I have to agree. This squarely sounds like the developers are the problem. They seem to be subscribing to MS' broken policy of software releases; which is to say, prematurely. A beta is software which is feature complete but lacking polish and may still have bugs to fix. "Stop complaining, it's not finished yet.", certainly sounds like development is very active. The way you describe it, it sounds like they are very much alpha, in the middle of development, still lacking features. That's a far, far, far, far cry from being "beta" software.
This a fair assessment? If this is accurate, the developers need a good flogging and need to base their release cycle on one which works; which is not based on Microsoft's policies.
Re:You've not done real database work
on
Head First SQL
·
· Score: 1
Didn't they convert to DB2 years and years and years ago?
No wonder GW has to piss on the Constitution. Because dumb people like you ensure he can't do anything legally. Go both to learn something about history we'll both agree you have no idea what you hell you talking about.
Your reply is like the village idiot calling everyone else an idiot. Very sad.
Let's reverse the situation. Suppose a foriegn power decided to invade the US and overthrow George and Co. Do you honestly think for one single minute that the anti-federalist gun-toting militia groups in the northwest would welcome them with open arms?
Your question is loaded and stupid. It has zero to do with the state of affairs which was Iraq before we invaded. If, in your example, 80+% of the US population hated the government and was actively looking for ways to overthrow it, absolutely, if a country like the US invaded and overthrew it, people would be happy! We can look at history to prove I'm right and you're wrong. Pick up a book and learn something before you ignorantly post again.
It's a bit different when the city was just conquered by nazis
You're obviously completely clueless as to the state of affairs before we invaded Iraq. Here's a hint. Saddam's father was heavily involved with the Germans. Saddam grew up realizing the Germans were too soft. For all intents and purposes, Saddam's father was a Nazi and Saddam was an extreme Nazi.
With proper context, once can't but help to laugh at the ignorance of your statement. The people were ****thrilled**** we destroyed their government; save only for those that benefited from Baath(sp?) party. Look at the f-n news reels. Seeing is believing. People came out to celebrate in the streets WITH AMERICAN SOLDIERS!
They are pissed off about everything that took place AFTER we invaded; as we allowed things to go to complete shit. And things went to shit real fast. The power vacuum created by the dismantling of the Iraqi army is what f-d everything up and why everyone both wants us out AND wants us to stay.
Shesh...learn a little history before you bother to run on about things you are completely ignorant. Ignorance like yours is exactly why GW spits on the constitution because people like you don't know anything about anything but insist on rattling off. To be clear, that's not justification for GW, but is a reason.
The loss of employment created a drastic rise in both unemployment and local crime. This in turn created a wave of anti-Americanism for the loss of security. This in turn fed back into the insurgency and spies. It created a nasty cycle and a bad situation for both the Iraqis and Americans.
and even has some sort of friend / foe identification built into the computer (doesn't work on humans, but works pretty well on tanks / vehicles).
I replied too fast in my other message.
You might find it interesting that mobile homes with a satellite dish are reported as SAM sites. And yes, they do work on humans too...sort of. A human raking their front yard is often indicated as a possible threat; a soldier with AA, shoulder fired missile. Needless to say, unless you're in the middle of no where, pilots take much of the computer threat assessment with a very large grain of salt.
No such thing as peaceful occupation. Just because we didn't raze cities to the ground doesn't make it peaceful.
Meanwhile on planet earth, a little war known as WWII proves you are incorrect. During the war, cities often changes hands from Axis to Ally control. The city was occupied; peacefully. A foreign power controlled the city. In those cases, the citizenry were thrilled they were there. All was good. This situation EXACTLY reflects the early days of the Iraq invasion. By in large, people were thrill the US military was there. And believe it or not, most Iraqis still consider the US to be a mixed blessing.
It is trivial to ignore your woefully inaccurate posting because history has factually proven you are wrong.
Yeah, it's funny how people shoot at you when you violently occupy their nation. You'd think they'd be all hugs and kisses.
That is actually a factually incorrect statement. The correct statement is, "...people shoot at you when you violently invade/overthrow their corrupt government, which they themselves hate, and peacefully occupy their nation." The difference being, had we "violently occupied their nation", as you state, it's very unlikely things where be anywhere near as bad as they are today. This is a point which everyone notes was a huge mistake (among many) and you seem to have forgotten. In fact, it's regarded as the largest mistake of the war.
