So what was the mission? As you seem to know that it was accomplished, then perhaps you know what it actually was.
If you do know - could you tell the US/UK governments as they apparently have no f**king idea!
Leaving is easy. The US/UK military didn't give a sh*t about Iraqi citizens in their rush to into the country (and all the time they've been there), so why the big worry now? It's not like the US/UK foreign policies will be viewed as any more criminal, inhuman and cowardly than they already are. The US/UK will we blamed for their legacy of death for a long time anyway, so may as well just accept that we're soiled nations and get the hell outta Dodge.
How is this AC off-topic? AC or not, the poster is talking about victims of the wars the thread is set up to discuss and it's relevant to the compassion of the candidates in the presidential elections. Whether or not they consider the dead Iraqis and Afghanis as worthy speaks volumes about how they see fellow humans.
Mods, please mark the OP back up - if anything it's more 'insightful' than 'offtopic'.
What did Afghanistan have to do with 9/11? The Taliban didn't attack the US!
Now no doubt I'll see all sorts of responses about them harbouring OBL, but he had nothing to do with 9/11 either.
Don't believe me? Check the FBI's most wanted page and have a look at what OBL is actually wanted for - doesn't include 9/11 because they have no evidence to suggest any link between that 'attack' (in quotes because it is still too disputed to say what actually happened and why) and OBL.
So if neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had any part to play in 9/11, then how can any of the illegal (yes, that's a fact!) wars, including the criminal acts of war committed against Pakistan and Syria or any of the other shady illegal acts (kidnap, torture, internment) be justified (and what kind of human would even try to 'justify' causing harm to another human being anyway)? And how can anyone consider that a candidate who doesn't raise any of these issues is fit to run the country? To use the dreaded equivalence - is a corrupt cop worthy of their badge and would you trust them? So how about the highest ranking state official in your country - if the corruption is so systemic and endemic that it runs all the way to the top, can you still trust the system?
The problem with current defence spending is that the money doesn't really go back into the economy other than paying wages of employees. The rest of the money (massive profits from no-bid governmental projects charged at more than 3 times the normal rate) is siphoned out of the economy, usually through offshore bank accounts and 'head offices' to benefit the shareholders.
If the defence industry (building all those machines of death) were nationalised then it WOULD kickstart the economy, but then that's socialism so half the population would go run shrieking in terror that they were going to be marched off to death camps (some people really can't distinguish between socialism and communofascism). And if you're going to spend so much money on producing something, then it might as well be something constructive and good for the people (alternative energy production anyone?) rather than perpetuating the trade in nonsensical killing.
...except for GT5 Prologue (and GT5 when it finally comes out). GT is, after all, the ONLY reason to own any platform. All other games are mere fillers in between GT releases!;P
I think you can already target disk mode with a USB port... (would have to get back to you on that though). I know you can definitely boot off a USB drive, even though officially they claim you can only boot from a FireWire - just hold down Option at boot and select the USB drive (I know, it's not automated like Firewire, but it still works), so there's a good chance they'll have allowed USB to target-disk too.
Actually, up until yesterday I would have agreed with you about Apple's RAM pricing 100%.
I'm in the market for a new laptop - the G4 PBook is about 5 years old now. So yesterday I had a look at the Apple Store. Checked the new MBP and had a look at how much it would cost to upgrade the RAM from 2Gb to 4Gb when I buy - 100 GBP.
I did my usual comparison check on crucial's website, and rather than the half-price I'd normally expect them to be charging, they have a 4Gb kit for 96 GBP. Only 4 quid cheaper than Apple!!! This must be a first, heh.
Mind you, I suppose if you buy from Crucial you can always sell the old 2x1Gb sticks on th'ebay to offset the cost, but still!
Maybe Apple have taken note of how many people aren't buying their RAM 'upgrades' anymore.
Apparently in Japan this is taken far more seriously. They treat the car's 'face' is a genuine personality trait for that vehicle. If your car looks angry it's probably more likely to have problems than if it looks happy. This can affect sales massively and Ford's Escort (at the time) had it's grille flipped vertically to change it from it's original frowny downturned 'mouth' to a smiley upturned one instead on the advice of the company's Japanese dealers (and market research in Japan). They claimed that without this change the car would have tanked completely.
