Well, then you DO have a problem with Israel striking Hezbollah positions. Groups like this use civilian areas, deliberately to increase body counts/discourage retaliation/hide. Civilian casualties result.
Precision airstrikes aren't. It doesn't matter if the 2000lb bomb hits the target-if you are close and innocent, you are screwed.
That may be true, however the IAF should have the common sense to not use 2000lb bombs against targets in urban areas/where there are many civilians. There are plenty of smaller sized weapons that they could use. Also, I remember hearing something about the Brits using cement filled bombs to destroy tanks and other small targets in urban settings during the first few weeks of the current Iraq war to limit civilian casualties. Israel has the right to defend themselves, but they need to be damn sure that their targets are indeed Hezbollah installations before they destroy them and anyone near them. If there are civilians nearby, then it is Israel's responsibility to try to reduce the chances that they will be injured or killed by the airstrike. I acknowledge the fact that some Lebanese civilians are going to be killed by Israeli airstrikes irregardless of how careful Israel is. But they need to try to limit those deaths. If there is no way to destroy the target without causing many civilian casualties then Israel needs to find another way to take the target out - maybe by using special forces, or by using helicopters. If Israel drops bombs on targets knowing that they will kill scores of civilians then that makes them no better than the people they are fighting, people who launch rockets into the centers of the Israeli civilian population.
It does seem like Israel is starting to realize some of this - according to BBC Israel is stopping their airstrikes while they look into a strike that killed 50 some civilians today. Maybe their deaths won't be in vain. Unfortunately, I'm sure that Hezbollah will use this event to try to gain more supporters and fighters to continue their attacks against Israel. For the civilians (the truely innocent civilians, not Hezbollah) its a lose-lose situation.
I don't think I really agree with you about the movies. Yeah, there are a lot of movies with no depth, but there have been several in the past year or so that I've really liked. (The Inside Man, Lord of War, V is for Vendetta, Syriana, and a few others IIRC). I think it might be more of you just not liking the genre's of films that are being put out (not as many sci-fi). That doesn't mean that the quality of movies is necessarily going down.
TV generally sucks, but I don't think that's anything new. I rarely watch TV other than the news (and I get most of that off the Internet anyway), and occasionally a sitcom or two while I'm eating dinner.
I don't think most people would have an issue with Israel striking Hezbollah rocket launchers/ammunition. What I (and others too I assume), have a problem with is the hundreds of innocent Lebanese civilians that have been killed in Israeli "precision" airstrikes. I also have a problem with Israel destroying infrastructure, preventing civilians from leaving the area.
None of this excuses Hezbollah's missile attacks on civilians in Israel. Or their holding captured Israeli soldiers as hostages. People like Hezbollah, who attack civilians are scum. Plain and simple.
It really sickens me that we (the US) are supporting what Israel is doing. Not only because of how many innocent civilians have lost their lives in the past few weeks as a result of Israeli airstrikes, but because I find it really hard to believe that forcing half a million people from their homes, killing a few innocent people along with a few militants/terrorists, and launching ground assaults against that foreign country, are going to solve any problems. Even if Israel destroys Hezbollah, at what cost? How many non-combatants on both sides will have died in the violence? And how many people in Lebanon who didn't previously have hostile feelings towards Israel will be filled with hate and anger because of Israel's response? Violence breeds violence. Hezbollah's kidnappings caused Israeli airstrikes, which caused Hezbollah to start firing more missiles at Israel, which caused more Israeli airstrikes, ad infinitum.
Atleast Israel has sort of stated what they want to accomplish (drive Hezbollah from southern Lebanon and destroy their unguided rockets and launchers), and that's an OK goal, though maybe a little unrealistic. Hezbollah's (AFAIK atleast) has no real goal - other than inflicting as much pain as possible on Israel and getting them to stop attacking. I guess you could say their goal is to get Israel to exchange prisoners with them, but I think everyone has moved past that now.
I guess I sound rather anti-Israeli, but I'm really not. Before this conflict, I was probably heavily pro-Israeli, and I still favor Israel. I think both sides in this conflict are rather fscked up, though Israel IMHO still has the "moral highground." It's just that I would have thought that Israel would have been smart enough to realize that this wasn't going to accomplish much by now. They can't stop Hezbollah from launching rockets at them, but they could atleast try to not give Hezbollah any more political ammuntion to recruit more militants with. I will praise Israel for not involving Syria or Iran directly yet. If Iran were to get involved, then I can only imagine how ugly it would get - their border with Iraq, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Persian Gulf could all be threatened.