The second largest mistake was completely disbanding the Iraqi military, which would could have then used to smoothly transition power while they prevented the growth of the cancers which exist there today.
You have to remember that there are anywhere from 0.5 to 1.3 million dead Iraqi civilians.
To be clear, what I'm going to say is not justification of those deaths. But I do want to point out, under Saddam, a very large number of civilians were murdered every year. Last I heard, you can by far blame the local terrorists and not the US military for modestly exceeding Saddam's efforts. If it were not for Iraqis killing Iraqis or neighbors from other countries kill Iraqis, the death toll would be considerably lower.
We have Apaches with precision machine guns and low-yield missiles for those situations. (EVIL GRIN)
If you consider a 20mm cannon a MG, then yes, they have those. Now, once the forth or so round leaves the barrel, that 20mm cannon is in deed a precise, direct fire weapon. God help anyone nearby because there is no telling where the first three or so rounds are going to go. And that assumes they properly lased and/or manually ranged their target the first time.
One last note, 20mm high explosive rounds are more or less 20mm grenades fired at 600rpm, shot in 10-20 rounds bursts. Precision is relative.
Nonsense. You're confusing the price of crude oil and the price of gasoline in your argument.
Your statement is based on horrible assumptions. Excess capacity has always (last three decades) been dumped to second and third world countries to maintain fuel prices. Your assumption is based on classic supply and demand, which NO ONE applies to the *captive* oil market. Everything is artificially controlled. Supply and demand is broken every time you attempt to apply it. Any logic based on supply and demand economics is broken.
1. I never said capacity translates to higher per barrel costs. You misunderstood.
2. Because you are confusing known oil with drilled and/or previously uneconomically feasible oil.
3. You'll find there are lots and lots of very cheap, high sulfur oil available. Once again you're confused. Believe it or not, we can process much higher sulfur crude than we do today. That in turn opens the door for oil which is more or less ignored today.
4. Once again you are confused. Production = processing. You can not increase production of fuel (based on oil) if you do not increase your production capacity.
5. You've just gone into the weeds as a whacko. Only an idiot need assume a conspiracy is required where basic greed and model corporate America stands today.
I mean holy shit folks, the topic if extremely complex. Do you honestly think a couple of paragraphs can capture the topic, let alone put a toe in the water. You're coming at me as if I just published an authoritative book on the subject; yet come swinging with ignorance.
There are lots and lots of books on the subject. Points of view vary but peak is hotly debated even using corrected figured coming out of Arab states.
Re:Too much fruit and nuts for you
on
Google Goes Green
·
· Score: 1
Too much fruit and nuts for you
That's funny but your ignorance is showing. I actually expected some one to point that out. Believe it or not, the entire world has NOT been explored for oil. Likewise, many of the large areas which have been investigated are known to contain oil and fit the profile which historically provide large quantities of oil. Yet because of their location and expense of recovery, it goes unexplored. As the price per barrel rises, the locations begin to make economic sense.
So in other words, lots and lots of oil pockets are known but their exact quantity is unknown. The geographic profile matches that which is common to large oil fields.
So it seems you've eaten all my nuts and fruit. Which isn't exactly surprising given how few people seem to known anything about something on which our entire society is based.
Ya, the topic is incredibly complex and involved. Books, many books, are written on the subject so it's difficult for a couple of paragraphs to even touch the surface.
I knew about Arabs lying about their reserves. I never really connected the dots until you spelled it out for me. Thanks. It now makes sense.
Hopefully we'll have a sizable shift in energy production to renewable sources within the next decade, with an upward trend to follow in two decades after.
are widely recognized to be almost at, at, or past peak production on a global level,
I find it interesting that so many people have such a poor concept of the current situation. What people fail to recognize is that we are artificially reaching peak production. Contrary to popular belief, the world's most cost effective refinery was shut down less than a decade ago. No new refineries in the US are being built. Keep this in mind when you contrast this with the fact that more oil is currently known to exist than any other time in human history and its widely believed huge undiscovered reserves have yet to be located.
Right now, artificial scarcity is causing production peaks. Artificial scarcity helps keep fuel prices high so oil companies have zero incentive to create new refineries. What most people also fail to understand is crude comes in varying qualities. The per barrel price you constantly see quoted represents the highest grade crude. What you don't see is the "junk" crude is often half or a quarter the price. The low quality crude can be processed but requires special refineries. In the US, we only have one or two refineries which can process high sulfur crude. Processing high sulfur crude is actually equally profitable but requires additional investment from the oil community a it requires expansion in processing capability.
