I don't think Doom3 was trying to be anything but a pretty version of Doom. Kind of like when they re-did Godzilla in 1998. You already know the story. You already know the monster. Here's just a prettier view of him. Anyone who expected more got dissapointed. Those of us who understood that all it was, was a pretty version of Doom enjoyed the hell out of the game.
No he doesn't, just like the pres doesn't have the power to declare war. People can give them the power to do so though, or those who do have the power can listen to what they want and make it happen. We just like picking on Ashcroft because he's the most visible top link of the chain and he's the one who has made public statements about his views and wishes.
Thanks for making my point. Before Ashcroft can remove our civil rights, a few thing have to happen. One of them is to start labeling everything that is deadly and scary as "terrorism" so it can fall under the "new" rules where you don't get a lawyer and you don't get due process and nobody needs a warrant to search your stuff.
Before 9/11 would you have called Columbine terrorism? Would you have called planned parenthood murders terrorism? Terrorism was when jets got hijacked or people were taken hostage or car bombs went off to make some sort of political statement.
According to the responses here, Ashcroft is succeeding. We have successfully labeled everything that is deadly and scary as "terrorism" as if death wasn't scary as hell already.
This is obviously some strange usage of the word "terrorism" that I was previously unaware of. Columbine was a couple of stupid kids being incredibly selfish and idiotic. That was nowhere near terrorism. Nice toss in of "probably american" on the anthrax thing. Good try. When the hell did family planning get thrown in? That's just rediculous. I guess drinking and driving is an act of terrorism now too. So is running from the police. Welcome to Ashcroft's world where everything is a form of terrorism and justifies the stripping of civil rights.
Those odds have always been small. Nobody made them that way. The last attack on US soil was in 93. It's annoying when people try to use an extremely short period of time as evidence of anything. Even before we had any type of anti-terrorism anything the odds were small. Even before 9/11 when Bush was on vacation constantly the odds were small. If anything, the odds have gone up since we invaded Iraq. They're still incredibly small though.
I believe he said "listen to jon stewart", not "blindly believe jon stewart." Big difference. It is possible to listen to someone and not only disagree completely with them, but not believe a word they say as well.
Presidential Selector kept giving me this even with multiple tries in different browsers. Anyone else have problems? Maybe it's a sign that I just should stay the hell away from the voting booths this election....
Warning: mysql_connect(): Access denied for user: 'ssmart_3@216.92.131.111' (Using password: YES) in/usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 33
Warning: mysql_select_db(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in/usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 35
Warning: mysql_db_query(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: NO) in/usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45
Reread my post. I first stated that I lived in the bible belt. I talked about people losing their jobs. I never once mentioned the net or online. It's scary admitting it HERE as in REAL LIFE. That was the context of my whole post. You really need to get off the net once in a while if you really thought that I meant here on slashdot.:)
In talking to as many people as I can, I'm finding a lot of people who are afraid to admit that they are voting for Kerry. I live in a conservative bible-belt state and there are actually reasons for fear.
I've had a couple friends lose jobs because they admitted they support Kerry. Of course they weren't fired for that reason directly, but anyone in management knows it's extremely easy to find valid reasons for firing anyone if you really want to find them. On the net I keep hearing stories pop up here and there about people losing their jobs because they support Kerry but I have yet to hear of anyone losing a job because they support Bush. I'm sure it happens, but I don't see it. It's really not much different than admitting you're not christian in the bible-belt. You just don't do it and you dance around the question or even straight out lie to protect yourself.
It's scary admitting that you support Kerry here. The peer pressure and hostility you encounter here isn't very fun. I'm wondering if many other places are like this and if the polls are representing that fear, and I wonder if we'll all be very surprised after the votes are counted if enough secret Kerry supporters come out of the woodwork.
For me and a number of other people I know, our votes are being more swayed by the verbal violence we encounter from Bush supporters than it is by the candidates themselves.
I gotta agree with you on this one. It's really not that much different than securing your home. You think you know how to secure things but the only way to know for sure is after your house has been broken into. Then you know for sure that you didn't do it right.
One difference is that people have been securing their homes for so long that you can talk to your neighbors and be pretty much guaranteed that most of their advice is valid. Would you talk to your neighbors about securing your wireless router?
The other difference is that technology changes so fast that by the time people begin to learn how to secure their wireless connections, something new and different will be mainstream and the learning curve has to start over again.
Hearing about some guy wanking off to kiddie pr0n in his car parked in front of your neighbors house with an unsecured wireless router is similar to hearing about your neighbor's house getting broken into. The difference though is that you can find out exactly how the house got broken into, understand it, and fix your house so the same thing can't happen. People in general won't have the first clue about how a wireless router got broken into and how to prevent it from happening to them. Think about how difficult it is to detect intrusions in the first place. Unless it's a major interest of yours or you do it for work, you simply won't take the time to learn about it.
