I suppose, but it's used as a definitive definition of good/proper way too much. It's up there with "utilize" and "leverage" for the most-abused-by-PHBs-award.
I love Splinter Cell (just picked up PT 2 days ago), but it's never been because I like the shooting... I actually prefer the strategy involved in silently knocking out/avoiding the baddies. There's something really cool about having the target 2 feet away and knocking him out w/o him ever seeing you.
Also, the game (appropriately) makes you feel like an ass if you kill someone you don't need to. I knocked out a guy on a train, and a data stick fell out of his pocket. The important data? A note from his wife asking to pick up milk on the way some. Glad I didn't shoot him.
Ah. Do I fail some test for not replying with a flame ?:)
seems a bit odd to have an entire website (meta-site?) that is devoted to another site... but to each their own, I guess. I shall not study to visit a website!
Best I can tell you is that something sounds radically wrong with that system. Maybe FC doesn't like the hardware, I dunno... but I sling gigabytes of data around on my Fedora rig and it seems to be ok.
I'm not a fanatic, I like the balance of "you don't have to be an expert" and "you can tweak it easily" that Fedora provides. Good support / documentation / community makes it a good choice for me.
Like I said, sounds like your machine has problems , and that sucks, but it's hardly fair to damn a whole distro based on one buggy machine, is it?
I may have misunderstood... I was thinking along the lines of certification based on training and experience, not mail-order:) I've known a couple of army guys who could kick the shit out of most radio "engineers", due to experience running field communication sites.
1) Certification earned in the military most likely was tough to get, and thus is respected.
2) There are a lot of worthless IT certs in the civilian world, that's why we disrespect them. The poster mentioned "technically adept and smart employers"... headhunters rarely (at least in my experience) have a clue, they're just trying to match technology names to a resume. I once had this fellow quite confused, as it took 5 minutes to explain, that coding Java, and "writing java scripts" were not related. stoopeed headhunter...
Moreover, there's no reason to attack, and a lot of reasons not to. Hell, most of the israeli military uses american equipment (altho they do make damn good guns). I was just using them as an example of a militarily strong country, since they have firepower and are not hesitant to use it.
Yes, soldiers are dying. Not very many, considering that an entire country was occupied (No, I'm not minimizing the deaths. 50 years ago we'd be happy to take a country with 20,000 deaths. the 800 or so coalition deaths are small relative to that.)
Sure, there are other things than power. I never stated otherwise. But since politics is collective will, and military action is an extension of politics... it would be silly to discount.
A carrier battle group generally controls the airspace within a few hundred miles, unless another CBG is in the neighborhood. There are many historical precedents for this. Where's your contrary evidence?
I was at home. The Cole, however, was in a friendly harbor, in peacetime. It was neither in an active battlegroup, nor on duty. How is this a an angument?
Hmm... the US destroyed damn near every military target (sometimes repeatedly). US soldiers were able to take nearly any land they wanted (although it was often abandoned within days). The numbers are sketchy, but it appears that 10 to 20 vietnamese were killed per american loss. Sounds like the US was pretty dominant, when it wanted to be. And when it didn't, the soldiers left and the country fell. This is losing?
Just because it's too easy: the 9/11 analogy is flawed. For example: An Abrahms tank is a hell of a fighting vehicle. But it won't stop a car from veering onto the sidewalk and killing people any more than a F-16 can stop a jet verring toward a building, IF WE DON'T KNOW IT's GOING TO HAPPEN. Once the US realized what was going on, F-16s were dispatched to shoot down one of the planes, but it crashed before they got there.
Out of curiousity, are we trying to decide something here? Because if we're just comparing dick size, I'd be happy to let you win, if you'll just shut up.
1) Absolutely, air forces aren't a panacea. In responding to the fellow asking how a supply line would be supported, I invoked airpower. Since aircraft are very good at sinking ships and destroying ground forces, the supply lines would be pretty well protected. Of course you need ground forces to _keep_ territory, but you can kill most everything in it from a distance (artillery, air, missles, whatever).
2) Sure, some of the iragi leaders were bad, but there were some very tough forces. Not to mention more of them than american soldiers. I think it's a very bad idea to assume the enemy is stupid.
3) Regarding vietnam and to a lesser extent serbia (and somalia, etc.), the old saying is true: We didn't lose, we left. The US won the vast majority of battles in vietnam, and left for political/public concensus reasons.
4) If none of these float your boat, then just rack me up as a naive fool who refuses to have black and white opinions. You wouldn't be the first.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose, but it's used as a definitive definition of good/proper way too much. It's up there with "utilize" and "leverage" for the most-abused-by-PHBs-award.
Nothing personal... just needed a longer string of "A"s. The "AAIIIEEE!" just amuses me.
That isn't argument, it's merely contradiction!
</python>
although I must say, EVERY rational argument should end in "Blows Goats". Imagine the presidential debates...
And write "The only intuitive interface is the nipple. Everything else is learned." 100 times.
I swear, I feel like forming the AAAAI (American Association Against Abusing "Intuitive"). Our slogan: "Come join Aiyeeee!!!"
</RANT>
That said, I hate the multiple window thing too. It's ugly and cluttered. (yeah,I understand that GTK doesn't do MDI... it should.)
Picked up Pandora Tomorrow the other day, and cracked up when I heard this exchange between Fisher (super-duper spy) and Lambert (stuffy boss)
L: "... and we don't know yet if he [the person Fisher is stalking] is an American or a terrorist yet, so be careful"
F: "The two aren't always mutually exclusive..."
L: "Hippy!"
