You get your choice on that. There are 2 win4lin choices that affect worm & trojan compatability. One is the choice to have it use its own IP address rather than sharing address and borrowing some ports from the host Linux environment. If you select sharing the Linux address, you lose a few features, but you are less vulnerable. Choice two is where you read your mail. If you choose to read mail with Windows/Outlook, heaven help you! On the other hand, if you read mail in Unix, and never configure any Windows mail client, the email vulnerability is gone. Which ever choice you make, you'll still have to worry about Excel and Word macro viruses. There is still no excuse for not running windows update regularly.
Another interesting point about win4lin: it uses the underlying linux filesystem. In linux, you can copy a file into or out of the windows directory. This means you can simply tar gzip up your whole windows installation and save different versions of it. I have a basic installation saved on a CD rom, and a few more versions on the hard drive in.tgz files. If I get a virus in Windows, I can go to linux, copy out my documents and spreadsheets, rm -fR the whole infected windows file tree, and untar a clean version. Elapsed time: 5-10 minutes. Then I'd better get the clean version patched before I get re-infected, and save it as my new checkpointed version.
After all, you can't go in increasing CPU wattage indefinitely. I can recall the days far past when 30 watts was considered power hungry for a CPU. Sure, you can win a little with more and more rococo CPU cooler designs, but at some point you have to look for still more ways to limit CPU power. The mobile chips do it by varying their clock rates and turning parts of themselves off part of the time. Just think of it as an additional scheme for reducing CPU heat output.
Most biology students, when they first learn about parthenogenisis, arrive at the Jesus question. However, with two mothers, a baby only has X chromosomes to choose from. To make a male, you need one X and one Y. You can't just "break off a branch" to make a Y, so you can't explain Jesus with parthenogenisis (however, the milkman theory is still viable).
As for the question of whether males are now superfluous, the answer is: not quite yet. It's true that an all female population could reproduce itself, but the males would still be needed for opening those tough mayonnaise and jelly jars!
Well first let me point out that the ocean is not in massachusetts. Second you're not going to even approach seeing twenty miles in open ocean.
Allow me to point out first that both Buzzards Bay and Cape Cod bay are parts of the ocean, and second that one need not restrict one's thinking to seeing the horizon. A tall ship can see the topsails of another tall ship 20 miles away, and I can see clouds fifty miles away.
I'd like to hear them too. My guess is the more annoying sounds of maglevs have more high frequency components than traditional trains. there may be a fair amount of energy in very low freqency "thumps" coming from a traditional train. The maglev may be mostly hiss and whistles as the air streams over the body. Also, I'm guessing the maglev goes *much* faster than the wheeled train to make the same overall dbs of sound.
In my experience, high frequencies (maybe 1000 to 4000 Hz) are more sonically salient than lows. Thats why sirens and car alarms put alot of energy in those bands.
Show me where in Massachusetts you can go where you wont see any sign of human habitation for twenty miles in every direction, except
Gosh, that's a tough one. Ever heard of a thing called an ocean? Plenty of open space there, let me tell you! And a decent sailboat can get you right into the middle of one with minimal fossil fuels. Or just take the ferry from Boston to Provincetown, or maybe go on a whale watch. Yep, oceans are such popular things that something like 75% of the US population has chosen to live within 75 miles of one. To learn more, go to your local university and register for a course called "Oceanography."
In RAID 5, you can lose one disk and keep going. A RAID 5 array of seven disks will have six disks worth of data, and one disk worth of redundancy spread around all seven disks. Lose one and all the data is still there. Most RAID 5 controllers these days allow you to designate a hot spare. If you lose a disk, all the data from the lost disk will be re-created on the hot spare (might take a couple hours). Then, after the data has been restored, you again have enough redundancy to lose a disk without data loss.
You can read here to find out about RAID levels 2 thru 4 (they aren't used much because RAID 5 is superior). RAID 10 is a combination of striping (RAID 0) and mirroring (RAID 1). Because of the mirroring, RAID 10 can lose a disk without losing data. You'll also find mentions of RAID 50, 51, and 15. These are combinations of RAID 5 with striping or mirroring. It is left as an exercise to the reader to determine disk independence.
