I think the implication was that either he didn't get a chance to give the order, or the troops didn't want to follow through...still don't see the "nothing to lose" argument as somthing that supports the original post. He had plenty to lose, though...primarily credibility and support.
so better grow up and ask yourself (or mor specifically good ole bush) about international rights! (wonder why no german, french, other anti iraq-war countries get NO contracts for rebuilding in iraq? search google for 'bush iraq halliburton' and check fo yourself)
Google results notwithstanding...there are a couple of good (IMHO) reasons not to award contracts to German or French companies (or *any* companies other than US or Iraqi ones). The most obvious reason is that the source of the reconstruction funds is (ta-daa!) US taxpayer money. I'm already not a big fan of just giving the money away with no repayment plan, but I'm even less in favor of giving it away to people who don't directly benefit from it (Iraqis), or aren't helping fund it (me/you/KBR).
I wouldn't be surprised at this point that the Bush Administration will go as far as "manufacturing" and placing the WMD evidence they are looking for just so that their little campaign in Iraq doesn't look like it was all in vain.
Although possible, I *hate* that argument for the single reason that it swings occam's razor the other way...wouldn't the simplest explanation (if they were found) be that it took a long time to find them? Just a thought. I'll shut up now.
Just curious...how so? I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on WMD, and am just about to read the interview with the Iraqi officer mentioned in the post you're responding to. How does not finding WMD make that report BS, though (assuming the officer isn't lying)?
Either you can wear a uniform to let the enemy know you are a soldier and may try to kill him, or you can be an enemy combatant. Put yourself in the shoes of a soldier, and the reason for the distinction (and different treatment) becomes clear. The precedent you cite doesn't exist. There were certainly people not on the battlefield who were treated this way before 2001.
The reason that Timothy McVeigh had a trial was that he was a US citizen who committed a crime in the USA. Typically, when that happens, a trial is involved. It's not that complicated. As to whether he was better or worse than those being held in Guantanamo Bay, it's a matter of opinion. I, and many others, feel that he was worse (and the sentence that he recieved bears that out). As far as I know, we have not been executing prisoners in Cuba.
What other countries typically do in this situation is to kill those that they believe fit the profile of "enemy combatant". In the US, there are many people from many different parts of the worls who, collectively, display a lot of compassion towards pretty much everyone, so we don't do the same.
Even today, when anyone can spout off and be indignant over the (arguably) humane treatment of individuals who sought to play by rules that you indicate that you would find unfair at the least, this distinction is important. Human rights are important, and just about everyone in the US agrees with that. The only thing MORE important is human life, and I'm not about to let my feelings about the treatment of guerillas, terrorists, or "soldiers" that don't observe the combat rules that most of the world has agreed with overshadow that.
Well, if you're ever out my way, you're welcome to come by and speak your piece (my fireplace and rugrats won't easily support the glass-throwing, I'm afraid).
I got familiar with Asimov first, and I still love to read his robot stories. I read all of the foundation series, but didn't enjoy them as much until many years later (guess age makes a difference).
Heinlein wasn't introduced to me until I was in my mid-20's, and I think the first book of his that I read was Stranger in a Strange Land...after which, I read every one of his books I could lay my hands on.
Harry Harrison, Piers Anthony (Bio of a Space Tyrant was a pretty decent sci-fi series), and others gave me plenty to think about when I was younger, but my all-time favorite is the man who wrote the intro for the book we're talking about...Spider Robinson.
Spider Robinson is a man who is eminently capable of writing books that I wish I could live inside...for those not familiar with Jake Stonebender, mike Callahan, Fast Eddie, and the rest, go look for a copy of "Time Travellers, Strictly Cash" or "Callahan's Crosstime Saloon". I have lost count of the number of times I've read these books and the ones that followed, and each time, I find myself wishing that there really was a Callahan's that I could stumble across someday.
Asimov was definitely a master, but Spider has him beat hands-down on the ability to write a book with a soul of its own.
No, I saw that...what I missed was FreeLinux's point on a networking setup that was one step more odd than I realized. He was talking about a/24 where there were 127 hosts and 127 gateways, paired up-like...I thought he was talking about 127 subnets.