---
Also funny was when Lambert scolds Fisher for saving his own butt, while not saving an NPC informant (who subsequently gets blown up)
L: "That was quite a way to say thanks! I'm ordering another psych evaluation for you!"
F: "Sorry. Next time I won't kill him"
I love Splinter Cell (just picked up PT 2 days ago), but it's never been because I like the shooting ... I actually prefer the strategy involved in silently knocking out/avoiding the baddies. There's something really cool about having the target 2 feet away and knocking him out w/o him ever seeing you.
Also, the game (appropriately) makes you feel like an ass if you kill someone you don't need to. I knocked out a guy on a train, and a data stick fell out of his pocket. The important data? A note from his wife asking to pick up milk on the way some. Glad I didn't shoot him.
Damnit.
I want to resist but can't.
I know I'll sound like some damn AOL fool, but...
"Gawd, that'd be cool!"
you're asking for a slashdot effect, aren't you!
Sheesh... I just lost all kinds of respect for the place... everyone knows that computers run on AC, DC and VitaminC(affeine), damnit.
keeping the soda machines near me full of Dew, it's a good thing.
First PC I had ran DOS 5, and gorillas was the first program I used on it.
Ah. Do I fail some test for not replying with a flame ? :)
seems a bit odd to have an entire website (meta-site?) that is devoted to another site... but to each their own, I guess. I shall not study to visit a website!
Ah, the double inverse contrapositive reverse psychology with a twist argument, eh?
Only for the new shell "Barsh"...
Best I can tell you is that something sounds radically wrong with that system. Maybe FC doesn't like the hardware, I dunno... but I sling gigabytes of data around on my Fedora rig and it seems to be ok.
I'm not a fanatic, I like the balance of "you don't have to be an expert" and "you can tweak it easily" that Fedora provides. Good support / documentation / community makes it a good choice for me.
Like I said, sounds like your machine has problems , and that sucks, but it's hardly fair to damn a whole distro based on one buggy machine, is it?
True, and for good reasons, both are easy to acquire though, so what's the big deal?
I may have misunderstood... I was thinking along the lines of certification based on training and experience, not mail-order :) I've known a couple of army guys who could kick the shit out of most radio "engineers", due to experience running field communication sites.
Ah, were you one of the 3 C++ CGI coders?
2 things:
1) Certification earned in the military most likely was tough to get, and thus is respected.
2) There are a lot of worthless IT certs in the civilian world, that's why we disrespect them. The poster mentioned "technically adept and smart employers"... headhunters rarely (at least in my experience) have a clue, they're just trying to match technology names to a resume. I once had this fellow quite confused, as it took 5 minutes to explain, that coding Java, and "writing java scripts" were not related. stoopeed headhunter...
No, but it is a staging ground for military action in the area until we acquired AFB Iraq, it was about our best shot.
Long range bombers, aircraft carriers, etc. make this less important, I suppose.
Moreover, there's no reason to attack, and a lot of reasons not to. Hell, most of the israeli military uses american equipment (altho they do make damn good guns). I was just using them as an example of a militarily strong country, since they have firepower and are not hesitant to use it.
Yes, soldiers are dying. Not very many, considering that an entire country was occupied (No, I'm not minimizing the deaths. 50 years ago we'd be happy to take a country with 20,000 deaths. the 800 or so coalition deaths are small relative to that.)
Sure, there are other things than power. I never stated otherwise. But since politics is collective will, and military action is an extension of politics... it would be silly to discount.
A carrier battle group generally controls the airspace within a few hundred miles, unless another CBG is in the neighborhood. There are many historical precedents for this. Where's your contrary evidence?
I was at home. The Cole, however, was in a friendly harbor, in peacetime. It was neither in an active battlegroup, nor on duty. How is this a an angument?
Hmm... the US destroyed damn near every military target (sometimes repeatedly). US soldiers were able to take nearly any land they wanted (although it was often abandoned within days). The numbers are sketchy, but it appears that 10 to 20 vietnamese were killed per american loss. Sounds like the US was pretty dominant, when it wanted to be. And when it didn't, the soldiers left and the country fell. This is losing?
Just because it's too easy: the 9/11 analogy is flawed. For example: An Abrahms tank is a hell of a fighting vehicle. But it won't stop a car from veering onto the sidewalk and killing people any more than a F-16 can stop a jet verring toward a building, IF WE DON'T KNOW IT's GOING TO HAPPEN. Once the US realized what was going on, F-16s were dispatched to shoot down one of the planes, but it crashed before they got there.
Out of curiousity, are we trying to decide something here? Because if we're just comparing dick size, I'd be happy to let you win, if you'll just shut up.
He would have said something about slapping down a flame war when I was adding wood to the fire? Nah, try again AC.
Just to clarify a couple of things:
1) Absolutely, air forces aren't a panacea. In responding to the fellow asking how a supply line would be supported, I invoked airpower. Since aircraft are very good at sinking ships and destroying ground forces, the supply lines would be pretty well protected. Of course you need ground forces to _keep_ territory, but you can kill most everything in it from a distance (artillery, air, missles, whatever).
2) Sure, some of the iragi leaders were bad, but there were some very tough forces. Not to mention more of them than american soldiers. I think it's a very bad idea to assume the enemy is stupid.
3) Regarding vietnam and to a lesser extent serbia (and somalia, etc.), the old saying is true: We didn't lose, we left. The US won the vast majority of battles in vietnam, and left for political/public concensus reasons.
4) If none of these float your boat, then just rack me up as a naive fool who refuses to have black and white opinions. You wouldn't be the first.