Long story short, there is actually zero factual information to suggest we are anywhere near peak. What the misinformed often quote as peak are simply observing artificial limitations which are kept in check by the oil companies and further compounded by their refusal to increase production capabilities while having reduced capabilities less than a decade ago. The only question is, how much are you willing to pay for your fuel?
With oil prices as they are now, most of the known oil sources become viable, but again, no one wants to do that because what is already available is far more profitable. And heck, if you can use up your competition's supply, it makes your reserve all the more valuable down the road.
Is greed really so easily confused for peak production?
If by "local law enforcement" you mean raided by "armed U.S. Marshals", then apparently yes.
This is the part I don't understand. Even if a company is in violation, refusal to submit to an audit is strictly a contractual violation. This is civil, not criminal, unless they can factually prove violations exist. And how can they prove violations exist if no one will submit to an audit. It always strikes me as a chicken and egg situation.
I don't understand how the BSA could have standing to file a suit.
IIRC, the BSA has proxy agreements with most of the largest software development companies. They legally represent these companies in matters of software license compliance. Again, IIRC, the BSA was actually created by companies like Microsoft to look after their licensing interests. Failure to comply with the BSA usually means license invalidation.
Just don't use credit cards. Really. Using credit gets you into debt anyway. True, there are other ways to get scammed, but if you don't have a credit card, they can't rack up the charges. If you were to use a debit card instead, then you stand to loose something, but once it runs out, it's gone and they can't keep charging more. Credit is necessary in some circumstances, but for day-to-day purchases, you might be better off without one.
This is just horrible advice. Using credit cards actually provides significant buyer's protection and is often the only tool available to consumers to level the playing field against retailers. Credit cards are significantly regulated and are geared to protect the consumer. Using credit cards does not mean you have to use it as a revolving credit line. Get your bill and pay it off every month. You still have buyers protection with support of a 800lbs gorilla in your corner without debt.
On the other hand, theft of a debit card is horrible! It can literally takes months for your money to be returned; if it is ever returned. This can cause checks to bounce and rack up a huge number of bounced check fees. Not to mention, your credit can be significantly, negatively affected for non-payment. Fixing this is a nightmare.
The rule of thumb is, NEVER use a debit card except at a known safe ATM or bank. Only fools use debit cards for every day purchases. Banks love debit cards because they are not required to extend you protection on the monies transferred; authorized or otherwise. Banks love debit cards because they don't have to pay the high credit card processing fees. In fact, many banks do their own, in house debit card processing, paying only a small (pennies) electronic transaction fee versus a precentage. In other words, the ONLY people debit cards help are the banks.
If you can't responsibly use a credit card, don't use one. Just because you may not be responsible is no reason to give extremely poor advise to other consumers. Use of a credit card is extremely good practice. If you don't want debt, pay it off every month. Nothing about credit cards require you use a card as a revolving credit line. Simply pay it off every month. If you're poor at tracking your monthly expenditures, simply write down the amount you spent on a piece of paper. Use a new piece of paper every billing cycle. This makes it easy to see how much you've spent when you're itching to buy something with your card. Carry the paper in your pocket. Or, better yet, rubber band the paper to your card.
I see you've lost all context. Step back. Explosives already had gone off in the streets. This qualifies as something close. Logic DEMANDS you treat it as a bomb threat. Any other response is moronic...proving the terrorists have one...and in fact empowering them to continue to instill fear in people like you.
The goal of terrorism is to effect change in a society through fear.
Agreed! But most people have no idea what that means. Like it or not, the change in this discussion means NOT following up on bomb threats and scares. Law enforcement have ALWAYS been required to check out and deal with bomb threats and treat the situation seriously. Now, post 9/11, ignorance prevails on the street. The guy on the street now screams like children that the terrorist have won because law enforcement is doing the same job they have always done, only with better tools now (don't take that statement far). And they scream out of fear, pure and simple. In other words, the only people the terrorists can claim victory over are the ignorant masses which want to publicly slam those that know or those that act; as those that act have always done.
Slashdot Mirror
If memory serves, I believe they converted to DB2 on their backend. I believe SF was converted too. Of course, my belief doesn't make it so.
