The Parent post did not indicate anything in regards to "if there are good people, or bad people"
The world does not divide up into "good people" and "bad people."
...is what I was responding to, which you seem to have missed.
If you honestly think that the "bad people" out there just sit around being "bad" and thinking up new ways of being "bad", because they are "bad" then you probably want to have a talk with a mental health professional about persecution complexes. Sorry, but implying someone who disagrees with you is mentally defective, is a de-facto admission that you have no valid points of argument on which to rely. Have a nice day.
Is that to say you've never lied, even a little bit? You've never once said a not so nice thing to someone? And that said, all bad people have never done a good thing? They never once held a door open for someone? They hold no compassion for anyone or anything?
Then you have completely missed my point. There is a huge difference between what you say above, and things like rape, murder, arson, etc. Those who commit the latter are the bad people. Those who do the former are merely imperfect and human.
Sorry, but there is no black and white, good and evil. Only shades of grey. A criminal that steals may have been left with two choices: starve or steal. Lose their home or steal. most "bad" people are the product of their environment, they weren't born that way, just as the "good" people were. And now you're insulting all of those who live in the same circumstances who do not choose to become criminals.
It's a matter of circumstance, and while I consider myself a relatively good person, I take offense to the line of thinking that someone who commits a crime is simply a "bad person". Likewise, you pretending there isn't an ethical decision made to victimize others, that it's just circumstances, is offensive.
It's a way of thinking that I'm sure makes your life easier, being able to split the world into two camps. But that's just not reality. It absolutely is. Criminals, particularly violent criminals, know that the behavior they do is not right, and choose to do it anyway. That is what makes them a _bad person_. Nothing gray about this.
The world does not divide up into "good people" and "bad people." All good people do bad things, and all bad people do good things. All dumb people do smart things, and all smart people do dumb things. So I would suspect that you are absolutely wrong. And leaving your DNA at a crime scene does not mean you're guilty. As someone who is "good people" I take a bit of offense at that kind of thinking. There most certainly are "bad people", who are distinctly different from "good people". I am no threat to society, because of my ethical standards and my sense of what is right. These standards coincide with what society expects of a law-abiding person. Because, it's the right thing to do. Criminals who have chosen to victimize members of society, on the other hand, I'm sorry, but they _are_ "bad people". The difference isn't subtle, and the "there but for fortune go you and I" type thinking is insulting to those of us who have not chosen to be bad people.
Now that said, of course, your DNA being present at the crime scene doesn't mean you did it, any more than your fingerprints at the crime scene would. I don't think anyone has actually said it would, other than people using it as a red-herring. DNA evidence is just another method to be used in the detective work, and other than logistics, is pretty much equivalent to fingerprints from a crime perspective.
The solar panels are too heavy and warm up the ISS global climate. Are you going for Zippy the Pinhead here, or what's the goal? I don't see what your point is.
All of those contracts clearly state "up to" a certain speed. No consumer service I've ever seen has a guaranteed speed claim.
There's probably not much the consumer can do except vote with their money and cancel the service.
This is why net neutrality laws are important -- because existing service contracts do NOT protect the consumer from this sort of action. That is probably the best summary of net neutrality I've ever seen. I'm going to save this for when people give me that glazed "I don't understand, why is that bad, I mean good, again?" look.
Um, read entire Gore speech. He was *NOT* playing both sides of the fence. He was arguing, absolutely and clearly, that going to war would be a stupid thing to do. Your original statement was that the war was based on lies and greed. I showed that the same sorts of statements were being made on both sides of the aisle, and asked why when Bush says "Saddam has WMD" it's a lie, but when Gore and friends say "Saddam has WMD" somehow it's not a lie. They were either all lying, or they were all not lying. Even if you don't think the WMDs were moved somewhere else (cough...Syria...cough...), the worst that they can all be is _wrong_, unless they were stating an incorrect thing and they knew it.
So let's try that again. Was Gore wrong, or lying? Was Kerry wrong, or lying? Was Berger wrong, or lying? Was Bush wrong, or lying? And, maybe you can explain how data can be filtered and precooked by Cheney and the CIA, when so many of those quotes are from BEFORE Cheney got into office. Just to see if you can, would you mind actually addressing my points this time, instead of snipping 90% of my post, and responding to only the minor subpoint you think you have a chance with? Thanks awfully.