So it seems TFA only really applies to the west, as in the East they LOVE their cutesy cars - one of the best selling cars in Japan a few years ago was the Nissan Cube for gawds sake, and that looks like a toy car blown up to lifesize proportions!
Actually, you WOULD use 'Bloody 'ell' at the start of a sentence as an exclamation. Much like saying 'Blimey', or 'Fuck', or 'Shiiiiit Man'.
Any of those would be common usage in England
Heck, that's not true... I'm as English as the next Englishman, and I bloody 'ell-as-like don't appreciate the idea that I can't say heck rather than feck in polite company!;P
And 'cheers' doesn't mean you're drunk, it means 'thanks' only in a more informal way. And yes, it's a very English usage - like talking about your 'mates'
I don't see why an artist shouldn't benefit from their work for their entire life to be honest. If Ford build a car you like (let's say a Ford GT) and they still have some in stock in a few years, should it be free to you or should you still have to pay for it? Shouldn't they retain the right to sell each one?
It's a tangible work, something produced at cost (both time and money) to the producer. In the case of music it's age doesn't remove the fact that the artist laboured to produce that work and just because it's 10 years old if it didn't sell well on first release (perhaps down to poor marketing or distribution knowledge) they may never have recouped their costs let alone made any money from it - so why shouldn't they retain the right to sell it later? Many big name artists from pre-90's eras didn't necessarily sell many of their 1st album and it was only because of '4 album deals' that they stuck around long enough to build an audience who then go and buy not only the latest album, but also the back catalogue. If you deny an artist this by applying a short-term 'lease' on their rights, it opens the door for other people to commercially exploit their work - such as using the music in an advert which goes on to profit an organisation hugely with no benefit to the recording artist.
Why is it that BOTH the RIAA and the 'copyright reformers' seem to want to shaft the musicians? It should be left to us, the musicians to determine the rights to each of our works. If we want to apply Creative Commons to them, then that's our decision. Likewise, if we want to be able to sell them, that's our decision too - as is the length of time we want to be able to sell them for.
If the root cause is an organisation NOT formed by artists for the artists interests , but for the organisation's interests (the current RIAA model) then this new organisation will certainly become as corrupt as the first.
However, if the new organisation is formed BY the artists for themselves, then it won't - because it's in the artists own interests to find the best level of pricing for their own work to achieve the best return on their time/money invested without scaring off the consumer. If they overprice a work it won't sell, but if they underprice they'll operate at a loss which won't be sustainable in the long term.
It does however give them full control over the rights for any piece of work, including the option to allow complete copying and distribution free-of-charge for certain tracks as they see fit - they may allow one or two tracks from an album to go creative commons for instance, but retain copyright on the rest of the album as a promotional driver to push sales up. And with the consumer knowing the money is going direct to the artist, as long as the artist isn't being greedy and sets a fair price (not difficult considering downloads remove all the physical 'production' and many of the distribution costs and just leave recording/mastering costs), then I should think they'll be more inclined to pay at least something for the album.
Of course there'll always be some people who'll never pay for anything, but then they don't currently so that won't affect the artists directly, and if anything the artist will generally see a rise in income.
The only area where the major labels can actually still benefit an artist is in promotion, but with labels selectively promoting a tiny roster of artists and easily marketed bland pap, anyone 'different' is already having to do this for themselves so it may actually make the playing field a little more level and return people to seeking out music rather than just buying what they're 'told' to... again good for the artist.
Pretty much ANY commercial webhost will offer you an email-only (pop3) hosting package (same as their web/email packages, but with all of your allocated space dedicated to mail) along with domain hosting. It should do everything you require of it for a reasonable annual fee. You'll not need to dedicate time to administering the server-side as your host will take care of that. There are plenty of small companies around offering this, and you can generally find someone fairly local so that you know you'll be able to ring them anytime and talk to a human if needs be, plus they'll also be in your time zone;)
Slashdot Mirror
So what was the mission? As you seem to know that it was accomplished, then perhaps you know what it actually was. If you do know - could you tell the US/UK governments as they apparently have no f**king idea!
Leaving is easy. The US/UK military didn't give a sh*t about Iraqi citizens in their rush to into the country (and all the time they've been there), so why the big worry now? It's not like the US/UK foreign policies will be viewed as any more criminal, inhuman and cowardly than they already are. The US/UK will we blamed for their legacy of death for a long time anyway, so may as well just accept that we're soiled nations and get the hell outta Dodge.
