ok do you agree that war would have happened regardless of whether resolution 1441 was passed? If yes -- then resolution 1441 wasn't what directly to war. If no -- how do you really think that having gone through all the expense of transporting troops and supplies to the Gulf the US/UK would just pull them back?
Regarding the chemical rounds found, reading the Iraq Survey Group's final report, (a)53 rounds were found and (b) the ISG thinks these were probably an accounting error. Hardly the reason to go to war...
to your first point, check out UN resolution 678 para 2.
Regarding your point that "there is some contention that 1441 did not specifically authorise war", well, if the UK and US and French ambassadors all interpret the resolution as NOT authorising war (i.e. no automaticity) then who are we to argue with them? Put it this way, I think the burden of proof is on those who wish to interpret 1441 as authorising use of force when already the main actors in this instance the UK and US already said publicly there's no embedded automaticity in resolution 1441.
Regarding your last point, firstly, you are shifting the goalposts. You initially claimed that the war was in accordance with UN resolution. You now make the point that, ok so the war wasn't in accordance with the UN...that makes them pansies. Different point.
But let's take your point as it is. What did the UN want Iraq to do? Get rid of its WMD and stop interfering with the inspection process. I recall distinctly by the time the war started (a) Iraq had already gotten rid of its WMD and (b) Iraq had let the UN inspectors go wherever they wanted. Which means Iraq had done exactly what the UN had requested. Which mean there was no need for "serious consequences". Thus the point whether the UN needed to back up what they said with action is quite moot since Iraq had already complied with what the UN wanted (no WMD and allowing inspections). So see -- the UN process worked quite well.
My third point is this: let's assume for the sake of argument that the UN had passed its resolution authorising military action on the (false) premise that Iraq still had WMD (based on the false intelligence provided by the US). Now assume the a UN coalition attacked Iraq and found... nothing. The UN had committed to military action based on lies. What would that have done to the UN's credibility? Would it ever have the credibility to act on a member state's intelligence again? No because it had acted on false intelligence and used the false intelligence to authorize military action. Thank goodness this did not happen! Imagine the blow to its credibility if the UN had authorised military action based on lies and false intelligence. Now this thing about credibility. It's like virginity. Once lost hard to get back. I recall reading that during the Cuban Missile Crisis a certain French President (oh the irony!) decline to see the photos saying that "The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me". How far we've come! The next US ambassador who stands in front of the UNSC and start talking about WMD and photos and the need for military action... might just get laughed out of the chamber.
Resolution 1441 does NOT authorise use of force.
For use of force to be legal under international law generally either a country is acting in self-defense or armed action has been sanctioned by the UNSC. UNSC resolutions which authorise use of force are very explicit and usually contain some variant of "all means necessary". 1441 does not contain such a phrase. In fact, both the US and UK ambassadors were publicly quoted as saying that resolution 1441 does NOT have any automaticity leading to armed action. In fact, the US and UK were trying to get another resolution passed when they realised they didn't have the votes so they decided to invade anyway.
sorry, but the ceasefire agreement was in accordance with a UN resolution therefore terminating the ceasefire must also be in accordance with a UN resolution. May I know which UN resolution was passed to terminate the ceasefire?
btw, I recall UN weapon inspection teams poking around in Iraq, even in the presidential palace, in the month before the war...
it's part of the Chinese culture. The polite way to receive a compliment is to be modest; in fact it's bad manners to receive a compliment without protest...so in this case, the Chinese foreign ministry is merely being polite
I've bought a second license without having my first one on software maintenance.
Also, Mathsworks does not distinguish between using for corporate and personal use so I don't see anywhere in the license agreement that prohibits a worker from buying a personal license and using it at work (provided he keeps within the terms of a single user agreement like not installing it on every PC in the company).
about your first point regarding the audit letter--it may or may not simply be a coincidence.
but your second point you definitely have no grounds to complain. They allow only people who are on software maintenance to have a free trial of the toolboxes. That's one of the benefits of software maintenance. "we were getting poor value for money per year (a few.x.x upgrades for more than a thousand US dollars a year), " -- you're forgetting the ability to download free trials of toolboxes. If you need any technical support you're entitled to a certain xx hours per year.
First of all, they make it very clear when you purchase the software that if you don't go on software maintenance, if you ever want to upgrade your license you have to pay back all the years you missed out. It's a decision that presumably someone made at your company not to go on support, so I'm not quite sure why you're complaining that they are enforcing their end of the deal.