Face it. Your political bias is blinding you to the fact that both sides of the aisle had folks who agreed that Saddam had WMDs and the only way to stop him being a threat to us was to go to war. Do you need the link to the vote for the authorization to go to war? I can post it, or you could google it. Funny how your type keeps ignoring facts for political gain.
Out of context or not, Gore STRONGLY opposed going into Iraq. I don't understand the point. The point is, he CLAIMS to be against having gone to war, yet his statements as quoted show he was playing both sides of the fence. It's obvious to me that he was sitting back to see which side comes out as the more popular. Unfortunately public record shows what he was saying, and that kind of language is hardly "strongly opposed" no matter how you look at it.
Have you gone to snopes.com and read the WMD quotes page? Please do, you might be surprised.
And, you use this to DEFEND her? Amazing. I don't think "I vote on things I don't understand" is a winning strategy for anyone.
Strangely, you seem to think that because a person supports some Democrats, they must inherently support all Democrats. I'm not defending her. I'm attacking her. You clearly didn't catch that. Hillary is one of the most pro-war Democrats currently in congress, and certainly the most pro-war Democrat who is prominant on the national stage (with the possible exception of Joe, who is a registered Democrat but is in congress as an Independent). Wow, talk about selective quoting. Tell me, why did you pick that one Gore quote instead of, for instance, this one:
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
Tell me, was _this_ out of context too? Because I don't care _what_ context you wrap around that, that statement is astonishingly clear in meaning.
It's interesting that the only thing you choose to answer from my post is that little snippet above. It's also interesting that Lieberman, so typical of Democrats, is playing both sides of the fence. He's an independent so he can get around the fact that he lost the primary, but he's a Democrat so the Democrats can hold the majority. It's another example, just like all the quotes then vs. actions now, of Democrats changing their reality to reflect whatever they think they can get away with.
I love your selective quoting (although that's usually what you get by grabbing a random list off the internet). Let's take pick a random one, shall we? Sure, if by "random" you mean "the easiest one to find some vague explaination for which doesn't acknowledge fully that he had the same intel Bush did", sure, go ahead.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country"
OMG! Al Gore was trying to encourage us to go to war! The parent was so wrong!... Except that they weren't: Yes, I've seen the context. The fact remains, Gore in this statement is saying that, well, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country". There's no way that any amount of weasel-words can change the meaning of that statement.
And yes, thanks for giving more of the quote, it shows even further that you're missing the point:
"We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist group."
Exactly. To paraphrase Bush at the time, 'The best available intel shows that SH has the stuff, and he and AQ have us as a common enemy. It would be bad if the two of them would decide to put aside their (relatively minor) differences and share resources to attack us.' Yes, that's a paraphrase, not a quote. Gore's approach would have been to wait until they did team up, Bush's approach involved taking the battle there to prevent that. I prefer the latter approach, personally.
If we end the war in Iraq, the way we ended the war in Afghanistan,
When did the war in Afghanistan end? Someone alert the media and military, I'm sure they'll be glad to know it.
Furthermore... so freaking what? Al Gore didn't have the current intelligence on Iraq. Even Hillary Clinton, Mrs. Iraq War, one of the few Dems who *did* have access to it (at least, access to the intelligence that had passed Tenet and Cheney's filters), didn't even read it before she voted.
And, you use this to DEFEND her? Amazing. I don't think "I vote on things I don't understand" is a winning strategy for anyone.
If you need cites for any of these, I'll gladly get them for you.
I really don't see any point in that. Your response seems to be, basically, that even though these quotes are true, (unless they're wrong in which case Snopes would love to know about it; they're usually pretty careful about things), the people quoted in them didn't actually mean what they were saying. So what was the case, were they just merely uninformed, or were they lying, or were they saying one thing while meaning something else? Because I can't see any other reason someone would say "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" unless they mean "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country". All of those words have specific meanings, individually and in that grouping. Pretending that when they said "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" they meant something other than "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" is the hight of delusion.
Wouldn't it be easier to just admit that the Democrats came to the same conclusion as the Republicans based on the best available information, and now want to pretend they had nothing to do with said decision for reasons of political gain? Because it has the added benefit of being the truth.