What do I think a reasonable response from Israel would have been? I think sending special forces into Lebanon to try and rescue their captured soldiers, and to destroy the Hezbollah unguided rocket/artillery infrastructure would have been a reasonable response. There would be significantly less collateral damage, and they would have had a better chance at rescuing their captured soldiers than they have after weeks of airstrikes. Hezbollah started this conflict, but if Israel hadn't attacked Lebanon as strongly as they did, then maybe the conflict wouldn't have escalated as much as it has.
PS: Sorry if this comes out as an incoherent ramble, I'm tired from traveling half way across the country today.
I think the grandparent poster was talking about generations, not the size. Though, I thought it was the size as well at first, but I don't think there is a 6 or a 5 GB iPod.
Hell yeah! At the very least this shows that the Bush administration can't arbitrarily say "national security" to cover up things that they've done that may not be entirely legal. With this, and the stuff about San Francisco and AT&T, its nice to know that AT&T might actually get in some trouble/lose some money because of what they've done. Maybe they should change their advertising slogan to Your World, Delivered...To The NSA.
I use a WSUS server (basically a local server for automatic updates), and it hasn't even appeared as an option. With WSUS I can have updates downloaded once onto my server and then distributed out to clients from there, as well as select which updates should be applied to what computers. I can also see what updates computers have/need installed.
Not totally on-topic, but, one "critical update" that showed up on my server a few weeks ago was to remove the swastika from a font. If Microsoft thinks that something of that nature is critical, then I'm sure they would be OK with calling WGA a "security update". <sarcasm>After all, they are doing all of this because they are really concerned about malware coming with pirated copies of XP.</sarcasm>
How is VMware Server it stripped down from GSX? I'm running one of the "beta" versions of VMware Server on an old box with 1 VM running, and also have GSX running on a server with 3 VM's running, and no major differences between GSX and VMware server have jumped out at me. I think VMware will even offer support for VMware server (for a fee of course).
It doesn't really have anything to do with tech support, but I've heard the techs at my school talking about this (I wasn't there myself). One of the librarian paras walked into the tech room, where the two tech people there at the time were watching TV. The library person asked what happened, and one of the techs replied that terrorists had just crashed planes into the World Trade Center. The librarian person then asked, "Did the terrorists die?"
Hehe, I've done that sort of thing once. In my defense though, it was just a few hours after I got my wisdom teeth taken out so I wasn't totally coherent. I shutdown before taking a nap (as I said before, I was woozy from the stuff that knocks you out when they operate on you) and forgot that the virtual terminal I was on was connected to my server. I didn't realize it until after I woke up. It took me a few minutes to figure out what happened, especially since I couldn't get up to see if my server was on. Luckily my server was only about 20 ft from me and my parents were there to turn it back on.
Hehe, your post reminds me of something I read from MS's Windows 2k3 documentation. It was listing the "features" (that really was the word they used) of Windows 2k3 that were not available in the Itanium versions. Activation was listed among them.
If you need ASP.NET support on Linux then you're SOL,
That's not entirely true, mod_mono can do atleast some ASP.NET stuff on Linux. It may not run everything, but you're not totally SOL, especially if you can tweak the ASP.NET code to make it run on Mono.
The design for that looks fuglier than StarOffice 5 did. I mean, that had to really take some hard work to make something look that horrible. And the content isn't any better. "They'd download it." WTF were they thinking? If they actually put this ad in a paper, the best thing they can hope for is that people don't remember it. This could only have a negative impact on OOo's adoption among non-tech people.
SUSE's probably one of the most relevant distros out there. Novell's Open Enterprise server has a lot of really nice and sometimes easy to use features that make it a lot more of an alternative to Windows Server/AD than Debian, Gentoo, or even RedHat are. I'm talking about eDirectory/Novell Client, iFolder, iPrint, Zenworks, etc. And all of that is in addition to SuSE/NLD being a damn fine desktop/laptop system. I love SuSE 10.0 on my laptop (and 10.1 looks pretty nice in VMware apart from some rough edges surrounding the new Zenworks updater). Some of the screenshots and stuff that I've seen from SUSE Enterprise 10 look pretty nice too. Also, SUSE Enterprise 10 should be able to do some cool stuff with Xen. I think I've read somewhere that it will let you use Xen to run stuff that was made for the Netware kernel to help their people migrate from Netware to Linux.
