you can certainly get the single track you want. buy 12" vinyl or a cd single. plus as a bonus, you'll get an instrumental and/or acapella to play around with and in many cases a remix too.
i agree that the strategy was not intended to be completely indiscriminant. i was saying that any missile is still "going to indiscriminantly destroy anything in the surrounding area, not just it's target".
i'm truly sorry about your friend on one of the planes that day. everyone all over the world was shocked by 9/11 and everyone felt for the innocent victims who died in such a terrible way. and indeed the same can be said for the brutal killings of innocent american civilians in iraq in last few months.
but the fact is the 9/11 terrorists were not from iraq and there is no proven evidence to say that they had any links to iraq. indeed, alqaeda's primary base was afghanistan and that's where the group's leader was located. The US had a clear case to go and hunt him down and break up the taliban leadership there, who supported him and in addition oppressed their own people.
while i also don't agree with the bombing tactics used in afghanistan, due to which we saw many similar cases of accidental civilian deaths, at least there was clear justification and purpose for the war, and therefore some kind of explanation (though i'm sure it was little comfort) for the relatives of victims as to why their loved ones lost their lives.
this whole thread began on the subject of missile technology. firing thousands of missiles into cities is always going to cause "collateral damage", no matter how accurate. i have spoken with 2 iraqis about the iraq war, both of whom left iraq before the war but of course were still very concerned with what was happening there. both were in support of the US invasion because they wanted their people to be free of saddam hussein. but the problem is, that's until their entire family is wiped out by a missile.
taking once again, the restaurant example. could soldiers not have gone in their on foot? they would obviously have had far greater firepower than anyone protecting saddam hussein. unfortunately i believe the reason they didn't do that is because that would have risked losing some of their own soldiers, and therefore they chose the alternative, which is to risk the lives of iraqi civilians.
i don't really see how that relates to my post you replied to.
the main point i was making in the above posts is that there's no such thing as a safe bomb. no matter how "smart" and accurate it is, it's still a bomb that is going to indiscriminantly destroy anything in the surrounding area, not just it's target. the people killed in the houses surrounding that restaurant were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
and the restaurant example is just one example. thousands of guided missiles were sent into iraqi cities. it was just complete disregard for iraqi civilian lives. what would happen if thousands of missiles were sent into an american city? thousands of innocent people would die! that's what would happen.
Iraqi rescue workers using a bulldozer to search the rubble said that three bodies had been recovered -- those of a small boy, a young woman and an elderly man -- and that the death toll could be as high as 14. The woman's head had been severed from her torso.
( http://www.boston.com/news/daily/08/war_leadership _strike.htm )
Rescuers said up to 14 people may have been killed in the blast, which reduced four houses to dust and blew out windows and doors of houses as far as 300 m away. The remains of a small boy, a young woman and an elderly man were pulled from the rubble.
firstly just to clarify, i'm saying people shouldn't be able to own guns for self defence - police, sports ownership, etc. is a different issue.
NZers can indeed own guns. however from what i've read, the criteria and rules of gun ownership is strict and i haven't read anywhere that you have the right to own a gun in NZ for the purpose of self defence (correct me if i'm wrong). Even if that is wrong, take australia then as an example. tight gun control laws, no guns for self defence, only sports, professional, etc. as previously discussed, violence in the society is the core issue, however widespread gun ownership can only make it worse. in australia, yes criminals own guns but usually organised crime type criminals, because guns are hard to get. so therefore the argument of guns for self defence is a lot harder to justify, because guns are not as widespread.
i understand that violent crimes will still occur no matter what the level of gun control, however to quote your example, hands clearly have other uses besides killing people. a gun's sole purpose (in the context of this conversation) is to kill people.
i would agree, we don't see this in canada (or nz, i've since learned they have quite a high % of gun ownership) because the USA has a fundamental problem of violence (ie; guns don't kill people, people kill do).
however, as in my example above, the problem is accentuated by the fact that guns have in some cases been accessible to children, which is a result of people having guns in their homes.
if the guns weren't available, then they would not have been an option in those cases.
if that's the case, i guess they don't always strictly go hand in hand. however, the fact remains, it would have been a lot harder for those school kids to get those guns if they weren't in their own home. and further, if gun ownership wasn't so accepted and common place, it may not have even been an option those kids considered quite so readily in the first place.
dude, you're from new zealand, one of the most peaceful countries in the world. low crime rate, low violent crime rate, no nukes, no wars.
cities in america such as new york and washington have amongst the HIGHEST rates of gun murders and assaults in the world.
america is riddled with guns and riddled with gun violence. new zealand is NOT riddled with guns and, coincidentally, NOT riddled with gun violence. hmmm..
look at the school shootings in the US. kids carrying guns to school, guns they have often sourced from their own homes, ie; guns that were intended for self-defence as you describe.
do you really think you'd hold the same view if that was your reality?
in a perfect world yes, but you have to take ms's desktop market monopoly into account.
linux developers need to make a better product (and with more originality and less of the "cloning" of ms apps) but at the same time they need to show that they are better than ms by having compatibility for ms formats.