No wonder O'Keefe was so vague about the bold Moon/Mars mission. As a bean-counter, he knew it was wildly underfunded. The money budgeted for Moon/Mars will buy a handful of shuttle launches - that's all. So all O'Keefe could do was waffle about the mission. Of course, this begs the question: why propose a mission so amazingly underfunded? AFAIK, that's a question for Bush, and nobody's asked it. But the "pork for Ohio & Florida buys electoral votes" theory at least makes logical sense. Nothing else about the mission does.
The JWST is a replacement telescope to Hubble. Some features of Hubble's - like the ability tosee in the blue band - just isn't that important for science right now.
Wow. I'm in awe. With "insight" like that, who needs science?
Here's a little basic physics for you: when hydrogen ionizes and recombines, it emits photons at a discrete series of wavelengths known as the Lyman series. The brightest line is the H 1 Lyman alpha, at 121.6 nm -- the brightest line from the most common element (99%) in the universe. When redshifted, this line often ends up in blue band, where the JWST can't see. If you're wondering what it's useful for, just google for lyman alpha forest.
On the other hand, don't bother -- you're quite happy with the opinions you have; why change them?
(1) asmospheric distubances mess up earthbound images -- it's hard to beat a point spread function of 1 arcsec with a passive earthbound scope; the Hubble is more like 0.1 arcsec. You can mess around with adaptive optics (all modern 6m + up scopes do) if you can get a good guidestar near your target, and you can mess around with artificial guidestars, but you're still dependent on still dry air to do as well as the Hubble does.
(2) The atmosphere blocks alot of the UV band, in particular the hydrogen 1 Lyman-alpha line. That's the brighest emission line of the most common element in the universe. With a wavelength of about 121.6nm (unredshifted), not much of it punches through the atmosphere. Check out this for a primer on what's so important about the lyman alpha line.
Or, if the rocket is refuelable, you use a tank getting to the moon, escaping the 1G gravity well, then you refuel and use a lot less fuel getting out of moon's gravity field (isn't it 1/6th of earth?). This puts you in orbit for Mars with a whole lot of fuel left in a tank of the same size, right?
Depends. Are you gonna drill and find rocket fuel on the moon, or do you have to land that fuel tank on the moon? Ain't no atmospheric braking when you bring stuff to the moon. Decelerating all the way down into a gravity well, even a shallow one, is mighty expensive.
As for nuclear powered rockets (or is that "nukular"?), I agree, launching them from the moon is better than from Florida, but launching them from space is better still. Unless you can manufacture fuel on the moon, there's no compelling reason to stop there.
> IBM are being very intelligent. They are moving with the market.
Yep. Now contrast IBM's behavior with Sun's.
Sun is suffering from "ex babe syndrome" (or perhaps ex studmuffin syndrome; all explained below). Sure, they have good software, but the market prefers Windows, Linux, and OSX.
Arguably, they have decent hardware, but the market prefers Intel, AMD, and PowerPC. Java is the only thing Sun has that's still attractive.
Sun needs to grok that it's pretty much lost its attractiveness -- those who don't grok their changes tend to suffer from ex babe/stud syndrome and it's not a pretty thing. It occurs to me that Sun has the same managment it had back in the days when it was attractive. Perhaps a change in management would help the organization grok its new circumstances and deal appropriately.
I'm a heavy google user, but I still miss altavista's ability to search for stems.
For example, an altavista search for "slid* rul*"
will get 'slide rules,' 'sliding rulers,' and
plenty of other variations. Google does support
whole word wildcards (try "miserable * failure")
but stems are even more useful.
You may also get it from sheep fed beef. The theory is that the BSE that first appeared in Britain was caused by mixing scrapie infected
sheep parts into the cattle feed.
Sure, right now there's a version that's free
from MS, and probably fairly unencumbered. But
for how long? Well, as long as Java is still competitive.
If Sun and Java die, MS will be free to add proprietary bits, and we'll still want a free version.
Also, although there are some nice things in C# (such as being able to work with arbitrary C pointers and data structures returned by C functions), we may want to tweak the design a little, or extend it to work with python or lisp or other languages.