And please don't take this as a flame, but what distros were you thinking were more relevant? I mean, for servers, RedHat and Debian would arguably be, Ubuntu maybe for some home-user desktops, I can't think of too much else that would actually be used by normal companies too much.
Of course, I'm sure a lot of people will go on about how they love Gentoo or Slackware, but how many businesses really use those distros? I'm not saying they aren't fine distros (I personally wasn't impressed too much by Slackware, and I don't have time to install Gentoo), but outside of the really hardcore Linux people, I don't think they get much usage.
I agree, I do that too. I kind of think of it this way - I trust myself (the CA in this instance) a helluva lot more than I trust Verisign, et al. And my users should too (not that they have a choice, since I'm the admin). Its obviously not going to work for an e-com site, but it works quite well for Intranet type stuff, and for when people need to get email/webmail/other web app that they need to log-in to remotely.
That's a good one. I doubt that the expensiveness of HPC is something that Microsoft is going to solve. MS's marketing folks could have atleast thought of something that *sounds* like it might be true.
This kind of raises an interesting question - why aren't airlines using wifi? 802.11b/g uses the 2.4ghz range, that can basically be used by anyone. So I can't imagine that 2.4ghz stuff could interfer with the plane. If so, then I would assume that planes would be falling out of the sky as they fly over residential areas when taking off and landing.
The explosion may have been caused by brain dead operators, but the people who designed Chernobyl and other Soviet reactors could have and should have built a containment structure, like those around US (and presumably other country's as well) reactors. I am not a nuclear physicist, but I would assume that having a really thick concrete shield around the entire reactor would have significantly reduced the severity of the accident.
Yeah, but if a major (and by major I'm talking impact of a reasonably large sized asteroid) extinction happened 5,000 years ago, would we be here right now?
Those devices do not permanently store or archive them. This does.
I can't express how big of a smile would be on my face if somebody nailed AT&T in the ass for this. Its almost too good to be true.
Re:Why Then Not Now?
on
Back to the Moon
·
· Score: 2, Informative
No, in fact the second generation of the Mercury program (Mercury Atlas) was based off of the Atlas ballistic missile. And after that, Gemini was based off of the Titan ballistic missile. Apollo of course came next, and AFAIK no major sections of the Saturn rocket were based off of any ICBM designs.
What's really the big deal here? I mean, assuming that for some reason the people living in those areas "forget" they are not supposed to dig stuff up by the radioactive waste dump over a few generatinos, and assuming that some people way in the future try to, I would think that that civilization would figure out rather quickly that they shouldn't have dug stuff up there when some of their people start to die gruesomely. If civilization has regressed so much that they wouldn't have any geiger counters or any knowledge of radiation, then I would assume that some massive, world wide catastrophe has occured - in which case, who cares if ten or twenty more people die. I think there are more significant, and more urgent problems for people to focus on. Like maybe, how to reduce the amount of radioactive waste in the first place. Or how to use fusion to generate large amounts of energy without tons of radioactive waste.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know why the stat's for SSL servers so much different for regular HTTP? Are more business or ecomm(shudder) sites running on IIS? Or am I missing something.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, then you DO have a problem with Israel striking Hezbollah positions. Groups like this use civilian areas, deliberately to increase body counts/discourage retaliation/hide. Civilian casualties result. Precision airstrikes aren't. It doesn't matter if the 2000lb bomb hits the target-if you are close and innocent, you are screwed.
That may be true, however the IAF should have the common sense to not use 2000lb bombs against targets in urban areas/where there are many civilians. There are plenty of smaller sized weapons that they could use. Also, I remember hearing something about the Brits using cement filled bombs to destroy tanks and other small targets in urban settings during the first few weeks of the current Iraq war to limit civilian casualties. Israel has the right to defend themselves, but they need to be damn sure that their targets are indeed Hezbollah installations before they destroy them and anyone near them. If there are civilians nearby, then it is Israel's responsibility to try to reduce the chances that they will be injured or killed by the airstrike. I acknowledge the fact that some Lebanese civilians are going to be killed by Israeli airstrikes irregardless of how careful Israel is. But they need to try to limit those deaths. If there is no way to destroy the target without causing many civilian casualties then Israel needs to find another way to take the target out - maybe by using special forces, or by using helicopters. If Israel drops bombs on targets knowing that they will kill scores of civilians then that makes them no better than the people they are fighting, people who launch rockets into the centers of the Israeli civilian population.
