Well if it wasn't broken, why did they change it to begin with?
Re:Don't Fall For This Trick!
on
Is IRC All Bad?
·
· Score: 1
it's just pointing out that the largest channels on irc networks are used mainly for filesharing - whic is true
If it's not an agenda, the author is making a rather obvious and silly mistake. The actual illegal activity is not conducted through IRC, so it is definitely false.
and to the poor analogy.. why would you consider any other metric for a 'safety' indicator in travelling expect probability of accident per miles travelled? after all, the last time i checked the reason why you would travel would be to get from one place to another and not for the sheer fun of it.
Well - by your own admission - I guess per-trip is the most logical metric, not miles traveled. Anyway, it makes sense because exposure to risk is measured in time, not distance. The longer you're in a more risk-prone environment, the more likely you are to encounter danger.
Think again about the IRC example: If a user DCC-transfers a 150MB illegally copied file, has he committed more crime than if he DCC-transfers a 15MB illegally copied file? Both represent one instance of an illegal activity, but by one metric, the first is ten times more illegal than the second?
Re:Don't Fall For This Trick!
on
Is IRC All Bad?
·
· Score: 1
What's the source for this data? Mine is "The Economics of Public Issues (Airline Safety)", 2001 edition.
p.s. This is why I ride the school bus and wear a tinfoil hat to keep out the cosmic rays.
Don't Fall For This Trick!
on
Is IRC All Bad?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Don't fall for this trick! The folks conducting the study had a hunch, and looked for the specific metric that would make their case. The case being that IRC is worthless because it's mostly used for illegal activities.
Obviously large file transfers are going to consume more bandwidth than casual chatting. But what about other metrics? How about if they counted the number of human users on IRC performing illegal activities versus those users that are just there to communicate? How about if it counted the number of connected hours used for legal communication as opposed to number of connected hours used to initiate DCC transfers (not monitored or controlled by IRC ops) of illegally copied material? My guess is that the study would show the opposite result.
It's just like the old statistic that airline travel is the safest. You'll hear that quoted a lot, but no one ever mentions the metric. It just so happens the metric is "safest per mile traveled." An airliner designed to go long distances at 550 mph obviously has the advantage here. Compare it by number of individual trips or hours spent traveling, and it turns out that the chance of fatality is about the same (or more).
I don't understand why this is such a touchy subject. HP is only doing this because their printers are the "loss leader" so to speak. Consumers have overwhelmingly shown their approval of the "get 'em on the consumables" business model because they buy scads of these sub-$300 printers every year. And not just HP branded ones!
You know that every other manufacturer in this market segment is going to attempt this stunt. It'd be more constructive to explain to your friends that buying one these things is penny-wise and pound-foolish, especially if they do a lot of printing. Even a low-end color laser still has half the cost per-page, and can use less expensive paper without sacrificing quality. You may also want to explain that those cartridge "recycling" programs aren't; Heaven only knows where those cartridges end up [landfill], but the point is that they aren't in the hands of companies that can refill and resell.
HP knowns it's got a good thing going here, so I seriously doubt they're going to show a competent CEO to the exit. Also, it's a stretch to imagine this is Sherman Anti-trust territory. You can always go out and buy some other type of printer (laser, dye sub) where the cost is front-loaded instead of in the consumables.
...but I don't understand this question. The outsourcing deal has gone bad when the subcontractor has failed to deliver on any one of the specifications that should have been part of the contract. Any sort of work should be delivered around a solid set of specifications, a time of delivery, and an agreed cost. If the time of delivery has come, and it's either not meeting the specs or is over cost, then don't pay. They can take you to court, but your company has the contract, right?
Unless of course you don't have a signed contract, had either non-existant or ambiguous specifications or had an open-ended project schedule. In which case your options are either pay them for the work so far and split, or continue paying in the hopes that it is done at some point.
Hey, I'd take that even if the the pretense is "lol Americans are fat lol". The typical airliner is apparently arranged with the thought that the typical airliner passenger is only five feet tall. Since I'm 6'3", any flight longer than 2 hours becomes very uncomfortable, (imagine balancing on your kneecaps for two hours - that's what it feels like to be shoehorned in one of these things).