I bred at less than my replacement level. If everyone in the word were to follow that tendency, we would be able to half the population by roughly 2050 and half it again in the 20 years after that so by 2100 the population would be roughly 1.5 billion. The problem is, those who take a rational approach and "breed at less than their replacement value" are vastly outnumbered by people who, for cultural and/or religious reasons, are still on a mission to "be fruitful and multiply". As a friend of mine (a pastor in a rather conservative evangelical church as it happens) said, "OK, we've succeeded in that particular assignment already, mark it as done and try that whole 'be nice to others' thing next maybe".
How about the fact the troops died for an illegal war based on lies and greed? You mean like these lies:
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Lots more examples to be found, google string "snopes WMD". So...
Yup, sure seemed to be a whole lot of, er, "lying" going on. Did you have a point?
The real question is, why do these people, and those who support them, have an apparently crippling case of memory loss? You know, the whole thing where they're pretending it was a one-person decision to go to war?
We had a guy come in a few months ago to give a class on upgrading to Solaris 10, highlighting the differences between Solaris 9 and 10. When he got to the ZFS portion, he really did talk about it like that. He basically described ZFS as the filesystem to end all filesystems, the killer app that would revolutionize computing, end file corruption, and bring about world peace. That's quite a change from about a year ago, when I took the "new features in Solaris10" class; at that time the instructor I had was in no uncertain terms saying it's "not ready for production, wait until later". Apparently we have reached "later"? Or it could be that people have opinions and express them, and aren't all speaking for Sun; I suppose that's possible...
You are aware that the term was coined by the Neoconservatives themselves, right? I find myself constantly running into people who think the "liberal media" came up with "neoconservative" and "neocon" as some sort of pejorative,
Oh, I'm aware of the origins, sure. It just seems that nearly always when someone is using it, they are using as just that - a perjorative label.
SiO2 Fair enough, everyone has their own personal level of comfort. So...how are your backups? Because if you're putting effort into antivirus on OS-X, and not keeping up with your backups, I would helpfully suggest that perhaps you adjust your approach.
Because there are other "exploits" than viruses that AV can deal with? Macro viruses, etc?
"Hey! You! Be unprepared! Because you don't need to be on an OS X box! That way, if someone does develop a virus or similar exploit, you can be unprepared like the rest of us!"
Oh sure, that's fine, but that's exploits, not viruses. But hey, if you want to drop 60 bucks on something to keep the elephants out of your back yard, even though you live in an area elephants aren't found, go right ahead. And, as you must surely know or you wouldn't be posting on the topic, software update handles any OS vulnerabilities...the vast majority of which don't have an exploit.
I'll have it corrected. Sorry, "NeoOffice" to "OpenOffice" is a factual error, not a typo. A typo would be speeling it wrong, not claiming a particular piece of software requires something it does not.
I did find mountains of free, open source software. It's just that the free software that I did find for the most common tasks - word processing and graphics editing, were buggy and too unstable to be used - even compared to their counterparts on other OSes. Like which programs, specifically? How did you select them? Did you do anything like consult with any sites where people doing that sort of work on Macs congregate? If openoffice and GIMP are in your list, how did you get these to be unstable and buggy?
WTF is with the spelling "fanboi"? It's almost more annoying than the fanboy attitude itself. It's a keyword, actually. Kind of like anyone who writes the word "neocon". It's a way they self-identify as someone whose opinions are so biased as to be safely ignored without any risk of missing something insightful or original.
I'm not a doctor. I've not been to medical school. I feel faint at the sight of blood. But I think, whether it is or it is not... "Close enough." If someone is hurt badly, and you hold out your open palm and say "how many fingers am I holding up?" And he says "5" you don't say "WRONG, the thumb is not a finger, only 4!" Right. That's the same kind of people who went on and on at Y2K saying "Technically, the new millennium doesn't start until next year because (blah blah blah)". They often got beat up a lot in grade school, I'd imagine.
No, the customer of their service is the hiring employer. The person receiving the call is not being asked to purchase anything, therefore it is not telemarketing.
It always boggles me when someone thinks like that. "Hi, I stated that I don't do business with telemarketers." "Oh, sir, I am not technically a telemarketer because (insert technicality here)". I mean, I've already stated I don't deal with someone who uses this method of communication; why then would you call someone who has specifically stated they don't want to hear from you?
Read the law and CFR yourself... Clearly you are missing the intent of the law. Almost like that's intentional or something.