The idea of a "glue" language that can call routines written in many languages is very appealing. Sometimes you might want to have one program that can deal with low level data structs like C, handle resolution theorem proving like haskell, and maybe strings like snobol. With a good glue language, yuo could write each routine in its appropriate language, then glue them all together.
considering Bush's plan calls for a $1B increase in NASA funding over _5_ years, and plans for the first new moon landing is set for 2015.... it's obvious that Bush's plan is an investment into setting a new vision for NASA, not for implementing it. This is a big difference that I don't think many people fully appreciate.
Thanks for this explanation. After hearing Bush's 2004 SOTU, I thought he was proposing a Man to Mars Mission. According to your comments, he was really proposing study of a Mars mission. So Bush merely wants NASA to get involved in Man to Mars Related Program Activities!
This does raise some questions:
(1) What's the real mission gonna cost?
(2) How in the heck will we pay for it?
and most importantly:
(3) If we don't have really solid answers to (1) and (2), is a Mars study the best thing NASA can do with $5 billion?
I mean, think about it: That $5 billion would save the Hubble several times over, and fund more science missions like Mars Spirit Rover, Stardust GALEX, New Horizons, etc, etc. Doesn't it make more sense for the space scientists to decide how to spend the $5 billion than letting Washington politicians decide? The National Science Foundation, the National Institutes for Health, and DARPA all have a pretty good track record for peer-reviewed funding decisions; why not space science too?
NASA was planning only Space Station compatible orbits as one of the safety mechanisms
AHA! so why not boost Hubble up to the space station's orbit? Then, when the ISS astronauts get all their leaks plugged, they can participate in some real science.
Note, this suggestion isn't original; I think Bob Parks made it somewhere in What's New.
Tooting my own horn dept: as I said here, Bush's Mars plan is
wildly underfunded, and that unless there's serious funding the Mars plan is at best a publicity stunt, and at worst a president micro-managing NASA in a way that will get rid of the few remaining actual science programs. Decomissioning Hubble is exhibit A for that argument.
In answer to the original question, "Is repairing the Hubble worth 5 astronaut's lives?" I'd just like to say that I'll go. I'll risk my life for science (and maybe the adventure of a lifetime in LEO).
Bush Sr's Mars plan would have cost $500
billion. Bush Jr claims Mars could be done by "spending an additional $1 billion over five years." As these folks report, this is so small, it is almost embarrassing: a single space shuttle mission costs roughly $500 million. In contrast to Bush's Mars proposal, "the original Apollo program cost $150 billion to $175 billion in 2003 dollars."
News Flash: most of our space science comes from unmanned machines such as the Space Telescope, the Mars Spirit Rover, the Stardust comet explorer, and others. Did I mention the Mars Global Explorer, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe satellite, GALEX, the Cassini mission to Saturn, Genesis solar wind sampler, the New Horizons Pluto-Kuiper Belt mission (planned for 2006), etc, etc. Voyagers 1 and 2 have been operating since 1977 (are they older than you?) and are approaching the heliopause. Now that's what I call space exploration. The truth is, in space, robots rule!
Folks, I'm sorry to inform you; but unless there's serious funding, this is at best a publicity stunt, and at worst a president micro-managing NASA in a way that will get rid of the few remaining actual science programs.
And this is coming from someone who in the past bought dish network so I could watch fox news. But that is before it turned into all trash, all the time.
Perhaps Berners-Lee read Don Lancaster's Patent Horror Stories (pdf) or some of the other stuff in his Patent Avoidance Library. Don makes a pretty good case that the patent system is at best misunderstood and frequently inimical to the small inventor.
I wonder if number portability will have any influence on area code proliferation. Sound crazy? Each telephone company offering service in each billing area used to get at least 1 exchange (10,000 numbers). The competition laws made it pretty easy to start your own phone company, which meant that lots of new exchanges got issued. Companies began hoarding exchanges, leading to proliferation.
One fix was to allocate 1000 phone number blocks instead of 10000 number blocks.
With number portability, they all have to share exchanges anyway, so maybe there's less incentive to hoard numbers?