How is this AC off-topic? AC or not, the poster is talking about victims of the wars the thread is set up to discuss and it's relevant to the compassion of the candidates in the presidential elections. Whether or not they consider the dead Iraqis and Afghanis as worthy speaks volumes about how they see fellow humans. Mods, please mark the OP back up - if anything it's more 'insightful' than 'offtopic'.
What did Afghanistan have to do with 9/11? The Taliban didn't attack the US!
Now no doubt I'll see all sorts of responses about them harbouring OBL, but he had nothing to do with 9/11 either.
Don't believe me? Check the FBI's most wanted page and have a look at what OBL is actually wanted for - doesn't include 9/11 because they have no evidence to suggest any link between that 'attack' (in quotes because it is still too disputed to say what actually happened and why) and OBL.
So if neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had any part to play in 9/11, then how can any of the illegal (yes, that's a fact!) wars, including the criminal acts of war committed against Pakistan and Syria or any of the other shady illegal acts (kidnap, torture, internment) be justified (and what kind of human would even try to 'justify' causing harm to another human being anyway)? And how can anyone consider that a candidate who doesn't raise any of these issues is fit to run the country? To use the dreaded equivalence - is a corrupt cop worthy of their badge and would you trust them? So how about the highest ranking state official in your country - if the corruption is so systemic and endemic that it runs all the way to the top, can you still trust the system?
The problem with current defence spending is that the money doesn't really go back into the economy other than paying wages of employees. The rest of the money (massive profits from no-bid governmental projects charged at more than 3 times the normal rate) is siphoned out of the economy, usually through offshore bank accounts and 'head offices' to benefit the shareholders. If the defence industry (building all those machines of death) were nationalised then it WOULD kickstart the economy, but then that's socialism so half the population would go run shrieking in terror that they were going to be marched off to death camps (some people really can't distinguish between socialism and communofascism). And if you're going to spend so much money on producing something, then it might as well be something constructive and good for the people (alternative energy production anyone?) rather than perpetuating the trade in nonsensical killing.
hah... you never met my parents! :o
What about when the Wii 2 comes out?
Wii is so-called, because it's Number One. Number Two will actually be rightly called Puu heh ;D
...except for GT5 Prologue (and GT5 when it finally comes out). GT is, after all, the ONLY reason to own any platform. All other games are mere fillers in between GT releases! ;P
I think you can already target disk mode with a USB port... (would have to get back to you on that though). I know you can definitely boot off a USB drive, even though officially they claim you can only boot from a FireWire - just hold down Option at boot and select the USB drive (I know, it's not automated like Firewire, but it still works), so there's a good chance they'll have allowed USB to target-disk too.
Actually, up until yesterday I would have agreed with you about Apple's RAM pricing 100%. I'm in the market for a new laptop - the G4 PBook is about 5 years old now. So yesterday I had a look at the Apple Store. Checked the new MBP and had a look at how much it would cost to upgrade the RAM from 2Gb to 4Gb when I buy - 100 GBP. I did my usual comparison check on crucial's website, and rather than the half-price I'd normally expect them to be charging, they have a 4Gb kit for 96 GBP. Only 4 quid cheaper than Apple!!! This must be a first, heh. Mind you, I suppose if you buy from Crucial you can always sell the old 2x1Gb sticks on th'ebay to offset the cost, but still! Maybe Apple have taken note of how many people aren't buying their RAM 'upgrades' anymore.
...it's called the right to silence. As yet I think you can still refuse to speak... heh
Yes, but what about terrorist nuts?
Apparently in Japan this is taken far more seriously. They treat the car's 'face' is a genuine personality trait for that vehicle. If your car looks angry it's probably more likely to have problems than if it looks happy. This can affect sales massively and Ford's Escort (at the time) had it's grille flipped vertically to change it from it's original frowny downturned 'mouth' to a smiley upturned one instead on the advice of the company's Japanese dealers (and market research in Japan). They claimed that without this change the car would have tanked completely. So it seems TFA only really applies to the west, as in the East they LOVE their cutesy cars - one of the best selling cars in Japan a few years ago was the Nissan Cube for gawds sake, and that looks like a toy car blown up to lifesize proportions!