"Hi, you're from where? Oh, sorry, you're not on our preferred vendor list, yeah, I couldn't work with you even if I wanted to until you are. Call (sourcing/purchasing/whatever) and see if you can get set up." And then walk down to purchasing and tell them in no uncertain terms that, whatever criteria they need to not put them onto the list of approved vendors, they fail somehow.
I could never understand the obsession gun fans have for trivial firearm details. They sound almost pornographic.
Instead of "He was shot with a pistol" you get "He was shot with a Jackasaurus.123 rimfire foobar pistol with a muzzle velocity of..." Wow! That changes everything! Let's turn that around into something you can probably relate to then. "Your article claims it was an 800 Gigahertz Pentium 3, when in reality it was a 2.2 Gigahertz quad core AMD processor". This isn't a case of obsession, it's a case of one of the main assumptions that many people here have expressed - that the gun used was underpowered by modern standards, isn't correct. To you the difference between a.41 rimfire cartridge and a.44 muzzleloader are trivial and easily dismissed, but to someone who actually understands even the basics of the topic, it's a critical distinction. And, that distinction changes the entire premise of the "We could have saved him with modern medicine" from "maybe" to "I don't think so", depending on if we're talking.41 or.44 for the weapon, how much powder was used in the muzzleloading.44, and so on.
That said, your response seems to indicate that something beyond mere ignorance is making you respond the way you are.
Actually, there seems to be some saying.44 and some saying.41, and both calibers are coming from credible sources (NIH says.41, Amazon book says.44, another source says he used a.45 bore patched with a.41 cal ball). Interesting. I don't know that I've ever heard of anyone doing that, but wouldn't that have the same effect as a sabot, or a modern bottleneck cartridge? Larger volume of powder behind a smaller, faster projectile? Not sure how the ballistics work, energy-wise. Seems to me that the powder has a set amount of energy regardless of what it's pushing against assuming complete combustion (which I think is a given with black powder). Might have made it go faster, but it's lighter, so... maybe a wash.
Hmmm...I do have a few.44 BP pistols, and I have a chronograph...this could be an interesting weekend experiment.
If the later is the case (.41 ball in a.45 bore), the velocity figures would need to be increased, as the volume of black power would be higher than a gun having a.41 bore. Interesting..030" is a long way to go with a cloth patch, but...that's only.015" on each side, couple layers, snug fit and hard to reload but that obviously wasn't his main concern. So hard to guess what he was thinking and what/why he did what he did.
link
He was shot with a.41 from all sources I can find. Strange, I can't find ANY that say.41, but here's what is probably definitive enough to settle both questions: Ford Theatre's website regarding the weapons used. That's clearly a muzzleloader, and they clearly state it's a.44 so - given that, we could be dealing with anywhere from 160 foot pounds up to 400+, depending on the amount of powder used. Not dramatically underpowered by any standards. A 41, yes. This, not so much.
Slashdot Mirror
The Parent post did not indicate anything in regards to "if there are good people, or bad people"
The world does not divide up into "good people" and "bad people."
Sorry, but implying someone who disagrees with you is mentally defective, is a de-facto admission that you have no valid points of argument on which to rely. Have a nice day.
Then you have completely missed my point. There is a huge difference between what you say above, and things like rape, murder, arson, etc. Those who commit the latter are the bad people. Those who do the former are merely imperfect and human.
Sorry, but there is no black and white, good and evil. Only shades of grey. A criminal that steals may have been left with two choices: starve or steal. Lose their home or steal. most "bad" people are the product of their environment, they weren't born that way, just as the "good" people were. And now you're insulting all of those who live in the same circumstances who do not choose to become criminals.
It's a matter of circumstance, and while I consider myself a relatively good person, I take offense to the line of thinking that someone who commits a crime is simply a "bad person". Likewise, you pretending there isn't an ethical decision made to victimize others, that it's just circumstances, is offensive. It's a way of thinking that I'm sure makes your life easier, being able to split the world into two camps. But that's just not reality. It absolutely is. Criminals, particularly violent criminals, know that the behavior they do is not right, and choose to do it anyway. That is what makes them a _bad person_. Nothing gray about this.
Now that said, of course, your DNA being present at the crime scene doesn't mean you did it, any more than your fingerprints at the crime scene would. I don't think anyone has actually said it would, other than people using it as a red-herring. DNA evidence is just another method to be used in the detective work, and other than logistics, is pretty much equivalent to fingerprints from a crime perspective.