I have to agree. This squarely sounds like the developers are the problem. They seem to be subscribing to MS' broken policy of software releases; which is to say, prematurely. A beta is software which is feature complete but lacking polish and may still have bugs to fix. "Stop complaining, it's not finished yet.", certainly sounds like development is very active. The way you describe it, it sounds like they are very much alpha, in the middle of development, still lacking features. That's a far, far, far, far cry from being "beta" software.
This a fair assessment? If this is accurate, the developers need a good flogging and need to base their release cycle on one which works; which is not based on Microsoft's policies.
Didn't they convert to DB2 years and years and years ago?
LOL.
No wonder GW has to piss on the Constitution. Because dumb people like you ensure he can't do anything legally. Go both to learn something about history we'll both agree you have no idea what you hell you talking about.
Your reply is like the village idiot calling everyone else an idiot. Very sad.
Let's reverse the situation. Suppose a foriegn power decided to invade the US and overthrow George and Co. Do you honestly think for one single minute that the anti-federalist gun-toting militia groups in the northwest would welcome them with open arms?
Your question is loaded and stupid. It has zero to do with the state of affairs which was Iraq before we invaded. If, in your example, 80+% of the US population hated the government and was actively looking for ways to overthrow it, absolutely, if a country like the US invaded and overthrew it, people would be happy! We can look at history to prove I'm right and you're wrong. Pick up a book and learn something before you ignorantly post again.
It's a bit different when the city was just conquered by nazis
You're obviously completely clueless as to the state of affairs before we invaded Iraq. Here's a hint. Saddam's father was heavily involved with the Germans. Saddam grew up realizing the Germans were too soft. For all intents and purposes, Saddam's father was a Nazi and Saddam was an extreme Nazi.
With proper context, once can't but help to laugh at the ignorance of your statement. The people were ****thrilled**** we destroyed their government; save only for those that benefited from Baath(sp?) party. Look at the f-n news reels. Seeing is believing. People came out to celebrate in the streets WITH AMERICAN SOLDIERS!
They are pissed off about everything that took place AFTER we invaded; as we allowed things to go to complete shit. And things went to shit real fast. The power vacuum created by the dismantling of the Iraqi army is what f-d everything up and why everyone both wants us out AND wants us to stay.
Shesh...learn a little history before you bother to run on about things you are completely ignorant. Ignorance like yours is exactly why GW spits on the constitution because people like you don't know anything about anything but insist on rattling off. To be clear, that's not justification for GW, but is a reason.
Exactly!
The loss of employment created a drastic rise in both unemployment and local crime. This in turn created a wave of anti-Americanism for the loss of security. This in turn fed back into the insurgency and spies. It created a nasty cycle and a bad situation for both the Iraqis and Americans.
and even has some sort of friend / foe identification built into the computer (doesn't work on humans, but works pretty well on tanks / vehicles).
I replied too fast in my other message.
You might find it interesting that mobile homes with a satellite dish are reported as SAM sites. And yes, they do work on humans too...sort of. A human raking their front yard is often indicated as a possible threat; a soldier with AA, shoulder fired missile. Needless to say, unless you're in the middle of no where, pilots take much of the computer threat assessment with a very large grain of salt.
My brother is an Apache Longbow CFI. If it's 30mm versus 20mm, it's simply bit rot on my part. Everything else is accurate.
Your premise doesn't even begin to accurate reflect the state of Iraq. It's horribly flawed from start to finish.
No such thing as peaceful occupation. Just because we didn't raze cities to the ground doesn't make it peaceful.
Meanwhile on planet earth, a little war known as WWII proves you are incorrect. During the war, cities often changes hands from Axis to Ally control. The city was occupied; peacefully. A foreign power controlled the city. In those cases, the citizenry were thrilled they were there. All was good. This situation EXACTLY reflects the early days of the Iraq invasion. By in large, people were thrill the US military was there. And believe it or not, most Iraqis still consider the US to be a mixed blessing.
It is trivial to ignore your woefully inaccurate posting because history has factually proven you are wrong.
Yeah, it's funny how people shoot at you when you violently occupy their nation. You'd think they'd be all hugs and kisses.