My comment was a pedantic argument about classless subnetting, and wasn't talking about the relationship between the two tested IP addresses. I have no quarrel with the statement that there is one (actually, several) accessible IP's on a supposedly saturated link, and that those addresses are in the same subnet (most likely).
Assuming you're not just trolling, what did you think of as "crap" (aside from me maybe mis-reading what the coherent post I replied to was trying to say). I may be guilty of being hasty, but I never said I was an expert, and I don't think the content of what I said was crap.
Umm, no. It's possible to have 127 classless subnets within a class C netblock, but none of them would have any addresses in their/31 address space available for legal hosts. Since each subnet has 2 IP's, and one is the gateway, and one is broadcast, you'd have zero hosts and 127 routers. Remember, you're not supposed to have a host using a broadcast or gateway IP address for its subnet.
Interesting thing is that if it wasn't distributed, why did they need to do any router magic several hops downstream? Seems a simple access-list rule or something similar would have done the trick.
Well, if we're going to get into a pedantic argument, I'll answer that with another question.
Why could China not make a system with encryption more secure than AES? Nothing indicates it is less secure, either (unless we assume that AES is the insurmountable pinnacle of encryption technology).
My statement was meant to mention what the poster said (that it was supposedly more secure) in a way that pointed out the stupidity of vendors ignoring a (supposedly) more secure option.
Assuming it's a new *standard*, details of the standard would have to be published before it came into widespread use outside of China. I would assume that if there were companies thinking about having to support it, they'd have talked about the potential issues of China having a backdoor (or 2, or 7). I would expect that I'd never be able to buy a product with such a back-door here in the US.
That said, I reiterate my previous epithet...asshats.
It *was* in my mail client yesterday...in Outlook 2003. I haven't been much impressed with MS-Outlook until this version. It has a lot of cool stuff in it (most of which IBM is mentioning as features in the article above). Conversation view (makes e-mail into a newsgroup-style threaded view) has been one of my favorites. I'm still dicking around with it to see what it can do, and I've found a lot of pleasant surprises over the past 3 weeks.
Fair enough...you could make uncompressed GIF's, but why bother...the lossless compression was the thing that made the format attractive. Apologies for not seperating GIF from LZW.
You can't patent a file format, per-se, but if a particular file format relies on a particular encoding that has a patented process, you end up with substantially the same thing.
How exactly is MS claiming that companies can't ship pre-FAT-formatted devices? Since reading the patent details, I'm all unclear again...
Slashdot Mirror
All right...I didn't want to mention it, but when I REALLY want to impress somebody, I open up a DOS prompt and type "copy con"...
How about edlin? edlin RULES!
I think the implication was that either he didn't get a chance to give the order, or the troops didn't want to follow through...still don't see the "nothing to lose" argument as somthing that supports the original post. He had plenty to lose, though...primarily credibility and support.
Google results notwithstanding...there are a couple of good (IMHO) reasons not to award contracts to German or French companies (or *any* companies other than US or Iraqi ones). The most obvious reason is that the source of the reconstruction funds is (ta-daa!) US taxpayer money. I'm already not a big fan of just giving the money away with no repayment plan, but I'm even less in favor of giving it away to people who don't directly benefit from it (Iraqis), or aren't helping fund it (me/you/KBR).
Although possible, I *hate* that argument for the single reason that it swings occam's razor the other way...wouldn't the simplest explanation (if they were found) be that it took a long time to find them? Just a thought. I'll shut up now.
Just curious...how so? I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on WMD, and am just about to read the interview with the Iraqi officer mentioned in the post you're responding to. How does not finding WMD make that report BS, though (assuming the officer isn't lying)?
The reason that Timothy McVeigh had a trial was that he was a US citizen who committed a crime in the USA. Typically, when that happens, a trial is involved. It's not that complicated. As to whether he was better or worse than those being held in Guantanamo Bay, it's a matter of opinion. I, and many others, feel that he was worse (and the sentence that he recieved bears that out). As far as I know, we have not been executing prisoners in Cuba.