Yes it is. Before the internet, all data communication was done phone-to-phone with modems. Most of the people I knew with modems (which wasn't many) actively wardialed. Nobody really knew what it was, nobody was looking out for it, and you certainly wouldn't get busted for it until a few years later after Wargames came out. Government wasn't nearly as aware of security back then compared to now either. There was no caller-ID and tracing phone calls wasn't easy. It was not really much different than port scanning, just much slower. The phone company wasn't set up for security of any kind so there were all kinds of fun things you could do with their circuits.
I don't know if the movie invented the term, but it certainly made it official.
Yes. Every single scientist that has ever studied or is studying and even the ones that are just slightly interested in the ozone hole are all putting the exact same bias on the statement so they can all continue their funding. Because after all, scientists always agree.:)
Of course it's unrealistic. It's a TEST flight. Do you think the early space shuttle prototypes were anything like the ones for regular flights? You dont start out with leather seats and all the frills. You start out to see if it will even work, THEN you worry about the other stuff.
It flew, it went where it was supposed to go, it landed, and the after inspection showed not a single thing needed fixing after the flight. That is the definition of reliable.
You're talking about control. It takes a large number of small thrusters to keep a ship perfectly still during re-entry. The shuttle would fly easier and more cheaply if they did away with those and let it tumble a bit, but you've given us an example of why NASA can never allow that to happen. People would freak out on something that's perfectly normal. Of course, the stabilizing thrusters are nice for crew comfort....
Using Firefox, I get a message that says "The connection was refused when attempting to contact www.outwar.com" Whether thats at the tcp/ip level or not I don't know.
I tried the link and got a message saying my connection was refused. Not down or broken, but refused. I wonder if they're blocking everyone with slashdot in the referrer.
Keep in mind that home theater can be used for much more than just DVD's, so only part of the cost can be attributed to replacing the movies. You also are paying for the convenience of watching a movie anytime you want in the comfort of your own home, where you can play mystery science theater, make out with your significant other, drink beer, or hell even screw during the movie if it's not very good. Just the beer and the screw makes it worth the money imho.:)
Here's your unnecessary resolution. Obviously Bush felt it was necessary to ask permission. Congress gave him the ability to make his own choice. You must not have read the timeline either. Bush recieved authorization 5 months before starting the war.
IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION 107th CONGRESS 2d Session H. J. RES. 114 October 10, 2002... SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. (b)PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that-- (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).......
Sorry if I implied that there was something wrong with the kit, but I figured if people knew what was in it they'd be less likely to slashdot your bandwidth. AVP by grisoft is a good antivirus for windows. I've used it for a couple years and been safe. Just remember to change the default setting of checking every 14 days for updates to every 1 day.
If you gave authorization to "fix my car" then yes, replacing the A-Frame and linkage was authorized. If you had said "Fix the alternator" then no it wouldn't be. Congress and the house authorized nothing. They passed the power to make the choice to invade or not invade to the president, so the analogy doesn't fit.
They did not tell Bush to go after anyone. They gave them the authority to declare war if he felt it was needed. If he did, then he had to justify going to war to congress.
From http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/ The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.
Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.
They wanted a diplomatic solution before war and they wanted to make sure the invasion wouldn't disrupt the war on terror.
This happened on Oct 11, 2002. A month later The UN passed resolution 1441 with tough new arms inspections on Iraq.
Dec 7, 2002 Iraq submitted its 12,000 page report that says they had no weapons.
Jan. 16, 2003 UN inspectors discover 11 undeclared empty chemical warheads in Iraq.
Feb. 22, 2003 Hans Blix orders Iraq to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles by March 1.
March 1, 2003 Iraq begins to destroy its Al Samoud missiles. (kinda like telling your kid "I'm going to count to 5" and watching then scurry when you say FIVE!"
Feb. 24-March 14, 2003 The US tried and failed to get UN support to invade Iraq.
March 19, 2003 US invades Iraq.
As you can see, it took 5 months from the time Bush was authorized to invade to the time he actually did invade. If he had invaded within a couple weeks of the authorization then it would be a totally different story. I'm not trying to say it was right or wrong to invade, but the facts say that Bush did have the choice whether to invade or not.
Whether it was right or wrong won't be known until the history books are written that our grandkids and greatgrandkids use in school.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think Doom3 was trying to be anything but a pretty version of Doom. Kind of like when they re-did Godzilla in 1998. You already know the story. You already know the monster. Here's just a prettier view of him. Anyone who expected more got dissapointed. Those of us who understood that all it was, was a pretty version of Doom enjoyed the hell out of the game.
