When the gauge is how many Americans have died or been maimed because of the war, yes.
Now, if it is a gauge of how many innocent people are killed or maimed, then no and that is largely a reason why we chose to fight that way.
But please, by all means, jump in and change the metrics of the conversation in order to impress your point. I mean it's not like the GP didn't directly compared the loss of US soldiers to the loss of people in the 9/11 attacks or anything. Oh wait, yes he did.
We attacked Iraq despite there being no link to 9/11. If we wanted to punish the country responsible for 9/11 we would have invaded Saudi Arabia since 15 of the 19 terrorists were Saudis. We didn't attack Iraq because of WMDs. Other countries have active WMD programs and weapons, but the Iraqis had neither. Even supporters of the war have largely stopped trying to use 9/11 and WMDs as rationales for the war and shifted instead to liberating the Iraqis from Hussein. However there are dictators all over the world, some of whom are worse than Hussein. Yet we didn't attack them, we attacked Iraq. The question is why, and only Bush, Cheney, and high ranking members of his administration know the answer.
We invaded Iraq because of 9/11 not because Iraq was behind 9/11. Iraq certainly did have ties to the Taliban and did actively and openly support terrorist groups. We have records of wounded taliban and al qaeda soldiers being treated in Iraq for wounds received in battle in Afghanistan. We have public statements of Saddam offering the families of suicide bombers a 25k pension for losing their sons and daughters.
Anyways, back to the because of 9/11. I know bush was not the most articulate person in the world. But he made it clear to anyone caring to listen that in the shadow of 9/11, we couldn't sit by and wait for something to happen trying to stop it before reacting as was largely the practice before. instead, we needed to take out potential threats before they became real threats. The entire WMDs revolved around Saddam's purposeful manipulation of information that made UNSCOM reports appear like he was hiding things as well as making neighboring nations think he still had a WMD program. After saddam's capture, he admitted that he had no WMD program but wanted it to appear as so because he feared all the neighboring countries he had pissed off over the years would see them as weak and invade if they publicly acknowledge they no longer had them. Bush said because we cannot confirm, we must assume and we can't take the risk. Cheney was convinced they were still there and the programs were still active.
So because of 9/11, we invaded Iraq not because Iraq was behind 9/11, but because they posed a substantial risk to the US through their connections to terrorists and this unconfirmed WMDs. Because 9/11 happened, the policy was adopted that best way to avoid another is to stop countries from harboring, supplying, and aiding terrorist groups. Iraq fit that description.
The problem isn't the war, it is in how it is being fought. We didn't go to war in Afghanistan with the intention of beating the country, we went in trying to preserve it and change its leadership to one that wouldn't harbor terrorist bent on harming us.
We certainly could have went in with WWII style annihilation and occupied what was left of the country afterwards. But we made the same mistake the Russians have and attempted to preserve the majority of the country and instal a friendlier government.
I think you are missing the point. The answer to what was Germany's success was never answered, the reporter/commentator just went off on how access to the sun makes a difference then compared California to the north east. No real comparison to the amount of sun Germany gets compared to the US happened. That was inferred by a website wanting to inject something.
I think maybe this question should be asked of slate.
Despite this being loaded with wording signifying it ai a political rant, I watched the video and it doesn't seem to say what the article says. In the video, the question was asked about why it works for Germany and not the US, the answer was, it's the sun it doesn't work as well on a cloudy day, it works well in California and not so good in the north east.
That is not an incorrect statement even though it skips the entire question of why it different in Germany.
Nah, it wasn't over with that. Laptops are funny with their somewhat dedicated and slightly modified hardware and there might be options that windows 7 drivers simply aren't available for. I've ran into this quite a bit when I have downgraded a laptops.
Sometimes you can find a reference driver from the manufacturer of the chipset and change a few things to recognize the version of windows you are using, and sometimes you spend more time then it is worth. It is almost easier to just go to a company that has a division dedicated to business and you will find laptops with several different windows versions. Usually it will have one you want but you are limited to the specs they offer.
And you keep on showing up. I've invited you to troll elsewhere many times. But you are like an annoying burger that you can't quite reach with your finger and blowing your nose is no help.
I posted the most inane idiotic reply I could to get you to move on, and here you are again. You are the troll, not me. But if it makes you feel better, then I'm trolling you too. So pack your butt hurt ass up, stop crying and clean yourself up and move along.