It's like an increment of 0.5 degrees Kelvin.
Yow!There's probably not much the consumer can do except vote with their money and cancel the service. This is why net neutrality laws are important -- because existing service contracts do NOT protect the consumer from this sort of action. That is probably the best summary of net neutrality I've ever seen. I'm going to save this for when people give me that glazed "I don't understand, why is that bad, I mean good, again?" look.
Your original statement was that the war was based on lies and greed. I showed that the same sorts of statements were being made on both sides of the aisle, and asked why when Bush says "Saddam has WMD" it's a lie, but when Gore and friends say "Saddam has WMD" somehow it's not a lie. They were either all lying, or they were all not lying. Even if you don't think the WMDs were moved somewhere else (cough...Syria...cough...), the worst that they can all be is _wrong_, unless they were stating an incorrect thing and they knew it.
So let's try that again. Was Gore wrong, or lying? Was Kerry wrong, or lying? Was Berger wrong, or lying? Was Bush wrong, or lying? And, maybe you can explain how data can be filtered and precooked by Cheney and the CIA, when so many of those quotes are from BEFORE Cheney got into office. Just to see if you can, would you mind actually addressing my points this time, instead of snipping 90% of my post, and responding to only the minor subpoint you think you have a chance with? Thanks awfully.
Face it. Your political bias is blinding you to the fact that both sides of the aisle had folks who agreed that Saddam had WMDs and the only way to stop him being a threat to us was to go to war. Do you need the link to the vote for the authorization to go to war? I can post it, or you could google it. Funny how your type keeps ignoring facts for political gain.
Have you gone to snopes.com and read the WMD quotes page? Please do, you might be surprised.
Strangely, you seem to think that because a person supports some Democrats, they must inherently support all Democrats. I'm not defending her. I'm attacking her. You clearly didn't catch that. Hillary is one of the most pro-war Democrats currently in congress, and certainly the most pro-war Democrat who is prominant on the national stage (with the possible exception of Joe, who is a registered Democrat but is in congress as an Independent).
Wow, talk about selective quoting. Tell me, why did you pick that one Gore quote instead of, for instance, this one: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
Tell me, was _this_ out of context too? Because I don't care _what_ context you wrap around that, that statement is astonishingly clear in meaning.
It's interesting that the only thing you choose to answer from my post is that little snippet above. It's also interesting that Lieberman, so typical of Democrats, is playing both sides of the fence. He's an independent so he can get around the fact that he lost the primary, but he's a Democrat so the Democrats can hold the majority. It's another example, just like all the quotes then vs. actions now, of Democrats changing their reality to reflect whatever they think they can get away with.
Sure, if by "random" you mean "the easiest one to find some vague explaination for which doesn't acknowledge fully that he had the same intel Bush did", sure, go ahead.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country"
OMG! Al Gore was trying to encourage us to go to war! The parent was so wrong!
Yes, I've seen the context. The fact remains, Gore in this statement is saying that, well, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country". There's no way that any amount of weasel-words can change the meaning of that statement. And yes, thanks for giving more of the quote, it shows even further that you're missing the point:
"We have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist group."
Exactly. To paraphrase Bush at the time, 'The best available intel shows that SH has the stuff, and he and AQ have us as a common enemy. It would be bad if the two of them would decide to put aside their (relatively minor) differences and share resources to attack us.' Yes, that's a paraphrase, not a quote. Gore's approach would have been to wait until they did team up, Bush's approach involved taking the battle there to prevent that. I prefer the latter approach, personally.
If we end the war in Iraq, the way we ended the war in Afghanistan,
When did the war in Afghanistan end? Someone alert the media and military, I'm sure they'll be glad to know it.
Furthermore... so freaking what? Al Gore didn't have the current intelligence on Iraq. Even Hillary Clinton, Mrs. Iraq War, one of the few Dems who *did* have access to it (at least, access to the intelligence that had passed Tenet and Cheney's filters), didn't even read it before she voted.
And, you use this to DEFEND her? Amazing. I don't think "I vote on things I don't understand" is a winning strategy for anyone. If you need cites for any of these, I'll gladly get them for you.