OpenOffice to me is one of the best examples of this i've seen.
i detest people sending me excel/word files as well and when i can i just say "nope sorry", but a lot of the time it's work and i can't refuse it. however i get some sense of satisfaction from the fact that i can read their file and if i must edit it and send it back to them (i always send back an OO version along with the.doc).
i'm sure they're just trying to find some balance. they would not investigate every single freedom of information request in this way.
the article infers that these tunnels were made secret because they were considered a possible terrorist target so a request for this information would be flagged as something to be investigated.
the article specifically says that the tunnel network was made secret as a result of 9/11 (along with the surveilance system), so obviously if someone asks for that information it is going to be investigated.
in the case of cars, one that comes to mind is the SUV rollover thing in the US a while back, but as i recall in that case they knew that the SUVs had that problem and intentionally released the vehicles anyway.
i really don't think ms has ever deliberately released a product that they themselves know will be exploited, so this is not intentional on their part and therefore i don't think you can say they are allowing it to happen.
negligence maybe but that would probably be difficult to prove.
also, they are fixing the problems, maybe not fast but they are doing it.
i would say if anything the coastguard holds more responsibility for using an unsuitable OS and software for the job. them and of course the virus writers.
cooincidentally i was reading another review (from their site) of the same laptop recently, but this one is with redhat. interesting comparisson.
personally i am actually interested in these LC laptops because for me (in australia) they are so cheap. anyone with personal experience of shipping/delivery costs/times overseas, problems etc, would be appreciated.
well said. i'm in the for-profit category, so in practice, i can't actually turn people away at the door;-)
however, we ensure our html is standards compliant and support ALL major browsers - the days of every site saying "we only support ie and netscape" are long gone (as far as i'm concerned anyway).
we support mozilla/firefox, ie, opera, netscape, safari, konqueror (think that's it!) on all applicable platforms.
mozilla have given us the browser and now developers can play their part in turning things around.
Slashdot Mirror
you can certainly get the single track you want. buy 12" vinyl or a cd single. plus as a bonus, you'll get an instrumental and/or acapella to play around with and in many cases a remix too.
i agree that the strategy was not intended to be completely indiscriminant. i was saying that any missile is still "going to indiscriminantly destroy anything in the surrounding area, not just it's target".
i'm truly sorry about your friend on one of the planes that day. everyone all over the world was shocked by 9/11 and everyone felt for the innocent victims who died in such a terrible way. and indeed the same can be said for the brutal killings of innocent american civilians in iraq in last few months.
but the fact is the 9/11 terrorists were not from iraq and there is no proven evidence to say that they had any links to iraq. indeed, alqaeda's primary base was afghanistan and that's where the group's leader was located. The US had a clear case to go and hunt him down and break up the taliban leadership there, who supported him and in addition oppressed their own people.
while i also don't agree with the bombing tactics used in afghanistan, due to which we saw many similar cases of accidental civilian deaths, at least there was clear justification and purpose for the war, and therefore some kind of explanation (though i'm sure it was little comfort) for the relatives of victims as to why their loved ones lost their lives.
this whole thread began on the subject of missile technology. firing thousands of missiles into cities is always going to cause "collateral damage", no matter how accurate. i have spoken with 2 iraqis about the iraq war, both of whom left iraq before the war but of course were still very concerned with what was happening there. both were in support of the US invasion because they wanted their people to be free of saddam hussein. but the problem is, that's until their entire family is wiped out by a missile.
taking once again, the restaurant example. could soldiers not have gone in their on foot? they would obviously have had far greater firepower than anyone protecting saddam hussein. unfortunately i believe the reason they didn't do that is because that would have risked losing some of their own soldiers, and therefore they chose the alternative, which is to risk the lives of iraqi civilians.
it was a residential area.
i don't really see how that relates to my post you replied to.
the main point i was making in the above posts is that there's no such thing as a safe bomb. no matter how "smart" and accurate it is, it's still a bomb that is going to indiscriminantly destroy anything in the surrounding area, not just it's target. the people killed in the houses surrounding that restaurant were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
and the restaurant example is just one example. thousands of guided missiles were sent into iraqi cities. it was just complete disregard for iraqi civilian lives. what would happen if thousands of missiles were sent into an american city? thousands of innocent people would die! that's what would happen.
you forgot the most important part - they managed to combine all of the above with beer!!
Iraqi rescue workers using a bulldozer to search the rubble said that three bodies had been recovered -- those of a small boy, a young woman and an elderly man -- and that the death toll could be as high as 14. The woman's head had been severed from her torso.
p _strike.htm )
4 395,182123,00.html )
( http://www.boston.com/news/daily/08/war_leadershi
Rescuers said up to 14 people may have been killed in the blast, which reduced four houses to dust and blew out windows and doors of houses as far as 300 m away. The remains of a small boy, a young woman and an elderly man were pulled from the rubble.