I don't think it is too bad. I'm going to use this for the router log in screen and expose it to the world.
Imagine how many script kiddies and infected drones will go down when they probe my ports and try to connect. I can imagine the look on their faces when they lose connection for trying to "hack" into someone's network.
I don't think adding a feature to a program that specifically allows the download of a specific file from a specific site will escape scrutiny as being the "user's" fault if the issue is ever pushed legally. TOS could apply if that were in fact true. However, I do not think it is.
What I would do, is change the wording that caused the ambiguity in the first place and avoid having some company and your users from becoming under the impression that you are using files from a specific program. It wouldn't take much to reword the article reference or to post a clarifying correction making sure that it is understood that the same information from a third party that one uses is used in the program instead of appearing like it takes the information from the program.
"it can import all of CCleanerÃ(TM)s cleaning locations"
Read that again. The entire paragraph with emphasis on that portion of the sentence makes it sound as if the file is downloaded from ccleaner hosted at piriform. That would be a TOS and likely copyright if true.
But I think it is semantics bogging the boat down here. Should that be reworded to, "it can use the same cleaning locations that ccleaner uses", I do not think this would have happened.
Actually, it would matter where the file comes from. If piriform adds to it in its implementation, you have copyright issues. But the only distribution restrictions I can find on it is to link to the current form to ensure it is up to date. If piriform stays a version out of date to make sure changes are tested before being added, then their sites TOS could prohibit downloading just the list and not the complete product. In fact, it might be something exactly like that because they think in imports ccleaner data, not a list from a third party site. See "feature which enables users to import CCleaner data into your program" in the complaint.
It looks to be a misunderstanding from how the page is worded. "Bleachbit takes advantage of this as it can import all of CCleanerâ(TM)s cleaning locations" implies that it is taking the data directly from ccleaner, not the same source for the same data points ccleaner uses.
They aren't saying you can't use the data file, they seem to be saying you can't import it from their program on their site which does make a big difference. Again, assuming he is importing it from the winapi site, it is a misunderstanding based on poor wording of a third party hosted advertisement.
Actually, when I read the link in the complaint letter, it appeared that the file being used was being extracted from the CCleaner/piriform itself.
When you read "It has come to our attention that your software BleachBit includes a feature which enables users to import CCleaner data into your program:" just before reading the site it is linked to, you get that impression when you read "Bleachbit takes advantage of this as it can import all of CCleanerâ(TM)s cleaning locations".
I think this is a mistake on piriform's end in part if not all because of the explanation of the file being the same data ccleaner uses.
Then again, according to piriform's TOS, they consider linking to the site to be covered and the name ccleaner part of their trademark that is also covered by it.
Maybe because the wording sounds possessive as in belongs to something. Bill's ball is blue is possessive making seem like a blue ball is bills.
The 's is the real giveaway. But when looking a third and fourth time, it looks like the statements can be read several ways. I believe this is a mistake based around unclear wording and quick reading missing the details.
Because unencrypted or not, the copyright might have some specific exceptions to permissions and it might not allow it to be downloaded automatically for use in other programs. Then again it might specifically allow it making the request pretty much a non starter.
The ToS or license file would have a lot of information that could very well end this without any further action or with simple action like maybe credit for the part in some obvious place.
My understanding is this thing isn't built to circumvent copyrights. Ebooks do not have to be listed at certain sites in order for the copyright to remain valid. You could have an Ebook which is little more then an organized collection of man pages and howto hosted by a software site. It is built to use regularly distributed content as well as irregularly distributed content at the users discretion.
I don't think that is universally true unless the person has never been around black people. To fix this though, I would suggest not dressing like a gansta, not flashing gansta signs and trying to pretend to be all gansta, talk normal. and replace the cop with someone who has a fucking clue.
Art imitating reality or reality providing useful art?
Or is there a difference? My guess is that if you want to look like a scary thug, people will tend to treat you like a scary thug. If you don't want to be singled out, then don't do things to single you out.
How about propping up depressions to only appear as recessions doesn't make it not one to those in the lower half of the economy. If the current system is failing, propping it up to save grace for the wealthy doesn't appear to be a smart idea.
His plight doesn't seem to be with outdated or new and advancing technology, it is with being able to get access to those parts when it fails and he wants to repair them.
That would make your statement more like, if horse upkeep people couldn't get access to starters and alternators or tires, much we'd never have cars either. It doesn't make sense now does it?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if you ever heard this, but everything is bigger in Texas. I'm surprised that you are surprised.