Regardless, I hope that any company that buys these jets bans the elderly from boarding them, because it currently takes about 45 minutes to board a 767 because of courtesy rules about boarding order.
p.s. So when does the A380 add-on for Microsoft FS2004 come out?:o)
A much better argument could be made for OTHER practical radio skills that have much more widespread application nowadays, and help support the basis and purpose of the amateur service. How about requiring prospective hams to be able to solder a PL-259 plug onto a length of coax? Or read a schematic? Identify a group of assorted electronic components? Or use a multimeter? Or build a simple wire dipole antenna?
My insistence on a minimum amount of keying skill doesn't exlude what you're talking about here. In other words, I completely agree with your proposed requirements as well. Shouldn't a good test for an aspiring licensee for a "higher" class of license include reading a simple schematic and building a functioning radio device from it? Even if it's just a receiver.
I think the CW requirement was reduced due to lower numbers of license applicants, not simply because it was obsolete. Therein lies the problem with your grand plans and mine: Although the greater requirements are entirely practical, and provably so, it would probably be too much trouble for volunteer testers to administer, and since the current crop of "appliance operators" (I love your term) are simply there to push buttons, such extensive testing would probably kill the hobby in a couple decades.
In an emergency, a ham who knows enough electronic theory and practice to jury-rig a station onto the air would be a LOT more useful than an appliance operator who can pound brass at 20 WPM.
Hmm, I don't see how you can separate the two. Your best bet for "getting out" with a low-power ad hoc transmitter is to use CW. I've seen some simple AM projects, but not that simple.
Anyway, call me irrational, but I think the elimination of testing one of the core skills in amateur radio marks the beginning of the end for this hobby. Everything is VHF/UHF appliances with all the bells and whistles. That isn't interesting to me, and doesn't strike me as keeping with Hams' resourceful spirit of the past. I can no longer find any decent VHF/UHF AM/SSB kits, and I think that's a bad sign. I particularly enjoy building antennas, and I got a blank stare from a fellow Ham when I questioned why he put down so much money for a prefab one.
Well, thanks for being my audience, I feel a little better now that I've vented my frustrations.:o)
Yeah, but where's the fun in doing only the bare minimum? I remember when 13 wpm was a reasonable expectation. But hey, you're losing out if you don't learn it. You can transmit and receive further and on less power with CW.
Doesn't anyone like a challenge anymore? It is all about buying multi-thousand-dollar Japanese rigs, prefab antennas and high-power amps? Where's the fun in that? You might as well just get a mobile phone.
How did the federal government abridge free speech in this instance?
p.s. Yeah, that was entirely ridiculous. And it was done for publicity reasons. And all those idiots who couldn't stop talking about it were just helping it along, therefore having the exact opposite of their intended effect.
Your constitutional right makes clear that the federal government can't abridge your right to speak your mind, especially about "grievance" with your government. It doesn't say you have access to megawatt broadcasts for nothing. And there is a free non-censored medium: Hoofing it and talking to people face-to-face. Second to that, I'll take the Internet. While it isn't free, it's damn cheap, and arguably more relevant than TV or radio.
Also, you contends that "we don't really even support" free speech. I can't think of any outstandingly unconstitutional abridgements of free speech besides The Sedition Act and the Feingold-McCain campaign finance reform bill, one of which was repealed. Clue me in here, please.
Absolutely, that's why I mentioned "vendorlock". It's a crack at proprietary, non-standards-conformant, mess-ware that can scarcely be supported on a single architecture.
The Itanium is a server based processor, Windows XP is a consumer and workstation based operating system. This move doesn't seem too horribly suprising.
I think it is. Itanium workstations aren't much use without an OS. Considering how much an Itanium processor costs, I'd be mad as hell at Microsoft. Imagine soaking up the $700 price difference between XP Pro and WS2003 just to have access to a supported OS with regular patches.
Ah well, eventually IT managers will learn the meaning of "vendorlock".
I see this type of thing all too frequently in my government job too. Only a drooling moron manager would believe that Taylor-style micromanagement is going to improve the quality or speed of a job that is so complex. My guess is that the guy was expensive, and they were looking to get rid of him.
The best way to do it is what I call "piling". It's basically sabotage. The manager gives the employee more/impossible work. We're all human, we have limits for endurance. Even if the employee makes his quota, there's a good chance his work is going to be subpar.