That is actually a factually incorrect statement. The correct statement is, "...people shoot at you when you violently invade/overthrow their corrupt government, which they themselves hate, and peacefully occupy their nation." The difference being, had we "violently occupied their nation", as you state, it's very unlikely things where be anywhere near as bad as they are today. This is a point which everyone notes was a huge mistake (among many) and you seem to have forgotten. In fact, it's regarded as the largest mistake of the war.
The second largest mistake was completely disbanding the Iraqi military, which would could have then used to smoothly transition power while they prevented the growth of the cancers which exist there today.
You have to remember that there are anywhere from 0.5 to 1.3 million dead Iraqi civilians.
To be clear, what I'm going to say is not justification of those deaths. But I do want to point out, under Saddam, a very large number of civilians were murdered every year. Last I heard, you can by far blame the local terrorists and not the US military for modestly exceeding Saddam's efforts. If it were not for Iraqis killing Iraqis or neighbors from other countries kill Iraqis, the death toll would be considerably lower.
We have Apaches with precision machine guns and low-yield missiles for those situations. (EVIL GRIN)
If you consider a 20mm cannon a MG, then yes, they have those. Now, once the forth or so round leaves the barrel, that 20mm cannon is in deed a precise, direct fire weapon. God help anyone nearby because there is no telling where the first three or so rounds are going to go. And that assumes they properly lased and/or manually ranged their target the first time.
One last note, 20mm high explosive rounds are more or less 20mm grenades fired at 600rpm, shot in 10-20 rounds bursts. Precision is relative.
Nonsense. You're confusing the price of crude oil and the price of gasoline in your argument.
Your statement is based on horrible assumptions. Excess capacity has always (last three decades) been dumped to second and third world countries to maintain fuel prices. Your assumption is based on classic supply and demand, which NO ONE applies to the *captive* oil market. Everything is artificially controlled. Supply and demand is broken every time you attempt to apply it. Any logic based on supply and demand economics is broken.
1. I never said capacity translates to higher per barrel costs. You misunderstood.
2. Because you are confusing known oil with drilled and/or previously uneconomically feasible oil.
3. You'll find there are lots and lots of very cheap, high sulfur oil available. Once again you're confused. Believe it or not, we can process much higher sulfur crude than we do today. That in turn opens the door for oil which is more or less ignored today.
4. Once again you are confused. Production = processing. You can not increase production of fuel (based on oil) if you do not increase your production capacity.
5. You've just gone into the weeds as a whacko. Only an idiot need assume a conspiracy is required where basic greed and model corporate America stands today.
I mean holy shit folks, the topic if extremely complex. Do you honestly think a couple of paragraphs can capture the topic, let alone put a toe in the water. You're coming at me as if I just published an authoritative book on the subject; yet come swinging with ignorance.
There are lots and lots of books on the subject. Points of view vary but peak is hotly debated even using corrected figured coming out of Arab states.
Too much fruit and nuts for you
That's funny but your ignorance is showing. I actually expected some one to point that out. Believe it or not, the entire world has NOT been explored for oil. Likewise, many of the large areas which have been investigated are known to contain oil and fit the profile which historically provide large quantities of oil. Yet because of their location and expense of recovery, it goes unexplored. As the price per barrel rises, the locations begin to make economic sense.
So in other words, lots and lots of oil pockets are known but their exact quantity is unknown. The geographic profile matches that which is common to large oil fields.
So it seems you've eaten all my nuts and fruit. Which isn't exactly surprising given how few people seem to known anything about something on which our entire society is based.
Ya, the topic is incredibly complex and involved. Books, many books, are written on the subject so it's difficult for a couple of paragraphs to even touch the surface.
I knew about Arabs lying about their reserves. I never really connected the dots until you spelled it out for me. Thanks. It now makes sense.
Hopefully we'll have a sizable shift in energy production to renewable sources within the next decade, with an upward trend to follow in two decades after.
Agreed!
are widely recognized to be almost at, at, or past peak production on a global level,
I find it interesting that so many people have such a poor concept of the current situation. What people fail to recognize is that we are artificially reaching peak production. Contrary to popular belief, the world's most cost effective refinery was shut down less than a decade ago. No new refineries in the US are being built. Keep this in mind when you contrast this with the fact that more oil is currently known to exist than any other time in human history and its widely believed huge undiscovered reserves have yet to be located.