Secondly, if the cost of paying back all the years you missed exceeds the cost of getting a new seat, then simply get a new seat and stop using the old seat. Your cost of $15k seems that you should consider simply getting a new seat.
Thirdly, when we move into the realm of "very expensive software", most software require you to pay an annual fee just to keep current and receive updates eg. Windows Software Assurance. The fact that your company declined to go on Software Maintenance means it should bear the consequences of not doing so.
Finally, I also must add that Mathworks is usually pretty responsive with technical issues that I've had.
Actually it says that the production team has been eliminated (which kinda sucks just during this holiday seasons), and the ultimate fate of the site is still unresolved.
right...the only time we (Singapore) send our figher jets to Australia is to train not invade.
Anyway, the point is that to launch an air attack you need to send fighter jets. The nearest land mass are hours away from any major Australian cities... Sure a potential enemy could bomb the wallabies...
hm...I learnt a lot about slashdot from wikipedia. particularly about the various arts of trolling on slashdot, the bad Russia/Natalie/BSD/Beowulf jokes and of course our good and sorely misssed friend goatse. I even found out about the anti-slash site, where the trolls gather to plot their strategy (Do your civic duty and um... visit this site).
Here are some very informative links (no surprises, I promise:))
nice also to see that in Russia, everything can be had--for a price.
"You want trip to space station in cramped spaceship. Ah for you, $20 million only"
"You want giant multi-stage rockets? Ah for you, we have this special price"
"You want hydrogen bombs that came with giant multi-stage rockets? Ah for you, we throw in for a little extra"
he probably means pilot. a pilot episode is produced for a series to "test the waters" (to gauge the interest level by networks and focus groups etc.) and may or may not become the eventual first episode of the series. Here is some specifics about pilot episodes in Star Trek.
Slashdot Mirror
ok do you agree that war would have happened regardless of whether resolution 1441 was passed? If yes -- then resolution 1441 wasn't what directly to war. If no -- how do you really think that having gone through all the expense of transporting troops and supplies to the Gulf the US/UK would just pull them back?
Regarding the chemical rounds found, reading the Iraq Survey Group's final report, (a)53 rounds were found and (b) the ISG thinks these were probably an accounting error. Hardly the reason to go to war...
to your first point, check out UN resolution 678 para 2.
Regarding your point that "there is some contention that 1441 did not specifically authorise war", well, if the UK and US and French ambassadors all interpret the resolution as NOT authorising war (i.e. no automaticity) then who are we to argue with them? Put it this way, I think the burden of proof is on those who wish to interpret 1441 as authorising use of force when already the main actors in this instance the UK and US already said publicly there's no embedded automaticity in resolution 1441.
Regarding your last point, firstly, you are shifting the goalposts. You initially claimed that the war was in accordance with UN resolution. You now make the point that, ok so the war wasn't in accordance with the UN...that makes them pansies. Different point. ... nothing. The UN had committed to military action based on lies. What would that have done to the UN's credibility? Would it ever have the credibility to act on a member state's intelligence again? No because it had acted on false intelligence and used the false intelligence to authorize military action. Thank goodness this did not happen! Imagine the blow to its credibility if the UN had authorised military action based on lies and false intelligence. Now this thing about credibility. It's like virginity. Once lost hard to get back. I recall reading that during the Cuban Missile Crisis a certain French President (oh the irony!) decline to see the photos saying that "The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me". How far we've come! The next US ambassador who stands in front of the UNSC and start talking about WMD and photos and the need for military action ... might just get laughed out of the chamber.
But let's take your point as it is. What did the UN want Iraq to do? Get rid of its WMD and stop interfering with the inspection process. I recall distinctly by the time the war started (a) Iraq had already gotten rid of its WMD and (b) Iraq had let the UN inspectors go wherever they wanted. Which means Iraq had done exactly what the UN had requested. Which mean there was no need for "serious consequences". Thus the point whether the UN needed to back up what they said with action is quite moot since Iraq had already complied with what the UN wanted (no WMD and allowing inspections). So see -- the UN process worked quite well.