Hey, quick question. Do you know how to tell if someone is from Texas? You don't have to, just let him talk long enough and he will tell you.
When the gauge is how many Americans have died or been maimed because of the war, yes.
Now, if it is a gauge of how many innocent people are killed or maimed, then no and that is largely a reason why we chose to fight that way.
But please, by all means, jump in and change the metrics of the conversation in order to impress your point. I mean it's not like the GP didn't directly compared the loss of US soldiers to the loss of people in the 9/11 attacks or anything. Oh wait, yes he did.
We invaded Iraq because of 9/11 not because Iraq was behind 9/11. Iraq certainly did have ties to the Taliban and did actively and openly support terrorist groups. We have records of wounded taliban and al qaeda soldiers being treated in Iraq for wounds received in battle in Afghanistan. We have public statements of Saddam offering the families of suicide bombers a 25k pension for losing their sons and daughters.
Anyways, back to the because of 9/11. I know bush was not the most articulate person in the world. But he made it clear to anyone caring to listen that in the shadow of 9/11, we couldn't sit by and wait for something to happen trying to stop it before reacting as was largely the practice before. instead, we needed to take out potential threats before they became real threats. The entire WMDs revolved around Saddam's purposeful manipulation of information that made UNSCOM reports appear like he was hiding things as well as making neighboring nations think he still had a WMD program. After saddam's capture, he admitted that he had no WMD program but wanted it to appear as so because he feared all the neighboring countries he had pissed off over the years would see them as weak and invade if they publicly acknowledge they no longer had them. Bush said because we cannot confirm, we must assume and we can't take the risk. Cheney was convinced they were still there and the programs were still active.
So because of 9/11, we invaded Iraq not because Iraq was behind 9/11, but because they posed a substantial risk to the US through their connections to terrorists and this unconfirmed WMDs. Because 9/11 happened, the policy was adopted that best way to avoid another is to stop countries from harboring, supplying, and aiding terrorist groups. Iraq fit that description.
The problem isn't the war, it is in how it is being fought. We didn't go to war in Afghanistan with the intention of beating the country, we went in trying to preserve it and change its leadership to one that wouldn't harbor terrorist bent on harming us.
We certainly could have went in with WWII style annihilation and occupied what was left of the country afterwards. But we made the same mistake the Russians have and attempted to preserve the majority of the country and instal a friendlier government.
I think you are missing the point. The answer to what was Germany's success was never answered, the reporter/commentator just went off on how access to the sun makes a difference then compared California to the north east. No real comparison to the amount of sun Germany gets compared to the US happened. That was inferred by a website wanting to inject something.
I think maybe this question should be asked of slate.
Despite this being loaded with wording signifying it ai a political rant, I watched the video and it doesn't seem to say what the article says. In the video, the question was asked about why it works for Germany and not the US, the answer was, it's the sun it doesn't work as well on a cloudy day, it works well in California and not so good in the north east.
That is not an incorrect statement even though it skips the entire question of why it different in Germany.
lol.. troll, I was done talking to you about anything constructive a long time ago. Go troll elsewhere.
Nah, it wasn't over with that. Laptops are funny with their somewhat dedicated and slightly modified hardware and there might be options that windows 7 drivers simply aren't available for. I've ran into this quite a bit when I have downgraded a laptops.
Sometimes you can find a reference driver from the manufacturer of the chipset and change a few things to recognize the version of windows you are using, and sometimes you spend more time then it is worth. It is almost easier to just go to a company that has a division dedicated to business and you will find laptops with several different windows versions. Usually it will have one you want but you are limited to the specs they offer.
And you keep on showing up. I've invited you to troll elsewhere many times. But you are like an annoying burger that you can't quite reach with your finger and blowing your nose is no help.
I posted the most inane idiotic reply I could to get you to move on, and here you are again. You are the troll, not me. But if it makes you feel better, then I'm trolling you too. So pack your butt hurt ass up, stop crying and clean yourself up and move along.
Troll troll troll..lol trollol
http://goo.gl/W1bx
Too bad 3com isn't around any more. Well, not in any meaningful way. They used to rock this world.
I don't think it is too bad. I'm going to use this for the router log in screen and expose it to the world.
Imagine how many script kiddies and infected drones will go down when they probe my ports and try to connect. I can imagine the look on their faces when they lose connection for trying to "hack" into someone's network.