So it's a lose-lose situation for the employee. I'd bet some senior manager took a walk down to HR one day and saw the 6+ digit figure they paid the guy for relocation costs, and made the decision to try and force him out without obligation for unemployement or severence.
It also didn't help that the rest of the guys team was working 16-18 hour days and he wasn't. Not saying that he was somehow "asking for it", but I'm sure his secret antagonist was using this as justification for further piling.
p.s. I'm union. It's both good and bad. I don't think the software industry should be unionized, but some of these companies are just asking for it.
I have the preload already. It was only about 1 GB, but I can see where that's large enough to be at least the core game. As far as the game note being ready, there are a bunch of torrents floating around that are supposedly *not* the beta, but the final release. Those are almost 1.2 GB is size, so I'm doubtful that those are the real deal. But what I'm wondering is: Have any of you scurvy dogs grabbed the torrent and tried it?
Can we get a "Bizzarro" category for some of these patent stories? Only in such an alternate world would a patent on these things be granted. I believe voice comm was standard in Half-Life multiplayer in 1998, but please feel free to correct me on that one. Everything else is a logical extension of networked gaming since Quake came with TCP/IP support. I don't care if the patent specifies home gaming consoles. What's the difference? Both PCs and console are computers used to play games.
There needs to be a way to challenge junk patents. The problem is that a single company can't do it alone. I think it's time to look at some type clause whereby a class of potentially effected people can challenge a patent on the grounds that the idea is obvious. We're all going to end up paying when the cost of software developers defending against this nonsense gets worked into the prices of their products. Might as well nip it in the bud.
How about this: Anyone who is getting really worked up about this is being hyper-sensitive. I doubt Kerry's going to come out and say, "this is the kind of support we need!" So, it's not going to switch any party affiliations overnight. It's little more than a nuisance.
This election season, I'm going to keep my eye on the ball. I'm entertained by the spirited discussions about which candidate is better falling off a bike, better at getting botox injections, which is richer, or which has the shakiest military service record. But what it really comes down to performance. Who did what, and why, or who didn't do what, and why.
Interpretting voting records is the tricky part, and "The Media" isn't going to cover it; it's "boring" stuff - compared to famous people falling off bicycles, which is news we can all use! I love it when one side uses the opposing candidate's voting record to sling mud. As if there's some type of regulation that says Bills can only contain one clearly defined item. Both sides get a lot of mileage out of this. For example, let's say I'm a Republic candidate from Connecticut, and gun issues are the hot topic. Let's say I voted for the Brady Law, and that is currently being used as ammunition against me in the Southern states. It could be interpretted that I'm anti-gun, but on the other hand, maybe I voted for it because of the National Instant Check System provision, because it takes the pressure off my state and local police for doing background checks. Maybe I also didn't mind the two week waiting period provision, because it was already State law in Connecticut for years. Is it excusable? Sure it is, my previous record has to be viewed in the light that I was looking out for what's best in my state. Not so black and white, is it?
Wouldn't it be great if you could switch on some cable news channel and see a reporter interviewing a candidate, and asking questions like, "so what is your stance on issue 'X', and what part of Bill #1234 made you vote against it?" Yeah right, that'll happen. It's going to be the same thing as in 2000. The "undecided" voters are going to watch/listen to the news, and just vote for the candidate they perceive as already winning, (let's be honest, they aren't undecided, they just vote for the most popular guy because they lack critical thinking skills). All this against a backdrop of, "OLOLOLOL KERRY JUST FELL OFF HIS SNOWBOARD!"
Don't know about where you live, but around here, public schools get about 56% of our municipal budget, while the military gets 0%. Public schools also receive funding from the state, and again, the military does not. But, we've been pouring money into public schools for a century. There doesn't appear to be any strong link between funding and student performance, unless the funding amount is below the minimum operating budget. Let's stop saying that lack of funds is the problem, and start concentrating on the management of those funds.
No, you completely missed larger parts of their purpose, some allegedly penned by bin Laden himself. The Jihad isn't going to be over until the Egyptians are dead, the Jews are dead, and all foreign interests leave Saudi Arabia. And that may yet be only the beginning, since the article also mentions their intention to expand Islamic Fundamentalism and Islamic law throughout Asia. Face it, there's no simple solution, and every action probably has two or more seemingly contradictory consequences.