It does seem like Israel is starting to realize some of this - according to BBC Israel is stopping their airstrikes while they look into a strike that killed 50 some civilians today. Maybe their deaths won't be in vain. Unfortunately, I'm sure that Hezbollah will use this event to try to gain more supporters and fighters to continue their attacks against Israel. For the civilians (the truely innocent civilians, not Hezbollah) its a lose-lose situation.
Isn't that sort of what the operating system's kernel is supposed to do?
I don't think I really agree with you about the movies. Yeah, there are a lot of movies with no depth, but there have been several in the past year or so that I've really liked. (The Inside Man, Lord of War, V is for Vendetta, Syriana, and a few others IIRC). I think it might be more of you just not liking the genre's of films that are being put out (not as many sci-fi). That doesn't mean that the quality of movies is necessarily going down.
TV generally sucks, but I don't think that's anything new. I rarely watch TV other than the news (and I get most of that off the Internet anyway), and occasionally a sitcom or two while I'm eating dinner.
I don't think most people would have an issue with Israel striking Hezbollah rocket launchers/ammunition. What I (and others too I assume), have a problem with is the hundreds of innocent Lebanese civilians that have been killed in Israeli "precision" airstrikes. I also have a problem with Israel destroying infrastructure, preventing civilians from leaving the area.
None of this excuses Hezbollah's missile attacks on civilians in Israel. Or their holding captured Israeli soldiers as hostages. People like Hezbollah, who attack civilians are scum. Plain and simple.
It really sickens me that we (the US) are supporting what Israel is doing. Not only because of how many innocent civilians have lost their lives in the past few weeks as a result of Israeli airstrikes, but because I find it really hard to believe that forcing half a million people from their homes, killing a few innocent people along with a few militants/terrorists, and launching ground assaults against that foreign country, are going to solve any problems. Even if Israel destroys Hezbollah, at what cost? How many non-combatants on both sides will have died in the violence? And how many people in Lebanon who didn't previously have hostile feelings towards Israel will be filled with hate and anger because of Israel's response? Violence breeds violence. Hezbollah's kidnappings caused Israeli airstrikes, which caused Hezbollah to start firing more missiles at Israel, which caused more Israeli airstrikes, ad infinitum.
Atleast Israel has sort of stated what they want to accomplish (drive Hezbollah from southern Lebanon and destroy their unguided rockets and launchers), and that's an OK goal, though maybe a little unrealistic. Hezbollah's (AFAIK atleast) has no real goal - other than inflicting as much pain as possible on Israel and getting them to stop attacking. I guess you could say their goal is to get Israel to exchange prisoners with them, but I think everyone has moved past that now.
I guess I sound rather anti-Israeli, but I'm really not. Before this conflict, I was probably heavily pro-Israeli, and I still favor Israel. I think both sides in this conflict are rather fscked up, though Israel IMHO still has the "moral highground." It's just that I would have thought that Israel would have been smart enough to realize that this wasn't going to accomplish much by now. They can't stop Hezbollah from launching rockets at them, but they could atleast try to not give Hezbollah any more political ammuntion to recruit more militants with. I will praise Israel for not involving Syria or Iran directly yet. If Iran were to get involved, then I can only imagine how ugly it would get - their border with Iraq, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Persian Gulf could all be threatened.
What do I think a reasonable response from Israel would have been? I think sending special forces into Lebanon to try and rescue their captured soldiers, and to destroy the Hezbollah unguided rocket/artillery infrastructure would have been a reasonable response. There would be significantly less collateral damage, and they would have had a better chance at rescuing their captured soldiers than they have after weeks of airstrikes. Hezbollah started this conflict, but if Israel hadn't attacked Lebanon as strongly as they did, then maybe the conflict wouldn't have escalated as much as it has.
PS: Sorry if this comes out as an incoherent ramble, I'm tired from traveling half way across the country today.
I think the grandparent poster was talking about generations, not the size. Though, I thought it was the size as well at first, but I don't think there is a 6 or a 5 GB iPod.
