the text messages, or at least that is what will be argued by whomever finds these messages most useful. Remember we don't know what is in them, and nor does the state (or they would be forced to disclose it) or the defense.
What could prove innocence or make a guilty verdict impossible?
A suggestion by any party involved in the messaging that a rape could be faked. Any indication that life was proceeding "normally".
And what could convict Kobe?
If she messaged anyone "Kobe Raped Me" shortly after the event.
This is a he-said/she-said type of case. Regardless of what the jury says, we will NEVER know if a rape occurred. The Prosecution will present Kobe as violent womanizer, the defense will present the nameless woman as opportunist slut. Both characterizations will probably have a great deal of embedded truth. The jury will vote for whichever of these ugly personalities they find to be less disgusting. Guilt or innocence will be a farce.
But, simply put, these messages are huge, or would be if anyone gave a damn about this.
This isn't a case of fault or nonfault, but rather a problem with ease-of-use.
/. readership).
A medium-large corporation with a 20 person IT/support staff and lots of PHBs has the time and expertise to implement security policies (even broken ones like WEP are better than nada), but the home user doesn't. What would be incompetent if done by the IT department at Megacorp (tm) is simply "normal" for home users.
If you implement WEP (or whatever) you have a pile of administrative and technical overhead that simply IS NOT PRESENT in unsecured systems. The typical enduser just wants their new wifi printer to work. And if they get a wifi scanner 18 months from now, they just want that to work as well. And if their brother-in-law brings in his wifi PDA, then THAT should just work.
To have a secure system, it must be designed to NOT WORK except under specified conditions. (A password might be a condition) Security then works directly against ease-of-use. The easier it is to use an OS or Network Device or whatever, the less secure it must be.
If the administrative overhead involved in keeping passwords both secure and ready-on-demand isn't annoying to you, then you're probably PHB material.
If the technical aspects of setting up a new device dont bother you, then you are a geek (like the rest of the
If you don't want things just to work, you sure as hell aren't an average user.
TANSTAAFL