Most revealing about Kerry's ability is his debate with John O'Neill, a fellow Vietnam vet who felt that Kerry was doing a disservice to other soldiers by testifying against the war. It was on the Dick Cavat show around 71, and you may have heard Kerry's reply ("You have heard of the Geneva Convention, haven't you?") on some of the news networks. You can find it here: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic= KerryONeill.
The best part about this clip is the historical perspective it adds for us youngins. You may have heard of John Kerry's "unpopular anti-war stance" during Vietnam. In this debate - the same one that jackass Hannity uses to claim that Kerry admitted he "committed atrocities" - us kids can finally learn exactly what Kerry said. It might seem odd to those of us who grew up in the last 25 or so years to learn that Kerry and O'Neill are discussing whether atrocities occurred in Vietnam.
That's right - he was accused by John O'Neill of slandering soldiers for claiming they committed atrocities in Vietnam. Let's review:
1) My Lai was an atrocity committed in Vietnam, where soldiers murdered 500 civilians and a cover-up soon followed.
2) *Free-fire zones (where soldiers were to shoot anything that moved) and the "search and destroy" missions Kerry and other soldiers took part in (RTFA) are considered illegal under the Geneva Convention. Read here [http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/free-fir e-zone s.html] for more.
*This is the clip Hannity produces (produced? I stopped watching anything but C-SPAN months ago. They show the actual politicians talking about their ideas. Only children would be content with the pundits on cable news, with the exception of Neal Gabler on Fox News Watch. He's not in the media and is the only honest voice on Fox and all of cable news. For fuck's sake, they don't even discuss why we should agree with a policy on any level but the closest to the subject. How can we know what we think unless we seriously investigate concepts like duty and morality? Don't concepts such as those determine our ideas of what government should even attempt to solve? Watch more C-SPAN, and read while you do it).
3) American soldiers committed these acts.
CONCLUSION: American soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam, often with their commanding officers knowledge.
This is an essential point for anyone wanting to understand the (current) media, mainly because it's true, and we can compare it to what the they report. What have we heard?
Well, John Kerry's speech really demoralized the troops. He came back and starts talking about atrocities, and gosh, that can be a real bummer when you're involved in an Asian land war. Especially one fought despite intelligence that suggested little, if any, chance of victory. And Nixon was doing so well getting those troops out of there in a speedy manner that we should have trusted him to do the right thing, like LBJ. Or like Nixon eventually ended up doing (with respect to everything).
This gets better.
So, John Kerry was attacked for protesting the war. It seems he said Vietnam was a mistake and that soldiers committed atrocities. But we get bits and pieces of falsehoods, like Hannity's clips, the ribbons/medals debate (POINTLESS, THAT'S A SYMBOLIC ACTION YOU MORONS), people attacking him for "demoralizing the troops", comments from SBVFT that contradict their own previous comments about Kerry - some as recently as this year - and written testimony from nearly everyone else who was there. The only other officer alive who was in the river when Kerry earned his Bronze Star works as an editor for the Chicago Tribune. His account agrees with the record, and, indeed, the events described in every official file and by all but a handful of those who Kerry served with (quantifier: those who actually served in the same
Here is a game where you chase logos from the sites with your mouse, and if your cursor goes over them, they reload on the edges of the page.
Thing is, you can speed them up, and they automatically go towards your cursor. Even in the background (try it with a trillian window). And it's more addictive than you'd think.
Howstuffworks Entry on Space Burials
on
Space Burial
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I first read about this in Newsweek a few years ago. Tim Leary and Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry (I assume that's redundant here) already blasted off, as have a handful of others, including Princeton University physicist Gerard O'Neill, and SEDS and ISU co-founder Todd Hawley. The article
describes a 2001 mission:
"For the Encounter 2001 mission, Celestis will place cremated remains into personalized flight capsules that can hold approximately one-quarter ounce (7 grams) of ashes. They will then load these capsules into a canister attached to the upper stage engine. The Encounter 2001 will initially travel into Earth's geosynchronous transfer orbit, an orbit primarily used by communications satellites. When the craft reaches the optimal point in its orbit, ground control will send a command to fire the spacecraft's solid-fuel rocket motor, propelling the spacecraft towards Jupiter. About two years later, the tiny spaceship will fly by Jupiter, using the planet's gravity to propel itself outside the solar system."