I really don't see any point in that. Your response seems to be, basically, that even though these quotes are true, (unless they're wrong in which case Snopes would love to know about it; they're usually pretty careful about things), the people quoted in them didn't actually mean what they were saying. So what was the case, were they just merely uninformed, or were they lying, or were they saying one thing while meaning something else? Because I can't see any other reason someone would say "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" unless they mean "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country". All of those words have specific meanings, individually and in that grouping. Pretending that when they said "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" they meant something other than "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" is the hight of delusion.
Wouldn't it be easier to just admit that the Democrats came to the same conclusion as the Republicans based on the best available information, and now want to pretend they had nothing to do with said decision for reasons of political gain? Because it has the added benefit of being the truth.
I bred at less than my replacement level. If everyone in the word were to follow that tendency, we would be able to half the population by roughly 2050 and half it again in the 20 years after that so by 2100 the population would be roughly 1.5 billion. The problem is, those who take a rational approach and "breed at less than their replacement value" are vastly outnumbered by people who, for cultural and/or religious reasons, are still on a mission to "be fruitful and multiply". As a friend of mine (a pastor in a rather conservative evangelical church as it happens) said, "OK, we've succeeded in that particular assignment already, mark it as done and try that whole 'be nice to others' thing next maybe".
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Lots more examples to be found, google string "snopes WMD". So... Yup, sure seemed to be a whole lot of, er, "lying" going on. Did you have a point?
The real question is, why do these people, and those who support them, have an apparently crippling case of memory loss? You know, the whole thing where they're pretending it was a one-person decision to go to war?
That's quite a change from about a year ago, when I took the "new features in Solaris10" class; at that time the instructor I had was in no uncertain terms saying it's "not ready for production, wait until later". Apparently we have reached "later"? Or it could be that people have opinions and express them, and aren't all speaking for Sun; I suppose that's possible...
You are aware that the term was coined by the Neoconservatives themselves, right? I find myself constantly running into people who think the "liberal media" came up with "neoconservative" and "neocon" as some sort of pejorative,
Oh, I'm aware of the origins, sure. It just seems that nearly always when someone is using it, they are using as just that - a perjorative label.
SiO2 Fair enough, everyone has their own personal level of comfort. So...how are your backups? Because if you're putting effort into antivirus on OS-X, and not keeping up with your backups, I would helpfully suggest that perhaps you adjust your approach.
"Hey! You! Be unprepared! Because you don't need to be on an OS X box! That way, if someone does develop a virus or similar exploit, you can be unprepared like the rest of us!"
Oh sure, that's fine, but that's exploits, not viruses. But hey, if you want to drop 60 bucks on something to keep the elephants out of your back yard, even though you live in an area elephants aren't found, go right ahead. And, as you must surely know or you wouldn't be posting on the topic, software update handles any OS vulnerabilities...the vast majority of which don't have an exploit.I'll have it corrected. Sorry, "NeoOffice" to "OpenOffice" is a factual error, not a typo. A typo would be speeling it wrong, not claiming a particular piece of software requires something it does not.
May I ask why you're running antivirus software on your OSX box? And how much memory could checking for all zero known Mac OS-X viruses really take?
It always boggles me when someone thinks like that. "Hi, I stated that I don't do business with telemarketers." "Oh, sir, I am not technically a telemarketer because (insert technicality here)". I mean, I've already stated I don't deal with someone who uses this method of communication; why then would you call someone who has specifically stated they don't want to hear from you? Read the law and CFR yourself...
Clearly you are missing the intent of the law. Almost like that's intentional or something.
"Hi, you're from where? Oh, sorry, you're not on our preferred vendor list, yeah, I couldn't work with you even if I wanted to until you are. Call (sourcing/purchasing/whatever) and see if you can get set up." And then walk down to purchasing and tell them in no uncertain terms that, whatever criteria they need to not put them onto the list of approved vendors, they fail somehow.
Instead of "He was shot with a pistol" you get "He was shot with a Jackasaurus
Let's turn that around into something you can probably relate to then. "Your article claims it was an 800 Gigahertz Pentium 3, when in reality it was a 2.2 Gigahertz quad core AMD processor". This isn't a case of obsession, it's a case of one of the main assumptions that many people here have expressed - that the gun used was underpowered by modern standards, isn't correct. To you the difference between a
That said, your response seems to indicate that something beyond mere ignorance is making you respond the way you are.
Hmmm...I do have a few
He was shot with a