They obviously didn't fully expect that Afghanistan would be invaded. Note that they used one-time pads when strong crypto was needed for distance communications. So much of crypto export controls: The century-old unbreakable crypto scheme is already in use by "terrorists".
I picked up on that bit about the Ba'ath Party immediately. Contrary to the view that Bush is currently attempting to defend, there really doesn't appear to be a solid link between the Jihadis and Saddam's regime, which I've admittedly found very confusing, (yes lefties, I know, "duh"). In fact, that quote gives us what appears to be logical thinking with regards to how the Islamic Fundies feel: That Saddam is a just a big troublemaker. And that makes a whole lot of sense, because the Ba'ath party was Westernized, and would understandably be labeled an enemy of religious fundamentalism. That makes Bush's actions either profoundly stupid, or incredibly sly. That is, if his intent was to eliminate a foe of Islamic Fundamentalists in order to gain popular support.
That must have been a difficult one for the Jihadis to deal with. On one hand, you've got Ba'athist troublemaker that kills and tortures Muslims. On the other hand, he's also making a joke out of the liberal, meddling UN. I must have lost track, somewhere between 2001 and now, the United States' grievance against Saddam turned from failure to adhere to UN resolutions, to supporting Jihadis. That's a book's worth of research right there.
Another interesting point is what I call the "body count". In order to keep it "legal" with respect to Islam, they're keeping track of combatant and non-combatant casualties and losses. Presumably, the more non-combatants killed in Iraq, the more justified will be attacks on US soil against her non-combatants. Apparently the Jihadis want lots of Iraqi non-combatants in the line of fire, because it will justify the deaths of Westerners that aren't soldiers. At any rate, with between 4 and 10 million in the "count", the Jihad won't be over any time soon.
I'm surprised, though, that the author glanced over the topic of chemical and biological warfare, while admitting that the files contained some detailed information. I always had a problem with Bush using the term "stockpile" when refering to the alleged weapons that Saddam possessed. It gives the wrong idea. You can't "stockpile" biological and chemical agents, because they have a relatively short shelf life (compared to conventional explosives). However, the delivery mechanisms can be "stockpiled", such as medium-range missles and warheads designed to deploy such agents. A lab is what they should be looking for, not a big bunker full of barrels. But that's neither here no there, because the real labs apparently were funded and built outside of Iraq, and without the help of Saddam.
There's more here than I will allow myself to comment on. I sincerely hope this fellow decides to publish this (with a lot more detail) in book form. Surely worth a read, because it's some of the best information available to the general public. I predict that such a book would be selectively quoted in the US by both sides of the aisle, but at least we could have a look for ourselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Well if it wasn't broken, why did they change it to begin with?
If it's not an agenda, the author is making a rather obvious and silly mistake. The actual illegal activity is not conducted through IRC, so it is definitely false.
Well - by your own admission - I guess per-trip is the most logical metric, not miles traveled. Anyway, it makes sense because exposure to risk is measured in time, not distance. The longer you're in a more risk-prone environment, the more likely you are to encounter danger.
Think again about the IRC example: If a user DCC-transfers a 150MB illegally copied file, has he committed more crime than if he DCC-transfers a 15MB illegally copied file? Both represent one instance of an illegal activity, but by one metric, the first is ten times more illegal than the second?
What's the source for this data? Mine is "The Economics of Public Issues (Airline Safety)", 2001 edition.
p.s. This is why I ride the school bus and wear a tinfoil hat to keep out the cosmic rays.
Don't fall for this trick! The folks conducting the study had a hunch, and looked for the specific metric that would make their case. The case being that IRC is worthless because it's mostly used for illegal activities.
Obviously large file transfers are going to consume more bandwidth than casual chatting. But what about other metrics? How about if they counted the number of human users on IRC performing illegal activities versus those users that are just there to communicate? How about if it counted the number of connected hours used for legal communication as opposed to number of connected hours used to initiate DCC transfers (not monitored or controlled by IRC ops) of illegally copied material? My guess is that the study would show the opposite result.
It's just like the old statistic that airline travel is the safest. You'll hear that quoted a lot, but no one ever mentions the metric. It just so happens the metric is "safest per mile traveled." An airliner designed to go long distances at 550 mph obviously has the advantage here. Compare it by number of individual trips or hours spent traveling, and it turns out that the chance of fatality is about the same (or more).