My third point is this: let's assume for the sake of argument that the UN had passed its resolution authorising military action on the (false) premise that Iraq still had WMD (based on the false intelligence provided by the US). Now assume the a UN coalition attacked Iraq and found
Resolution 1441 does NOT authorise use of force. For use of force to be legal under international law generally either a country is acting in self-defense or armed action has been sanctioned by the UNSC. UNSC resolutions which authorise use of force are very explicit and usually contain some variant of "all means necessary". 1441 does not contain such a phrase. In fact, both the US and UK ambassadors were publicly quoted as saying that resolution 1441 does NOT have any automaticity leading to armed action. In fact, the US and UK were trying to get another resolution passed when they realised they didn't have the votes so they decided to invade anyway.
who knows what else
the children marching with the flag supposedly from the 56 different ethnic groups...
sorry, but the ceasefire agreement was in accordance with a UN resolution therefore terminating the ceasefire must also be in accordance with a UN resolution. May I know which UN resolution was passed to terminate the ceasefire? btw, I recall UN weapon inspection teams poking around in Iraq, even in the presidential palace, in the month before the war...
it's a polite way in China to receive a compliment
it's part of the Chinese culture. The polite way to receive a compliment is to be modest; in fact it's bad manners to receive a compliment without protest...so in this case, the Chinese foreign ministry is merely being polite
eminent domain.
...I work with...
try http://www.malsingmaps.com/ (garmin maps for Malaysia and Singapore)
slashdot is a blog
I've bought a second license without having my first one on software maintenance. Also, Mathsworks does not distinguish between using for corporate and personal use so I don't see anywhere in the license agreement that prohibits a worker from buying a personal license and using it at work (provided he keeps within the terms of a single user agreement like not installing it on every PC in the company).
about your first point regarding the audit letter--it may or may not simply be a coincidence. .x.x upgrades for more than a thousand US dollars a year), " -- you're forgetting the ability to download free trials of toolboxes. If you need any technical support you're entitled to a certain xx hours per year.
but your second point you definitely have no grounds to complain. They allow only people who are on software maintenance to have a free trial of the toolboxes. That's one of the benefits of software maintenance. "we were getting poor value for money per year (a few
First of all, they make it very clear when you purchase the software that if you don't go on software maintenance, if you ever want to upgrade your license you have to pay back all the years you missed out. It's a decision that presumably someone made at your company not to go on support, so I'm not quite sure why you're complaining that they are enforcing their end of the deal.
Secondly, if the cost of paying back all the years you missed exceeds the cost of getting a new seat, then simply get a new seat and stop using the old seat. Your cost of $15k seems that you should consider simply getting a new seat.
Thirdly, when we move into the realm of "very expensive software", most software require you to pay an annual fee just to keep current and receive updates eg. Windows Software Assurance. The fact that your company declined to go on Software Maintenance means it should bear the consequences of not doing so.
Finally, I also must add that Mathworks is usually pretty responsive with technical issues that I've had.
Actually it says that the production team has been eliminated (which kinda sucks just during this holiday seasons), and the ultimate fate of the site is still unresolved.
maybe we should leave the rocket scientist stuff to real rocket scientists...
right...the only time we (Singapore) send our figher jets to Australia is to train not invade. Anyway, the point is that to launch an air attack you need to send fighter jets. The nearest land mass are hours away from any major Australian cities... Sure a potential enemy could bomb the wallabies...
could water vapour in the bottle have condensed? the CO2 would have sublimed into gas
the acx100 driver works perfectly on my Dlink-650+ (well enough to use kismet). which card did you try?
hm...I learnt a lot about slashdot from wikipedia. particularly about the various arts of trolling on slashdot, the bad Russia/Natalie/BSD/Beowulf jokes and of course our good and sorely misssed friend goatse. I even found out about the anti-slash site, where the trolls gather to plot their strategy (Do your civic duty and um... visit this site).
:))
Here are some very informative links (no surprises, I promise
Slashdot
First posts and other trolls
Hall of fame
The coming of Evil
A History lesson
Slash and Burn
On the AC
More than just a discussion board
Our fearless leader
probably as much as the Fallujah insurgents were paid to start a "security force" to patrol their own city.
nice also to see that in Russia, everything can be had--for a price.
"You want trip to space station in cramped spaceship. Ah for you, $20 million only"
"You want giant multi-stage rockets? Ah for you, we have this special price"
"You want hydrogen bombs that came with giant multi-stage rockets? Ah for you, we throw in for a little extra"
Here's the link you asked for:
he probably means pilot. a pilot episode is produced for a series to "test the waters" (to gauge the interest level by networks and focus groups etc.) and may or may not become the eventual first episode of the series. Here is some specifics about pilot episodes in Star Trek.
have you tried the software suspend patches from swsusp.sourceforge.net?