The international space station has been costing about $2.5 billion/year during construction. This includes the $4 or $5 billion cost overrun over the initial $8 billion estimates. This cost is supposed to come down once construction is complete, but I'll wait & see.
Now I won't claim that the ISS has produced zero science, but I will claim that it's a mighty expensive way to do science. Humans in space may win congressional votes, but they're a pretty expensive way to do research. Remote control machines such as the space telescope, the Mars landers, Voyager, etc. have produced much more science for much less money.
If we let the ISS drop, there's be plenty of money to keep Hubble running, build its successor, send machines to Pluto, and a ton of other stuff.
Unfortunately, the political reality is that Congress and the American public aren't particularly interested in the actual science. But we're willing to spend $2.5 billion per year because we think astronauts are cool!
IMHO this is a delaying tactic. IBM is asking SCO to put up or shutup. Now SCO can say "wait until our latest round of discovery; then we'll show you." It's consistent with the theory that SCO doesn't want this thing in court.
No, they controlled for the effect of demographics. Let me again present you with the paragraph on demographics:
Looking just at Republicans, the average rate for the three key
misperceptions was 43%. For Republican Fox viewers, however the
average rate was 54% while for Republicans who get their news from
PBS- NPR the average rate is 32%. This same pattern obtains with
Democrats and independents.
That controls for the effect that the audience of Faux News is more right-wing.
By the way, you're wrong about the factuality of the "Bush never said imminent threat" meme (though of course that doesn't negate your point).
In fact, the National Security Council
strategy document released 9/17/02 term "rogue states" (such as Iraq) an "imminent threat."
Furthermore Scott McClellan called Iraq an "imminent threat" twice in Feb 2003, though by July he was
backtracking. Ari Fleischer labeled Iraq an
immediate threat on Jan 21 2003.
In some Rose Garden remarks , Bush called Iraq "threat of unique urgency."
I wonder if anyone will venture an opinion as to which is worse, an imminent threat or an immediate threat? And does a "threat of unique urgency" trump them all? Who knows. But I think it's rather silly to try to deny that the Bushies took the threat of Iraq very seriously last fall and worked hard to communicate their concerns to the world.
Here are the excerpts:
Laying the groundwork for intervention in Iraq, the National Security
Council released this strategy document:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html
(also found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html)
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America
dated September 17, 2002
For centuries, international law recognized that nations need
not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to
defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger
of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often
conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an
imminent threat-most often a visible mobilization of armies,
navies, and air forces preparing to attack.
We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities
and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and
terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional
means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on
acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass
destruction-weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered
covertly, and used without warning.
As far as I can tell, this document is in the official voice of Bush's
Security Council. Thus it speaks officially for the President, the
Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and
numerous others.
And it's applying the phrase "imminent threat" to an unnamed adversary
that can't be anyone else but Iraq. I think that gives the lie to the meme that Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat.
I think it's pretty clear that they all seek to "adapt the concept of imminent threat" to Iraq.
McClellan's use of imminent threat:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20 030210-8.html
Excerpts from the Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan, February 10, 2003
QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto
any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this
something the administration can live with, or is it a major
obstacle?
MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article
IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to
Slashdot Mirror
Another interesting point about win4lin: it uses the underlying linux filesystem. In linux, you can copy a file into or out of the windows directory. This means you can simply tar gzip up your whole windows installation and save different versions of it. I have a basic installation saved on a CD rom, and a few more versions on the hard drive in .tgz files. If I get a virus in Windows, I can go to linux, copy out my documents and spreadsheets, rm -fR the whole infected windows file tree, and untar a clean version. Elapsed time: 5-10 minutes. Then I'd better get the clean version patched before I get re-infected, and save it as my new checkpointed version.
After all, you can't go in increasing CPU wattage indefinitely. I can recall the days far past when 30 watts was considered power hungry for a CPU. Sure, you can win a little with more and more rococo CPU cooler designs, but at some point you have to look for still more ways to limit CPU power. The mobile chips do it by varying their clock rates and turning parts of themselves off part of the time. Just think of it as an additional scheme for reducing CPU heat output.