I don't understand why this is such a touchy subject. HP is only doing this because their printers are the "loss leader" so to speak. Consumers have overwhelmingly shown their approval of the "get 'em on the consumables" business model because they buy scads of these sub-$300 printers every year. And not just HP branded ones!
You know that every other manufacturer in this market segment is going to attempt this stunt. It'd be more constructive to explain to your friends that buying one these things is penny-wise and pound-foolish, especially if they do a lot of printing. Even a low-end color laser still has half the cost per-page, and can use less expensive paper without sacrificing quality. You may also want to explain that those cartridge "recycling" programs aren't; Heaven only knows where those cartridges end up [landfill], but the point is that they aren't in the hands of companies that can refill and resell.
HP knowns it's got a good thing going here, so I seriously doubt they're going to show a competent CEO to the exit. Also, it's a stretch to imagine this is Sherman Anti-trust territory. You can always go out and buy some other type of printer (laser, dye sub) where the cost is front-loaded instead of in the consumables.
...but I don't understand this question. The outsourcing deal has gone bad when the subcontractor has failed to deliver on any one of the specifications that should have been part of the contract. Any sort of work should be delivered around a solid set of specifications, a time of delivery, and an agreed cost. If the time of delivery has come, and it's either not meeting the specs or is over cost, then don't pay. They can take you to court, but your company has the contract, right?
Unless of course you don't have a signed contract, had either non-existant or ambiguous specifications or had an open-ended project schedule. In which case your options are either pay them for the work so far and split, or continue paying in the hopes that it is done at some point.
Hey, I'd take that even if the the pretense is "lol Americans are fat lol". The typical airliner is apparently arranged with the thought that the typical airliner passenger is only five feet tall. Since I'm 6'3", any flight longer than 2 hours becomes very uncomfortable, (imagine balancing on your kneecaps for two hours - that's what it feels like to be shoehorned in one of these things).
:o)
Regardless, I hope that any company that buys these jets bans the elderly from boarding them, because it currently takes about 45 minutes to board a 767 because of courtesy rules about boarding order.
p.s. So when does the A380 add-on for Microsoft FS2004 come out?
My insistence on a minimum amount of keying skill doesn't exlude what you're talking about here. In other words, I completely agree with your proposed requirements as well. Shouldn't a good test for an aspiring licensee for a "higher" class of license include reading a simple schematic and building a functioning radio device from it? Even if it's just a receiver.
I think the CW requirement was reduced due to lower numbers of license applicants, not simply because it was obsolete. Therein lies the problem with your grand plans and mine: Although the greater requirements are entirely practical, and provably so, it would probably be too much trouble for volunteer testers to administer, and since the current crop of "appliance operators" (I love your term) are simply there to push buttons, such extensive testing would probably kill the hobby in a couple decades.
Hmm, I don't see how you can separate the two. Your best bet for "getting out" with a low-power ad hoc transmitter is to use CW. I've seen some simple AM projects, but not that simple.
Anyway, call me irrational, but I think the elimination of testing one of the core skills in amateur radio marks the beginning of the end for this hobby. Everything is VHF/UHF appliances with all the bells and whistles. That isn't interesting to me, and doesn't strike me as keeping with Hams' resourceful spirit of the past. I can no longer find any decent VHF/UHF AM/SSB kits, and I think that's a bad sign. I particularly enjoy building antennas, and I got a blank stare from a fellow Ham when I questioned why he put down so much money for a prefab one.
Well, thanks for being my audience, I feel a little better now that I've vented my frustrations.
Yeah, but where's the fun in doing only the bare minimum? I remember when 13 wpm was a reasonable expectation. But hey, you're losing out if you don't learn it. You can transmit and receive further and on less power with CW.
Doesn't anyone like a challenge anymore? It is all about buying multi-thousand-dollar Japanese rigs, prefab antennas and high-power amps? Where's the fun in that? You might as well just get a mobile phone.
How did the federal government abridge free speech in this instance?
p.s. Yeah, that was entirely ridiculous. And it was done for publicity reasons. And all those idiots who couldn't stop talking about it were just helping it along, therefore having the exact opposite of their intended effect.
Correction: "Contend", not "contends".