Given that a typical funeral costs around $7,000, the price doesn't seem too steep. Save a little more, skip the visitation, and get yourself a rocket.
Even though many have disparaged the effects of IM on schoolchildrens' prose, some kids are actually becoming better writers by participating in online communities.
I don't get why people say this. You could claim that IM faciliates poor English, but I don't see this as an direct effect. How could a program turn words and structure into that s*** you find in chatrooms?
I think kids are just farking lazy. While IM allows them to write horrible sentences without being screeched at by teachers, implying that poor prose is caused by IM is a stretch. These are the kids who, don't know when to, use commas, or won't use the correct words, even if they're forced. IM just allows that trend to solidify into habit, since they're all chatting instead of watching TV or talking on the phone. Think about it: if computers didn't exist, when would these people write at all?
wold u disagre?
In high school, I offered a classmate (in the accelerated English class, mind you) the chance to break my physics bridge if he wrote a pro-choice paper, mainly because I was sick of hearing his Christian ramblings during class. I'm undecided on abortion, but I wanted to understand how someone like him would argue against his beliefs. I saw a perfect opportunity to challenge his arrogant moral zeal, the same flavor that makes the rest of the world hate us and makes me want to break his face. When I saw his draft, I almost cried. The writing was so unstructured that I could hardly understand anything. The kid couldn't conceptualize a thought he didn't agree with, much less express it in a quasi-coherent form.
When I started using IM, my anal-retentive friend would scream at me if I didn't include puncuation, or capitalize my sentences. Now, I can't stand when others don't do the same, and my writing has benefited tremendously. If I write a paper and check it once, I catch most errors, and figure out more effective ways to arrange sentences. Your ear will learn syntax and structure, even if you don't. Writing benefits writing, and the only harm inflicted by IM is allowing kids to write how they want. If you read any number of high school papers (my dad used to teach 10th-11th grade English), you'd understand. The difference between those papers and IMs? Well, they capitalize their sentences, and they're considerate enough to include periods.
It was reported that Apple was having trouble getting g5s into powerbook because of the immense heat dissipation and power consumption. But with the 90nm version of the chip, these problems *should* be solved.
IBM is already claiming a massive power cut. Check The Register. My advice? Certainly wait for the next product cycle, and if you can, wait for a second revision g5.
Who died and made Steve Forbes president?
Without context (read: tax bracket, state taxes, etcetcetc), that means nothing. Ever try and use planar geometric formulas on spheres?
-Oobob
Open source is about choice. People should be able to stay with Microsoft if they want to. Why does anyone still on Windows have to be pestered by a swarm of open source gnats about their choice of OS?
I agree - people should be able to choose what OS and programs they run, which is why I'm so against OSS ninjas sneaking in the labs and my house at night, installing their versions of the software I love to pay for.
When you say pestered, I think you mean exposed to. How many non-techies do you know who've heard about OpenOffice or Firebird? After introducing most of my friends to tabbed browsing and pop-up blocking, there was no need to fall back on any OSS rhetoric. They saw that the program had useful features and decided to use them instead of the MS alternative. And as a former English major, I can say that many a starving artist loved the idea of a free word processor.
The OpenCD project is more a drive to make OSS as accessable to people who aren't that interested in computers as the MS alternative. Since so many MS products are "essential" to Windows, most people are introduced to Windows Media Player, IE, and other proprietary programs before having a chance to check out the competition. Since they can use these immediately, why would they find an alternative, especially when that requires researching an area that they're not particularly interested in? The open cd provides more of a fair playing field. Sadly, since MS is so insistent on bundling everything they have to force out competition, there's still a long ways to go.
If you pick up great works of fine literature, you can easily find spelling and gramatical errors. The mistake that I missed was a single missing word.
As an aspiring fiction and poetry writing, I can assure you that publishers introduce the spelling errors. The gramatical errors are (99.9999% of the time) literary devices. After spending years learning the rules, these authors have earned the right to break them. Not to say you don't have a point - it's just a poor analogy.