As for the question of whether males are now superfluous, the answer is: not quite yet. It's true that an all female population could reproduce itself, but the males would still be needed for opening those tough mayonnaise and jelly jars!
In my experience, high frequencies (maybe 1000 to 4000 Hz) are more sonically salient than lows. Thats why sirens and car alarms put alot of energy in those bands.
You can read here to find out about RAID levels 2 thru 4 (they aren't used much because RAID 5 is superior). RAID 10 is a combination of striping (RAID 0) and mirroring (RAID 1). Because of the mirroring, RAID 10 can lose a disk without losing data. You'll also find mentions of RAID 50, 51, and 15. These are combinations of RAID 5 with striping or mirroring. It is left as an exercise to the reader to determine disk independence.
No wonder O'Keefe was so vague about the bold Moon/Mars mission. As a bean-counter, he knew it was wildly underfunded. The money budgeted for Moon/Mars will buy a handful of shuttle launches - that's all. So all O'Keefe could do was waffle about the mission. Of course, this begs the question: why propose a mission so amazingly underfunded? AFAIK, that's a question for Bush, and nobody's asked it. But the "pork for Ohio & Florida buys electoral votes" theory at least makes logical sense. Nothing else about the mission does.
Here's a little basic physics for you: when hydrogen ionizes and recombines, it emits photons at a discrete series of wavelengths known as the Lyman series. The brightest line is the H 1 Lyman alpha, at 121.6 nm -- the brightest line from the most common element (99%) in the universe. When redshifted, this line often ends up in blue band, where the JWST can't see. If you're wondering what it's useful for, just google for lyman alpha forest. On the other hand, don't bother -- you're quite happy with the opinions you have; why change them?
(2) The atmosphere blocks alot of the UV band, in particular the hydrogen 1 Lyman-alpha line. That's the brighest emission line of the most common element in the universe. With a wavelength of about 121.6nm (unredshifted), not much of it punches through the atmosphere. Check out this for a primer on what's so important about the lyman alpha line.
As for nuclear powered rockets (or is that "nukular"?), I agree, launching them from the moon is better than from Florida, but launching them from space is better still. Unless you can manufacture fuel on the moon, there's no compelling reason to stop there.
Mod the parent up; the cheese comment is a riot!!
Yep. Now contrast IBM's behavior with Sun's. Sun is suffering from "ex babe syndrome" (or perhaps ex studmuffin syndrome; all explained below). Sure, they have good software, but the market prefers Windows, Linux, and OSX. Arguably, they have decent hardware, but the market prefers Intel, AMD, and PowerPC. Java is the only thing Sun has that's still attractive.
Sun needs to grok that it's pretty much lost its attractiveness -- those who don't grok their changes tend to suffer from ex babe/stud syndrome and it's not a pretty thing. It occurs to me that Sun has the same managment it had back in the days when it was attractive. Perhaps a change in management would help the organization grok its new circumstances and deal appropriately.
I'm a heavy google user, but I still miss altavista's ability to search for stems. For example, an altavista search for "slid* rul*" will get 'slide rules,' 'sliding rulers,' and plenty of other variations. Google does support whole word wildcards (try "miserable * failure") but stems are even more useful.
You may also get it from sheep fed beef. The theory is that the BSE that first appeared in Britain was caused by mixing scrapie infected sheep parts into the cattle feed.
If Sun and Java die, MS will be free to add proprietary bits, and we'll still want a free version.
Also, although there are some nice things in C# (such as being able to work with arbitrary C pointers and data structures returned by C functions), we may want to tweak the design a little, or extend it to work with python or lisp or other languages. The idea of a "glue" language that can call routines written in many languages is very appealing. Sometimes you might want to have one program that can deal with low level data structs like C, handle resolution theorem proving like haskell, and maybe strings like snobol. With a good glue language, yuo could write each routine in its appropriate language, then glue them all together.
This does raise some questions:
(1) What's the real mission gonna cost?
(2) How in the heck will we pay for it?
and most importantly:
(3) If we don't have really solid answers to (1) and (2), is a Mars study the best thing NASA can do with $5 billion?