Actually, you WOULD use 'Bloody 'ell' at the start of a sentence as an exclamation. Much like saying 'Blimey', or 'Fuck', or 'Shiiiiit Man'. Any of those would be common usage in England
Heck, that's not true... I'm as English as the next Englishman, and I bloody 'ell-as-like don't appreciate the idea that I can't say heck rather than feck in polite company! ;P
And 'cheers' doesn't mean you're drunk, it means 'thanks' only in a more informal way. And yes, it's a very English usage - like talking about your 'mates'
I don't see why an artist shouldn't benefit from their work for their entire life to be honest. If Ford build a car you like (let's say a Ford GT) and they still have some in stock in a few years, should it be free to you or should you still have to pay for it? Shouldn't they retain the right to sell each one?
It's a tangible work, something produced at cost (both time and money) to the producer. In the case of music it's age doesn't remove the fact that the artist laboured to produce that work and just because it's 10 years old if it didn't sell well on first release (perhaps down to poor marketing or distribution knowledge) they may never have recouped their costs let alone made any money from it - so why shouldn't they retain the right to sell it later? Many big name artists from pre-90's eras didn't necessarily sell many of their 1st album and it was only because of '4 album deals' that they stuck around long enough to build an audience who then go and buy not only the latest album, but also the back catalogue. If you deny an artist this by applying a short-term 'lease' on their rights, it opens the door for other people to commercially exploit their work - such as using the music in an advert which goes on to profit an organisation hugely with no benefit to the recording artist.
Why is it that BOTH the RIAA and the 'copyright reformers' seem to want to shaft the musicians? It should be left to us, the musicians to determine the rights to each of our works. If we want to apply Creative Commons to them, then that's our decision. Likewise, if we want to be able to sell them, that's our decision too - as is the length of time we want to be able to sell them for.
If the root cause is an organisation NOT formed by artists for the artists interests , but for the organisation's interests (the current RIAA model) then this new organisation will certainly become as corrupt as the first.
However, if the new organisation is formed BY the artists for themselves, then it won't - because it's in the artists own interests to find the best level of pricing for their own work to achieve the best return on their time/money invested without scaring off the consumer. If they overprice a work it won't sell, but if they underprice they'll operate at a loss which won't be sustainable in the long term.
It does however give them full control over the rights for any piece of work, including the option to allow complete copying and distribution free-of-charge for certain tracks as they see fit - they may allow one or two tracks from an album to go creative commons for instance, but retain copyright on the rest of the album as a promotional driver to push sales up. And with the consumer knowing the money is going direct to the artist, as long as the artist isn't being greedy and sets a fair price (not difficult considering downloads remove all the physical 'production' and many of the distribution costs and just leave recording/mastering costs), then I should think they'll be more inclined to pay at least something for the album.
Of course there'll always be some people who'll never pay for anything, but then they don't currently so that won't affect the artists directly, and if anything the artist will generally see a rise in income.
The only area where the major labels can actually still benefit an artist is in promotion, but with labels selectively promoting a tiny roster of artists and easily marketed bland pap, anyone 'different' is already having to do this for themselves so it may actually make the playing field a little more level and return people to seeking out music rather than just buying what they're 'told' to... again good for the artist.
They and many other very wealthy companies already have... hehe ;p
Pretty much ANY commercial webhost will offer you an email-only (pop3) hosting package (same as their web/email packages, but with all of your allocated space dedicated to mail) along with domain hosting. It should do everything you require of it for a reasonable annual fee. You'll not need to dedicate time to administering the server-side as your host will take care of that. There are plenty of small companies around offering this, and you can generally find someone fairly local so that you know you'll be able to ring them anytime and talk to a human if needs be, plus they'll also be in your time zone ;)
Larger in what respect? Number of servers on the web? But surely it has already.
Why, with only 60% market share, do they have 99.9% of all security problems? The maths just don't add up! heh ;p
Crazy fool - I'm retouching these RAW images in Photoshop purely from the command line, it's much quicker.
And a mind-meld would be even faster than that!
You can even take it up to 20 if you take your shoes n socks off! Now THAT'S 1337 man!
Ah you mean the Snappy Teh For Unix!?