Your constitutional right makes clear that the federal government can't abridge your right to speak your mind, especially about "grievance" with your government. It doesn't say you have access to megawatt broadcasts for nothing. And there is a free non-censored medium: Hoofing it and talking to people face-to-face. Second to that, I'll take the Internet. While it isn't free, it's damn cheap, and arguably more relevant than TV or radio.
Also, you contends that "we don't really even support" free speech. I can't think of any outstandingly unconstitutional abridgements of free speech besides The Sedition Act and the Feingold-McCain campaign finance reform bill, one of which was repealed. Clue me in here, please.
Absolutely, that's why I mentioned "vendorlock". It's a crack at proprietary, non-standards-conformant, mess-ware that can scarcely be supported on a single architecture.
Fair enough?
I think it is. Itanium workstations aren't much use without an OS. Considering how much an Itanium processor costs, I'd be mad as hell at Microsoft. Imagine soaking up the $700 price difference between XP Pro and WS2003 just to have access to a supported OS with regular patches.
Ah well, eventually IT managers will learn the meaning of "vendorlock".
I see this type of thing all too frequently in my government job too. Only a drooling moron manager would believe that Taylor-style micromanagement is going to improve the quality or speed of a job that is so complex. My guess is that the guy was expensive, and they were looking to get rid of him.
The best way to do it is what I call "piling". It's basically sabotage. The manager gives the employee more/impossible work. We're all human, we have limits for endurance. Even if the employee makes his quota, there's a good chance his work is going to be subpar.
So it's a lose-lose situation for the employee. I'd bet some senior manager took a walk down to HR one day and saw the 6+ digit figure they paid the guy for relocation costs, and made the decision to try and force him out without obligation for unemployement or severence.
It also didn't help that the rest of the guys team was working 16-18 hour days and he wasn't. Not saying that he was somehow "asking for it", but I'm sure his secret antagonist was using this as justification for further piling.
p.s. I'm union. It's both good and bad. I don't think the software industry should be unionized, but some of these companies are just asking for it.
I have the preload already. It was only about 1 GB, but I can see where that's large enough to be at least the core game. As far as the game note being ready, there are a bunch of torrents floating around that are supposedly *not* the beta, but the final release. Those are almost 1.2 GB is size, so I'm doubtful that those are the real deal. But what I'm wondering is: Have any of you scurvy dogs grabbed the torrent and tried it?
Can we get a "Bizzarro" category for some of these patent stories? Only in such an alternate world would a patent on these things be granted. I believe voice comm was standard in Half-Life multiplayer in 1998, but please feel free to correct me on that one. Everything else is a logical extension of networked gaming since Quake came with TCP/IP support. I don't care if the patent specifies home gaming consoles. What's the difference? Both PCs and console are computers used to play games.
There needs to be a way to challenge junk patents. The problem is that a single company can't do it alone. I think it's time to look at some type clause whereby a class of potentially effected people can challenge a patent on the grounds that the idea is obvious. We're all going to end up paying when the cost of software developers defending against this nonsense gets worked into the prices of their products. Might as well nip it in the bud.
Eh...
How about this: Anyone who is getting really worked up about this is being hyper-sensitive. I doubt Kerry's going to come out and say, "this is the kind of support we need!" So, it's not going to switch any party affiliations overnight. It's little more than a nuisance.
This election season, I'm going to keep my eye on the ball. I'm entertained by the spirited discussions about which candidate is better falling off a bike, better at getting botox injections, which is richer, or which has the shakiest military service record. But what it really comes down to performance. Who did what, and why, or who didn't do what, and why.
Interpretting voting records is the tricky part, and "The Media" isn't going to cover it; it's "boring" stuff - compared to famous people falling off bicycles, which is news we can all use! I love it when one side uses the opposing candidate's voting record to sling mud. As if there's some type of regulation that says Bills can only contain one clearly defined item. Both sides get a lot of mileage out of this. For example, let's say I'm a Republic candidate from Connecticut, and gun issues are the hot topic. Let's say I voted for the Brady Law, and that is currently being used as ammunition against me in the Southern states. It could be interpretted that I'm anti-gun, but on the other hand, maybe I voted for it because of the National Instant Check System provision, because it takes the pressure off my state and local police for doing background checks. Maybe I also didn't mind the two week waiting period provision, because it was already State law in Connecticut for years. Is it excusable? Sure it is, my previous record has to be viewed in the light that I was looking out for what's best in my state. Not so black and white, is it?