I don't think adding a feature to a program that specifically allows the download of a specific file from a specific site will escape scrutiny as being the "user's" fault if the issue is ever pushed legally. TOS could apply if that were in fact true. However, I do not think it is.
What I would do, is change the wording that caused the ambiguity in the first place and avoid having some company and your users from becoming under the impression that you are using files from a specific program. It wouldn't take much to reword the article reference or to post a clarifying correction making sure that it is understood that the same information from a third party that one uses is used in the program instead of appearing like it takes the information from the program.
"it can import all of CCleanerÃ(TM)s cleaning locations"
Read that again. The entire paragraph with emphasis on that portion of the sentence makes it sound as if the file is downloaded from ccleaner hosted at piriform. That would be a TOS and likely copyright if true.
But I think it is semantics bogging the boat down here. Should that be reworded to, "it can use the same cleaning locations that ccleaner uses", I do not think this would have happened.
Actually, it would matter where the file comes from. If piriform adds to it in its implementation, you have copyright issues. But the only distribution restrictions I can find on it is to link to the current form to ensure it is up to date. If piriform stays a version out of date to make sure changes are tested before being added, then their sites TOS could prohibit downloading just the list and not the complete product. In fact, it might be something exactly like that because they think in imports ccleaner data, not a list from a third party site. See "feature which enables users to import CCleaner data into your program" in the complaint.
It looks to be a misunderstanding from how the page is worded. "Bleachbit takes advantage of this as it can import all of CCleanerâ(TM)s cleaning locations" implies that it is taking the data directly from ccleaner, not the same source for the same data points ccleaner uses.
They aren't saying you can't use the data file, they seem to be saying you can't import it from their program on their site which does make a big difference. Again, assuming he is importing it from the winapi site, it is a misunderstanding based on poor wording of a third party hosted advertisement.
Actually, when I read the link in the complaint letter, it appeared that the file being used was being extracted from the CCleaner/piriform itself.
When you read "It has come to our attention that your software BleachBit includes a
feature which enables users to import CCleaner data into your program:" just before reading the site it is linked to, you get that impression when you read "Bleachbit takes advantage of this as it can import all of CCleanerâ(TM)s cleaning locations".
I think this is a mistake on piriform's end in part if not all because of the explanation of the file being the same data ccleaner uses.
Then again, according to piriform's TOS, they consider linking to the site to be covered and the name ccleaner part of their trademark that is also covered by it.
lol.. go back further then that troll.
trol.troll trol troll.....
Maybe because the wording sounds possessive as in belongs to something. Bill's ball is blue is possessive making seem like a blue ball is bills.
The 's is the real giveaway. But when looking a third and fourth time, it looks like the statements can be read several ways. I believe this is a mistake based around unclear wording and quick reading missing the details.
Because unencrypted or not, the copyright might have some specific exceptions to permissions and it might not allow it to be downloaded automatically for use in other programs. Then again it might specifically allow it making the request pretty much a non starter.
The ToS or license file would have a lot of information that could very well end this without any further action or with simple action like maybe credit for the part in some obvious place.
My understanding is this thing isn't built to circumvent copyrights. Ebooks do not have to be listed at certain sites in order for the copyright to remain valid. You could have an Ebook which is little more then an organized collection of man pages and howto hosted by a software site. It is built to use regularly distributed content as well as irregularly distributed content at the users discretion.
I don't think that is universally true unless the person has never been around black people. To fix this though, I would suggest not dressing like a gansta, not flashing gansta signs and trying to pretend to be all gansta, talk normal. and replace the cop with someone who has a fucking clue.
Art imitating reality or reality providing useful art?
Or is there a difference?
My guess is that if you want to look like a scary thug, people will tend to treat you like a scary thug. If you don't want to be singled out, then don't do things to single you out.
Look retard, you started with the names long before I did. So try to troll a little better next time.
How about propping up depressions to only appear as recessions doesn't make it not one to those in the lower half of the economy. If the current system is failing, propping it up to save grace for the wealthy doesn't appear to be a smart idea.
His plight doesn't seem to be with outdated or new and advancing technology, it is with being able to get access to those parts when it fails and he wants to repair them.
That would make your statement more like, if horse upkeep people couldn't get access to starters and alternators or tires, much we'd never have cars either. It doesn't make sense now does it?