( http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/iraqwar/story/0,
as we have seen in iraq, we also need a way to stop them aiming the accurate weapons at the *right* things.
the restaurant attack on saddam for example? too bad about anyone else in the restaurant, or the near vicinity.
i'm afraid i still disagree.
firstly just to clarify, i'm saying people shouldn't be able to own guns for self defence - police, sports ownership, etc. is a different issue.
NZers can indeed own guns. however from what i've read, the criteria and rules of gun ownership is strict and i haven't read anywhere that you have the right to own a gun in NZ for the purpose of self defence (correct me if i'm wrong).
Even if that is wrong, take australia then as an example. tight gun control laws, no guns for self defence, only sports, professional, etc.
as previously discussed, violence in the society is the core issue, however widespread gun ownership can only make it worse.
in australia, yes criminals own guns but usually organised crime type criminals, because guns are hard to get. so therefore the argument of guns for self defence is a lot harder to justify, because guns are not as widespread.
i understand that violent crimes will still occur no matter what the level of gun control, however to quote your example, hands clearly have other uses besides killing people. a gun's sole purpose (in the context of this conversation) is to kill people.
i would agree, we don't see this in canada (or nz, i've since learned they have quite a high % of gun ownership) because the USA has a fundamental problem of violence (ie; guns don't kill people, people kill do).
however, as in my example above, the problem is accentuated by the fact that guns have in some cases been accessible to children, which is a result of people having guns in their homes.
if the guns weren't available, then they would not have been an option in those cases.
if that's the case, i guess they don't always strictly go hand in hand. however, the fact remains, it would have been a lot harder for those school kids to get those guns if they weren't in their own home. and further, if gun ownership wasn't so accepted and common place, it may not have even been an option those kids considered quite so readily in the first place.
dude, you're from new zealand, one of the most peaceful countries in the world. low crime rate, low violent crime rate, no nukes, no wars.
cities in america such as new york and washington have amongst the HIGHEST rates of gun murders and assaults in the world.
america is riddled with guns and riddled with gun violence. new zealand is NOT riddled with guns and, coincidentally, NOT riddled with gun violence. hmmm..
look at the school shootings in the US. kids carrying guns to school, guns they have often sourced from their own homes, ie; guns that were intended for self-defence as you describe.
do you really think you'd hold the same view if that was your reality?
i know i was being sarcastic ;-)
let's just call him a dirty sanchez instead.
no need to call him a jackass.
in a perfect world yes, but you have to take ms's desktop market monopoly into account.
.doc).
linux developers need to make a better product (and with more originality and less of the "cloning" of ms apps) but at the same time they need to show that they are better than ms by having compatibility for ms formats.
OpenOffice to me is one of the best examples of this i've seen.
i detest people sending me excel/word files as well and when i can i just say "nope sorry", but a lot of the time it's work and i can't refuse it. however i get some sense of satisfaction from the fact that i can read their file and if i must edit it and send it back to them (i always send back an OO version along with the
i'm sure they're just trying to find some balance. they would not investigate every single freedom of information request in this way.
the article infers that these tunnels were made secret because they were considered a possible terrorist target so a request for this information would be flagged as something to be investigated.
i agree, it's the nature of the request.
the article specifically says that the tunnel network was made secret as a result of 9/11 (along with the surveilance system), so obviously if someone asks for that information it is going to be investigated.
seems fair enough.
Programming: As If Performance Mattered
in the case of cars, one that comes to mind is the SUV rollover thing in the US a while back, but as i recall in that case they knew that the SUVs had that problem and intentionally released the vehicles anyway.
i really don't think ms has ever deliberately released a product that they themselves know will be exploited, so this is not intentional on their part and therefore i don't think you can say they are allowing it to happen.
negligence maybe but that would probably be difficult to prove.
also, they are fixing the problems, maybe not fast but they are doing it.
i would say if anything the coastguard holds more responsibility for using an unsuitable OS and software for the job. them and of course the virus writers.
they offer wifi card as standard/optional on their laptops.
there's always going to be some learning curve switching os - i know nothing about macs..
fyi: review from another distro (redhat).
can it run windows?
;-)
yes i know it can, it was a lame joke right from the start
cooincidentally i was reading another review (from their site) of the same laptop recently, but this one is with redhat. interesting comparisson.
personally i am actually interested in these LC laptops because for me (in australia) they are so cheap. anyone with personal experience of shipping/delivery costs/times overseas, problems etc, would be appreciated.
well said. i'm in the for-profit category, so in practice, i can't actually turn people away at the door ;-)
however, we ensure our html is standards compliant and support ALL major browsers - the days of every site saying "we only support ie and netscape" are long gone (as far as i'm concerned anyway).
we support mozilla/firefox, ie, opera, netscape, safari, konqueror (think that's it!) on all applicable platforms.
mozilla have given us the browser and now developers can play their part in turning things around.
i don't know either, but i guarantee it's faster than freenet.