I mean, think about it: That $5 billion would save the Hubble several times over, and fund more science missions like Mars Spirit Rover, Stardust GALEX, New Horizons, etc, etc. Doesn't it make more sense for the space scientists to decide how to spend the $5 billion than letting Washington politicians decide? The National Science Foundation, the National Institutes for Health, and DARPA all have a pretty good track record for peer-reviewed funding decisions; why not space science too?
Note, this suggestion isn't original; I think Bob Parks made it somewhere in What's New.
Tooting my own horn dept: as I said here, Bush's Mars plan is wildly underfunded, and that unless there's serious funding the Mars plan is at best a publicity stunt, and at worst a president micro-managing NASA in a way that will get rid of the few remaining actual science programs. Decomissioning Hubble is exhibit A for that argument.
In answer to the original question, "Is repairing the Hubble worth 5 astronaut's lives?" I'd just like to say that I'll go. I'll risk my life for science (and maybe the adventure of a lifetime in LEO).
News Flash: most of our space science comes from unmanned machines such as the Space Telescope, the Mars Spirit Rover, the Stardust comet explorer, and others. Did I mention the Mars Global Explorer, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe satellite, GALEX, the Cassini mission to Saturn, Genesis solar wind sampler, the New Horizons Pluto-Kuiper Belt mission (planned for 2006), etc, etc. Voyagers 1 and 2 have been operating since 1977 (are they older than you?) and are approaching the heliopause. Now that's what I call space exploration. The truth is, in space, robots rule!
Folks, I'm sorry to inform you; but unless there's serious funding, this is at best a publicity stunt, and at worst a president micro-managing NASA in a way that will get rid of the few remaining actual science programs.
Before 9/11, Faux News and others were spinning stories practically continuously, despite dire predictions by the Hart Rudman Commission and the Gore Report.
Remind me, when wasn't it trash?One fix was to allocate 1000 phone number blocks instead of 10000 number blocks. With number portability, they all have to share exchanges anyway, so maybe there's less incentive to hoard numbers?
Now I won't claim that the ISS has produced zero science, but I will claim that it's a mighty expensive way to do science. Humans in space may win congressional votes, but they're a pretty expensive way to do research. Remote control machines such as the space telescope, the Mars landers, Voyager, etc. have produced much more science for much less money.
If we let the ISS drop, there's be plenty of money to keep Hubble running, build its successor, send machines to Pluto, and a ton of other stuff. Unfortunately, the political reality is that Congress and the American public aren't particularly interested in the actual science. But we're willing to spend $2.5 billion per year because we think astronauts are cool!
IMHO this is a delaying tactic. IBM is asking SCO to put up or shutup. Now SCO can say "wait until our latest round of discovery; then we'll show you." It's consistent with the theory that SCO doesn't want this thing in court.
That controls for the effect that the audience of Faux News is more right-wing.
By the way, you're wrong about the factuality of the "Bush never said imminent threat" meme (though of course that doesn't negate your point).
In fact, the National Security Council strategy document released 9/17/02 term "rogue states" (such as Iraq) an "imminent threat." Furthermore Scott McClellan called Iraq an "imminent threat" twice in Feb 2003, though by July he was backtracking. Ari Fleischer labeled Iraq an immediate threat on Jan 21 2003. In some Rose Garden remarks , Bush called Iraq "threat of unique urgency."
I wonder if anyone will venture an opinion as to which is worse, an imminent threat or an immediate threat? And does a "threat of unique urgency" trump them all? Who knows. But I think it's rather silly to try to deny that the Bushies took the threat of Iraq very seriously last fall and worked hard to communicate their concerns to the world.
Here are the excerpts:
Laying the groundwork for intervention in Iraq, the National Security Council released this strategy document: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html (also found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html) The National Security Strategy of the United States of America dated September 17, 2002
As far as I can tell, this document is in the official voice of Bush's Security Council. Thus it speaks officially for the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and numerous others. And it's applying the phrase "imminent threat" to an unnamed adversary that can't be anyone else but Iraq. I think that gives the lie to the meme that Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat. I think it's pretty clear that they all seek to "adapt the concept of imminent threat" to Iraq.
McClellan's use of imminent threat: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20 030210-8.html Excerpts from the Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan, February 10, 2003