Right now, artificial scarcity is causing production peaks. Artificial scarcity helps keep fuel prices high so oil companies have zero incentive to create new refineries. What most people also fail to understand is crude comes in varying qualities. The per barrel price you constantly see quoted represents the highest grade crude. What you don't see is the "junk" crude is often half or a quarter the price. The low quality crude can be processed but requires special refineries. In the US, we only have one or two refineries which can process high sulfur crude. Processing high sulfur crude is actually equally profitable but requires additional investment from the oil community a it requires expansion in processing capability.
Long story short, there is actually zero factual information to suggest we are anywhere near peak. What the misinformed often quote as peak are simply observing artificial limitations which are kept in check by the oil companies and further compounded by their refusal to increase production capabilities while having reduced capabilities less than a decade ago. The only question is, how much are you willing to pay for your fuel?
With oil prices as they are now, most of the known oil sources become viable, but again, no one wants to do that because what is already available is far more profitable. And heck, if you can use up your competition's supply, it makes your reserve all the more valuable down the road.
Is greed really so easily confused for peak production?
If by "local law enforcement" you mean raided by "armed U.S. Marshals", then apparently yes.
This is the part I don't understand. Even if a company is in violation, refusal to submit to an audit is strictly a contractual violation. This is civil, not criminal, unless they can factually prove violations exist. And how can they prove violations exist if no one will submit to an audit. It always strikes me as a chicken and egg situation.
I don't understand how the BSA could have standing to file a suit.
IIRC, the BSA has proxy agreements with most of the largest software development companies. They legally represent these companies in matters of software license compliance. Again, IIRC, the BSA was actually created by companies like Microsoft to look after their licensing interests. Failure to comply with the BSA usually means license invalidation.
Just don't use credit cards. Really. Using credit gets you into debt anyway. True, there are other ways to get scammed, but if you don't have a credit card, they can't rack up the charges. If you were to use a debit card instead, then you stand to loose something, but once it runs out, it's gone and they can't keep charging more. Credit is necessary in some circumstances, but for day-to-day purchases, you might be better off without one.
This is just horrible advice. Using credit cards actually provides significant buyer's protection and is often the only tool available to consumers to level the playing field against retailers. Credit cards are significantly regulated and are geared to protect the consumer. Using credit cards does not mean you have to use it as a revolving credit line. Get your bill and pay it off every month. You still have buyers protection with support of a 800lbs gorilla in your corner without debt.
On the other hand, theft of a debit card is horrible! It can literally takes months for your money to be returned; if it is ever returned. This can cause checks to bounce and rack up a huge number of bounced check fees. Not to mention, your credit can be significantly, negatively affected for non-payment. Fixing this is a nightmare.
The rule of thumb is, NEVER use a debit card except at a known safe ATM or bank. Only fools use debit cards for every day purchases. Banks love debit cards because they are not required to extend you protection on the monies transferred; authorized or otherwise. Banks love debit cards because they don't have to pay the high credit card processing fees. In fact, many banks do their own, in house debit card processing, paying only a small (pennies) electronic transaction fee versus a precentage. In other words, the ONLY people debit cards help are the banks.
If you can't responsibly use a credit card, don't use one. Just because you may not be responsible is no reason to give extremely poor advise to other consumers. Use of a credit card is extremely good practice. If you don't want debt, pay it off every month. Nothing about credit cards require you use a card as a revolving credit line. Simply pay it off every month. If you're poor at tracking your monthly expenditures, simply write down the amount you spent on a piece of paper. Use a new piece of paper every billing cycle. This makes it easy to see how much you've spent when you're itching to buy something with your card. Carry the paper in your pocket. Or, better yet, rubber band the paper to your card.
I see you've lost all context. Step back. Explosives already had gone off in the streets. This qualifies as something close. Logic DEMANDS you treat it as a bomb threat. Any other response is moronic...proving the terrorists have one...and in fact empowering them to continue to instill fear in people like you.
The goal of terrorism is to effect change in a society through fear.
Agreed! But most people have no idea what that means. Like it or not, the change in this discussion means NOT following up on bomb threats and scares. Law enforcement have ALWAYS been required to check out and deal with bomb threats and treat the situation seriously. Now, post 9/11, ignorance prevails on the street. The guy on the street now screams like children that the terrorist have won because law enforcement is doing the same job they have always done, only with better tools now (don't take that statement far). And they scream out of fear, pure and simple. In other words, the only people the terrorists can claim victory over are the ignorant masses which want to publicly slam those that know or those that act; as those that act have always done.