Wouldn't it be great if you could switch on some cable news channel and see a reporter interviewing a candidate, and asking questions like, "so what is your stance on issue 'X', and what part of Bill #1234 made you vote against it?" Yeah right, that'll happen. It's going to be the same thing as in 2000. The "undecided" voters are going to watch/listen to the news, and just vote for the candidate they perceive as already winning, (let's be honest, they aren't undecided, they just vote for the most popular guy because they lack critical thinking skills). All this against a backdrop of, "OLOLOLOL KERRY JUST FELL OFF HIS SNOWBOARD!"
Wow, that's got me convinced. I'm going to go down right now and change my party affiliation to Democrat.
(do I really need sarcasm tags here?)
Don't know about where you live, but around here, public schools get about 56% of our municipal budget, while the military gets 0%. Public schools also receive funding from the state, and again, the military does not. But, we've been pouring money into public schools for a century. There doesn't appear to be any strong link between funding and student performance, unless the funding amount is below the minimum operating budget. Let's stop saying that lack of funds is the problem, and start concentrating on the management of those funds.
No, you completely missed larger parts of their purpose, some allegedly penned by bin Laden himself. The Jihad isn't going to be over until the Egyptians are dead, the Jews are dead, and all foreign interests leave Saudi Arabia. And that may yet be only the beginning, since the article also mentions their intention to expand Islamic Fundamentalism and Islamic law throughout Asia. Face it, there's no simple solution, and every action probably has two or more seemingly contradictory consequences.
They obviously didn't fully expect that Afghanistan would be invaded. Note that they used one-time pads when strong crypto was needed for distance communications. So much of crypto export controls: The century-old unbreakable crypto scheme is already in use by "terrorists".
No. As the author explains, money was always a big issue. The computer was a shared item.
I picked up on that bit about the Ba'ath Party immediately. Contrary to the view that Bush is currently attempting to defend, there really doesn't appear to be a solid link between the Jihadis and Saddam's regime, which I've admittedly found very confusing, (yes lefties, I know, "duh"). In fact, that quote gives us what appears to be logical thinking with regards to how the Islamic Fundies feel: That Saddam is a just a big troublemaker. And that makes a whole lot of sense, because the Ba'ath party was Westernized, and would understandably be labeled an enemy of religious fundamentalism. That makes Bush's actions either profoundly stupid, or incredibly sly. That is, if his intent was to eliminate a foe of Islamic Fundamentalists in order to gain popular support.
That must have been a difficult one for the Jihadis to deal with. On one hand, you've got Ba'athist troublemaker that kills and tortures Muslims. On the other hand, he's also making a joke out of the liberal, meddling UN. I must have lost track, somewhere between 2001 and now, the United States' grievance against Saddam turned from failure to adhere to UN resolutions, to supporting Jihadis. That's a book's worth of research right there.
Another interesting point is what I call the "body count". In order to keep it "legal" with respect to Islam, they're keeping track of combatant and non-combatant casualties and losses. Presumably, the more non-combatants killed in Iraq, the more justified will be attacks on US soil against her non-combatants. Apparently the Jihadis want lots of Iraqi non-combatants in the line of fire, because it will justify the deaths of Westerners that aren't soldiers. At any rate, with between 4 and 10 million in the "count", the Jihad won't be over any time soon.
I'm surprised, though, that the author glanced over the topic of chemical and biological warfare, while admitting that the files contained some detailed information. I always had a problem with Bush using the term "stockpile" when refering to the alleged weapons that Saddam possessed. It gives the wrong idea. You can't "stockpile" biological and chemical agents, because they have a relatively short shelf life (compared to conventional explosives). However, the delivery mechanisms can be "stockpiled", such as medium-range missles and warheads designed to deploy such agents. A lab is what they should be looking for, not a big bunker full of barrels. But that's neither here no there, because the real labs apparently were funded and built outside of Iraq, and without the help of Saddam.
There's more here than I will allow myself to comment on. I sincerely hope this fellow decides to publish this (with a lot more detail) in book form. Surely worth a read, because it's some of the best information available to the general public. I predict that such a book would be selectively quoted in the US by both sides of the aisle, but at least we could have a look for ourselves.