No he doesn't, just like the pres doesn't have the power to declare war. People can give them the power to do so though, or those who do have the power can listen to what they want and make it happen. We just like picking on Ashcroft because he's the most visible top link of the chain and he's the one who has made public statements about his views and wishes.
Thanks for making my point. Before Ashcroft can remove our civil rights, a few thing have to happen. One of them is to start labeling everything that is deadly and scary as "terrorism" so it can fall under the "new" rules where you don't get a lawyer and you don't get due process and nobody needs a warrant to search your stuff.
Before 9/11 would you have called Columbine terrorism? Would you have called planned parenthood murders terrorism? Terrorism was when jets got hijacked or people were taken hostage or car bombs went off to make some sort of political statement.
According to the responses here, Ashcroft is succeeding. We have successfully labeled everything that is deadly and scary as "terrorism" as if death wasn't scary as hell already.
This is obviously some strange usage of the word "terrorism" that I was previously unaware of.
Columbine was a couple of stupid kids being incredibly selfish and idiotic. That was nowhere near terrorism. Nice toss in of "probably american" on the anthrax thing. Good try.
When the hell did family planning get thrown in? That's just rediculous. I guess drinking and driving is an act of terrorism now too. So is running from the police. Welcome to Ashcroft's world where everything is a form of terrorism and justifies the stripping of civil rights.
Those odds have always been small. Nobody made them that way. The last attack on US soil was in 93. It's annoying when people try to use an extremely short period of time as evidence of anything. Even before we had any type of anti-terrorism anything the odds were small. Even before 9/11 when Bush was on vacation constantly the odds were small. If anything, the odds have gone up since we invaded Iraq. They're still incredibly small though.
I believe he said "listen to jon stewart", not "blindly believe jon stewart."
Big difference. It is possible to listen to someone and not only disagree completely with them, but not believe a word they say as well.
Wasn't there some old story about this guy who did pretty much the same thing....his name was Pilate I think.... ;)
Presidential Selector kept giving me this even with multiple tries in different browsers. Anyone else have problems? Maybe it's a sign that I just should stay the hell away from the voting booths this election....
/usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 33
/usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 35
/usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 45
Warning: mysql_connect(): Access denied for user: 'ssmart_3@216.92.131.111' (Using password: YES) in
Warning: mysql_select_db(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in
Warning: mysql_db_query(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: NO) in
Then people born without brains are not sentient? :)
http://www.alternativescience.com/no_brainer.htm
Reread my post. I first stated that I lived in the bible belt. I talked about people losing their jobs. I never once mentioned the net or online. It's scary admitting it HERE as in REAL LIFE. That was the context of my whole post. :)
You really need to get off the net once in a while if you really thought that I meant here on slashdot.
In talking to as many people as I can, I'm finding a lot of people who are afraid to admit that they are voting for Kerry. I live in a conservative bible-belt state and there are actually reasons for fear.
I've had a couple friends lose jobs because they admitted they support Kerry. Of course they weren't fired for that reason directly, but anyone in management knows it's extremely easy to find valid reasons for firing anyone if you really want to find them. On the net I keep hearing stories pop up here and there about people losing their jobs because they support Kerry but I have yet to hear of anyone losing a job because they support Bush. I'm sure it happens, but I don't see it. It's really not much different than admitting you're not christian in the bible-belt. You just don't do it and you dance around the question or even straight out lie to protect yourself.
It's scary admitting that you support Kerry here. The peer pressure and hostility you encounter here isn't very fun. I'm wondering if many other places are like this and if the polls are representing that fear, and I wonder if we'll all be very surprised after the votes are counted if enough secret Kerry supporters come out of the woodwork.
For me and a number of other people I know, our votes are being more swayed by the verbal violence we encounter from Bush supporters than it is by the candidates themselves.
???
You don't even need the ??? on that one!
NOT invites, just nasty pics.
DO NOT CLICK
I gotta agree with you on this one. It's really not that much different than securing your home. You think you know how to secure things but the only way to know for sure is after your house has been broken into. Then you know for sure that you didn't do it right.
One difference is that people have been securing their homes for so long that you can talk to your neighbors and be pretty much guaranteed that most of their advice is valid. Would you talk to your neighbors about securing your wireless router?
The other difference is that technology changes so fast that by the time people begin to learn how to secure their wireless connections, something new and different will be mainstream and the learning curve has to start over again.