Slashdot Mirror
Most revealing about Kerry's
ability is his debate with John O'Neill, a fellow Vietnam vet who felt that Kerry was doing
a disservice to other soldiers by testifying against the war. It was on the Dick
Cavat show around 71, and you may have heard Kerry's reply ("You have
heard of the Geneva Convention, haven't you?") on some of the news networks. You
can find it here: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic= KerryONeill.
The best part about this clip is the historical perspective it adds for us
youngins. You may have heard of John Kerry's "unpopular anti-war stance" during
Vietnam. In this debate - the same one that jackass Hannity uses to claim that
Kerry admitted he "committed atrocities" - us kids can finally learn exactly
what Kerry said. It might seem odd to those of us who grew up in the last 25 or
so years to learn that Kerry and O'Neill are discussing whether atrocities
occurred in Vietnam.
That's right - he was accused by John O'Neill of slandering soldiers for
claiming they committed atrocities in Vietnam. Let's review:
1) My Lai was an atrocity committed in Vietnam, where soldiers murdered 500
civilians and a cover-up soon followed.
2) *Free-fire zones (where soldiers were to shoot anything that moved) and the
"search and destroy" missions Kerry and other soldiers took part in (RTFA) are
considered illegal under the Geneva Convention. Read here
[http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/free-fir e-zone s.html] for more.
*This is the clip Hannity produces (produced? I stopped watching anything but
C-SPAN months ago. They show the actual politicians talking about their ideas.
Only children would be content with the pundits on cable news, with the
exception of Neal Gabler on Fox News Watch. He's not in the media and is the
only honest voice on Fox and all of cable news. For fuck's sake, they don't even
discuss why we should agree with a policy on any level but the closest to the
subject. How can we know what we think unless we seriously investigate concepts
like duty and morality? Don't concepts such as those determine our ideas of
what government should even attempt to solve? Watch more C-SPAN, and read while
you do it).
3) American soldiers committed these acts.
CONCLUSION: American soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam, often with their
commanding officers knowledge.
This is an essential point for anyone wanting to understand the (current) media,
mainly because it's true, and we can compare it to what the they report. What
have we heard?
Well, John Kerry's speech really demoralized the troops. He came back and starts
talking about atrocities, and gosh, that can be a real bummer when you're
involved in an Asian land war. Especially one fought despite intelligence that
suggested little, if any, chance of victory. And Nixon was doing so well
getting those troops out of there in a speedy manner that we should have trusted
him to do the right thing, like LBJ. Or like Nixon eventually ended up doing
(with respect to everything).
This gets better.
So, John Kerry was attacked for protesting the war. It seems he said Vietnam was
a mistake and that soldiers committed atrocities. But we get bits and pieces of
falsehoods, like Hannity's clips, the ribbons/medals debate (POINTLESS, THAT'S
A SYMBOLIC ACTION YOU MORONS), people attacking him for "demoralizing the
troops", comments from SBVFT that contradict their own previous comments about
Kerry - some as recently as this year - and written testimony from nearly
everyone else who was there. The only other officer alive who was in the river
when Kerry earned his Bronze Star works as an editor for the Chicago Tribune.
His account agrees with the record, and, indeed, the events described in every official
file and by all but a handful of those who Kerry served with (quantifier: those who
actually served in the same
Vlad once displayed a golden cup in the central square of Tirgoviste, ostensibly for thirsty travellers to drink from. It was never stolen.
-Oobob
Ewok made for TV movie announcments at 7 on a Friday night?
I work till 8. What's your excuse? -Oobob
Here is a game where you chase logos from the sites with your mouse, and if your cursor goes over them, they reload on the edges of the page.
Thing is, you can speed them up, and they automatically go towards your cursor. Even in the background (try it with a trillian window). And it's more addictive than you'd think.
I first read about this in Newsweek a few years ago. Tim Leary and Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry (I assume that's redundant here) already blasted off, as have a handful of others, including Princeton University physicist Gerard O'Neill, and SEDS and ISU co-founder Todd Hawley. The article describes a 2001 mission:
"For the Encounter 2001 mission, Celestis will place cremated remains into personalized flight capsules that can hold approximately one-quarter ounce (7 grams) of ashes. They will then load these capsules into a canister attached to the upper stage engine. The Encounter 2001 will initially travel into Earth's geosynchronous transfer orbit, an orbit primarily used by communications satellites. When the craft reaches the optimal point in its orbit, ground control will send a command to fire the spacecraft's solid-fuel rocket motor, propelling the spacecraft towards Jupiter. About two years later, the tiny spaceship will fly by Jupiter, using the planet's gravity to propel itself outside the solar system."