What other countries typically do in this situation is to kill those that they believe fit the profile of "enemy combatant". In the US, there are many people from many different parts of the worls who, collectively, display a lot of compassion towards pretty much everyone, so we don't do the same.
Even today, when anyone can spout off and be indignant over the (arguably) humane treatment of individuals who sought to play by rules that you indicate that you would find unfair at the least, this distinction is important. Human rights are important, and just about everyone in the US agrees with that. The only thing MORE important is human life, and I'm not about to let my feelings about the treatment of guerillas, terrorists, or "soldiers" that don't observe the combat rules that most of the world has agreed with overshadow that.
Well, if you're ever out my way, you're welcome to come by and speak your piece (my fireplace and rugrats won't easily support the glass-throwing, I'm afraid).
Signing up now...see you there.
Heinlein wasn't introduced to me until I was in my mid-20's, and I think the first book of his that I read was Stranger in a Strange Land...after which, I read every one of his books I could lay my hands on.
Harry Harrison, Piers Anthony (Bio of a Space Tyrant was a pretty decent sci-fi series), and others gave me plenty to think about when I was younger, but my all-time favorite is the man who wrote the intro for the book we're talking about...Spider Robinson.
Spider Robinson is a man who is eminently capable of writing books that I wish I could live inside...for those not familiar with Jake Stonebender, mike Callahan, Fast Eddie, and the rest, go look for a copy of "Time Travellers, Strictly Cash" or "Callahan's Crosstime Saloon". I have lost count of the number of times I've read these books and the ones that followed, and each time, I find myself wishing that there really was a Callahan's that I could stumble across someday.
Asimov was definitely a master, but Spider has him beat hands-down on the ability to write a book with a soul of its own.
My comment was a pedantic argument about classless subnetting, and wasn't talking about the relationship between the two tested IP addresses. I have no quarrel with the statement that there is one (actually, several) accessible IP's on a supposedly saturated link, and that those addresses are in the same subnet (most likely).
Assuming you're not just trolling, what did you think of as "crap" (aside from me maybe mis-reading what the coherent post I replied to was trying to say). I may be guilty of being hasty, but I never said I was an expert, and I don't think the content of what I said was crap.
Remember, you're not supposed to have a host using a broadcast or gateway IP address for its subnet. as its host IP address
Umm, no. It's possible to have 127 classless subnets within a class C netblock, but none of them would have any addresses in their /31 address space available for legal hosts. Since each subnet has 2 IP's, and one is the gateway, and one is broadcast, you'd have zero hosts and 127 routers. Remember, you're not supposed to have a host using a broadcast or gateway IP address for its subnet.
He's a she, actually...
And makes me wish that someone's name was "Barl McBride"...
Interesting thing is that if it wasn't distributed, why did they need to do any router magic several hops downstream? Seems a simple access-list rule or something similar would have done the trick.
Why could China not make a system with encryption more secure than AES? Nothing indicates it is less secure, either (unless we assume that AES is the insurmountable pinnacle of encryption technology).
My statement was meant to mention what the poster said (that it was supposedly more secure) in a way that pointed out the stupidity of vendors ignoring a (supposedly) more secure option.
That said, I reiterate my previous epithet...asshats.
Right...because who would want to have to support an even MORE secure standard...asshats.
Don't have any other suggestions...you *did* say "Tell me how to do that in Outlook, please", after all.
Upgrade to Outlook 2003. Next question.
It *was* in my mail client yesterday...in Outlook 2003. I haven't been much impressed with MS-Outlook until this version. It has a lot of cool stuff in it (most of which IBM is mentioning as features in the article above). Conversation view (makes e-mail into a newsgroup-style threaded view) has been one of my favorites. I'm still dicking around with it to see what it can do, and I've found a lot of pleasant surprises over the past 3 weeks.
They still do, actually...on a shingle, even.
You can't patent a file format, per-se, but if a particular file format relies on a particular encoding that has a patented process, you end up with substantially the same thing.
How exactly is MS claiming that companies can't ship pre-FAT-formatted devices? Since reading the patent details, I'm all unclear again...