Hearing about some guy wanking off to kiddie pr0n in his car parked in front of your neighbors house with an unsecured wireless router is similar to hearing about your neighbor's house getting broken into. The difference though is that you can find out exactly how the house got broken into, understand it, and fix your house so the same thing can't happen. People in general won't have the first clue about how a wireless router got broken into and how to prevent it from happening to them. Think about how difficult it is to detect intrusions in the first place. Unless it's a major interest of yours or you do it for work, you simply won't take the time to learn about it.
Yes it is. Before the internet, all data communication was done phone-to-phone with modems. Most of the people I knew with modems (which wasn't many) actively wardialed. Nobody really knew what it was, nobody was looking out for it, and you certainly wouldn't get busted for it until a few years later after Wargames came out. Government wasn't nearly as aware of security back then compared to now either. There was no caller-ID and tracing phone calls wasn't easy. It was not really much different than port scanning, just much slower.
The phone company wasn't set up for security of any kind so there were all kinds of fun things you could do with their circuits.
I don't know if the movie invented the term, but it certainly made it official.
Yes. Every single scientist that has ever studied or is studying and even the ones that are just slightly interested in the ozone hole are all putting the exact same bias on the statement so they can all continue their funding. :)
Because after all, scientists always agree.
Of course it's unrealistic. It's a TEST flight. Do you think the early space shuttle prototypes were anything like the ones for regular flights? You dont start out with leather seats and all the frills. You start out to see if it will even work, THEN you worry about the other stuff.
It flew, it went where it was supposed to go, it landed, and the after inspection showed not a single thing needed fixing after the flight. That is the definition of reliable.
You're talking about control. It takes a large number of small thrusters to keep a ship perfectly still during re-entry. The shuttle would fly easier and more cheaply if they did away with those and let it tumble a bit, but you've given us an example of why NASA can never allow that to happen. People would freak out on something that's perfectly normal.
Of course, the stabilizing thrusters are nice for crew comfort....
Using Firefox, I get a message that says "The connection was refused when attempting to contact www.outwar.com"
Whether thats at the tcp/ip level or not I don't know.
I tried the link and got a message saying my connection was refused. Not down or broken, but refused. I wonder if they're blocking everyone with slashdot in the referrer.
Keep in mind that home theater can be used for much more than just DVD's, so only part of the cost can be attributed to replacing the movies. You also are paying for the convenience of watching a movie anytime you want in the comfort of your own home, where you can play mystery science theater, make out with your significant other, drink beer, or hell even screw during the movie if it's not very good. :)
Just the beer and the screw makes it worth the money imho.
Here's your unnecessary resolution. Obviously Bush felt it was necessary to ask permission. Congress gave him the ability to make his own choice. You must not have read the timeline either. Bush recieved authorization 5 months before starting the war.
l e_id=2686
...
......
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?artic
IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION
107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b)PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
Sorry if I implied that there was something wrong with the kit, but I figured if people knew what was in it they'd be less likely to slashdot your bandwidth.
AVP by grisoft is a good antivirus for windows. I've used it for a couple years and been safe. Just remember to change the default setting of checking every 14 days for updates to every 1 day.
If you gave authorization to "fix my car" then yes, replacing the A-Frame and linkage was authorized.
If you had said "Fix the alternator" then no it wouldn't be.
Congress and the house authorized nothing. They passed the power to make the choice to invade or not invade to the president, so the analogy doesn't fit.
They did not tell Bush to go after anyone. They gave them the authority to declare war if he felt it was needed. If he did, then he had to justify going to war to congress.
/
:)
From http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us
The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.
Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.
They wanted a diplomatic solution before war and they wanted to make sure the invasion wouldn't disrupt the war on terror.
This happened on Oct 11, 2002. A month later The UN passed resolution 1441 with tough new arms inspections on Iraq.
Dec 7, 2002 Iraq submitted its 12,000 page report that says they had no weapons.
Jan. 16, 2003 UN inspectors discover 11 undeclared empty chemical warheads in Iraq.
Feb. 22, 2003 Hans Blix orders Iraq to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles by March 1.
March 1, 2003 Iraq begins to destroy its Al Samoud missiles.
(kinda like telling your kid "I'm going to count to 5" and watching then scurry when you say FIVE!"
Feb. 24-March 14, 2003 The US tried and failed to get UN support to invade Iraq.
March 19, 2003 US invades Iraq.
As you can see, it took 5 months from the time Bush was authorized to invade to the time he actually did invade. If he had invaded within a couple weeks of the authorization then it would be a totally different story. I'm not trying to say it was right or wrong to invade, but the facts say that Bush did have the choice whether to invade or not.
Whether it was right or wrong won't be known until the history books are written that our grandkids and greatgrandkids use in school.