Given that a typical funeral costs around $7,000, the price doesn't seem too steep. Save a little more, skip the visitation, and get yourself a rocket.
-Oobob
Even though many have disparaged the effects of IM on schoolchildrens' prose, some kids are actually becoming better writers by participating in online communities.
I don't get why people say this. You could claim that IM faciliates poor English, but I don't see this as an direct effect. How could a program turn words and structure into that s*** you find in chatrooms?
I think kids are just farking lazy. While IM allows them to write horrible sentences without being screeched at by teachers, implying that poor prose is caused by IM is a stretch. These are the kids who, don't know when to, use commas, or won't use the correct words, even if they're forced. IM just allows that trend to solidify into habit, since they're all chatting instead of watching TV or talking on the phone. Think about it: if computers didn't exist, when would these people write at all?
wold u disagre?
In high school, I offered a classmate (in the accelerated English class, mind you) the chance to break my physics bridge if he wrote a pro-choice paper, mainly because I was sick of hearing his Christian ramblings during class. I'm undecided on abortion, but I wanted to understand how someone like him would argue against his beliefs. I saw a perfect opportunity to challenge his arrogant moral zeal, the same flavor that makes the rest of the world hate us and makes me want to break his face. When I saw his draft, I almost cried. The writing was so unstructured that I could hardly understand anything. The kid couldn't conceptualize a thought he didn't agree with, much less express it in a quasi-coherent form.
When I started using IM, my anal-retentive friend would scream at me if I didn't include puncuation, or capitalize my sentences. Now, I can't stand when others don't do the same, and my writing has benefited tremendously. If I write a paper and check it once, I catch most errors, and figure out more effective ways to arrange sentences. Your ear will learn syntax and structure, even if you don't. Writing benefits writing, and the only harm inflicted by IM is allowing kids to write how they want. If you read any number of high school papers (my dad used to teach 10th-11th grade English), you'd understand. The difference between those papers and IMs? Well, they capitalize their sentences, and they're considerate enough to include periods.
It was reported that Apple was having trouble getting g5s into powerbook because of the immense heat dissipation and power consumption. But with the 90nm version of the chip, these problems *should* be solved.
IBM is already claiming a massive power cut. Check The Register. My advice? Certainly wait for the next product cycle, and if you can, wait for a second revision g5.
Oobob
Who died and made Steve Forbes president? Without context (read: tax bracket, state taxes, etcetcetc), that means nothing. Ever try and use planar geometric formulas on spheres? -Oobob
Open source is about choice. People should be able to stay with Microsoft if they want to. Why does anyone still on Windows have to be pestered by a swarm of open source gnats about their choice of OS?
I agree - people should be able to choose what OS and programs they run, which is why I'm so against OSS ninjas sneaking in the labs and my house at night, installing their versions of the software I love to pay for.
When you say pestered, I think you mean exposed to. How many non-techies do you know who've heard about OpenOffice or Firebird? After introducing most of my friends to tabbed browsing and pop-up blocking, there was no need to fall back on any OSS rhetoric. They saw that the program had useful features and decided to use them instead of the MS alternative. And as a former English major, I can say that many a starving artist loved the idea of a free word processor.
The OpenCD project is more a drive to make OSS as accessable to people who aren't that interested in computers as the MS alternative. Since so many MS products are "essential" to Windows, most people are introduced to Windows Media Player, IE, and other proprietary programs before having a chance to check out the competition. Since they can use these immediately, why would they find an alternative, especially when that requires researching an area that they're not particularly interested in? The open cd provides more of a fair playing field. Sadly, since MS is so insistent on bundling everything they have to force out competition, there's still a long ways to go.
As an aspiring fiction and poetry writing, I can assure you that publishers introduce the spelling errors. The gramatical errors are (99.9999% of the time) literary devices. After spending years learning the rules, these authors have earned the right to break them. Not to say you don't have a point - it's just a poor analogy.