Hell yeah! At the very least this shows that the Bush administration can't arbitrarily say "national security" to cover up things that they've done that may not be entirely legal. With this, and the stuff about San Francisco and AT&T, its nice to know that AT&T might actually get in some trouble/lose some money because of what they've done. Maybe they should change their advertising slogan to Your World, Delivered...To The NSA.
I use a WSUS server (basically a local server for automatic updates), and it hasn't even appeared as an option. With WSUS I can have updates downloaded once onto my server and then distributed out to clients from there, as well as select which updates should be applied to what computers. I can also see what updates computers have/need installed.
Not totally on-topic, but, one "critical update" that showed up on my server a few weeks ago was to remove the swastika from a font. If Microsoft thinks that something of that nature is critical, then I'm sure they would be OK with calling WGA a "security update". <sarcasm>After all, they are doing all of this because they are really concerned about malware coming with pirated copies of XP.</sarcasm>
How is VMware Server it stripped down from GSX? I'm running one of the "beta" versions of VMware Server on an old box with 1 VM running, and also have GSX running on a server with 3 VM's running, and no major differences between GSX and VMware server have jumped out at me. I think VMware will even offer support for VMware server (for a fee of course).
It doesn't really have anything to do with tech support, but I've heard the techs at my school talking about this (I wasn't there myself). One of the librarian paras walked into the tech room, where the two tech people there at the time were watching TV. The library person asked what happened, and one of the techs replied that terrorists had just crashed planes into the World Trade Center. The librarian person then asked, "Did the terrorists die?"
Hehe, I've done that sort of thing once. In my defense though, it was just a few hours after I got my wisdom teeth taken out so I wasn't totally coherent. I shutdown before taking a nap (as I said before, I was woozy from the stuff that knocks you out when they operate on you) and forgot that the virtual terminal I was on was connected to my server. I didn't realize it until after I woke up. It took me a few minutes to figure out what happened, especially since I couldn't get up to see if my server was on. Luckily my server was only about 20 ft from me and my parents were there to turn it back on.
Hehe, your post reminds me of something I read from MS's Windows 2k3 documentation. It was listing the "features" (that really was the word they used) of Windows 2k3 that were not available in the Itanium versions. Activation was listed among them.
If you need ASP .NET support on Linux then you're SOL,
That's not entirely true, mod_mono can do atleast some ASP.NET stuff on Linux. It may not run everything, but you're not totally SOL, especially if you can tweak the ASP.NET code to make it run on Mono.
The design for that looks fuglier than StarOffice 5 did. I mean, that had to really take some hard work to make something look that horrible. And the content isn't any better. "They'd download it." WTF were they thinking? If they actually put this ad in a paper, the best thing they can hope for is that people don't remember it. This could only have a negative impact on OOo's adoption among non-tech people.
SUSE's probably one of the most relevant distros out there. Novell's Open Enterprise server has a lot of really nice and sometimes easy to use features that make it a lot more of an alternative to Windows Server/AD than Debian, Gentoo, or even RedHat are. I'm talking about eDirectory/Novell Client, iFolder, iPrint, Zenworks, etc. And all of that is in addition to SuSE/NLD being a damn fine desktop/laptop system. I love SuSE 10.0 on my laptop (and 10.1 looks pretty nice in VMware apart from some rough edges surrounding the new Zenworks updater). Some of the screenshots and stuff that I've seen from SUSE Enterprise 10 look pretty nice too. Also, SUSE Enterprise 10 should be able to do some cool stuff with Xen. I think I've read somewhere that it will let you use Xen to run stuff that was made for the Netware kernel to help their people migrate from Netware to Linux.
And please don't take this as a flame, but what distros were you thinking were more relevant? I mean, for servers, RedHat and Debian would arguably be, Ubuntu maybe for some home-user desktops, I can't think of too much else that would actually be used by normal companies too much.
Of course, I'm sure a lot of people will go on about how they love Gentoo or Slackware, but how many businesses really use those distros? I'm not saying they aren't fine distros (I personally wasn't impressed too much by Slackware, and I don't have time to install Gentoo), but outside of the really hardcore Linux people, I don't think they get much usage.
I agree, I do that too. I kind of think of it this way - I trust myself (the CA in this instance) a helluva lot more than I trust Verisign, et al. And my users should too (not that they have a choice, since I'm the admin). Its obviously not going to work for an e-com site, but it works quite well for Intranet type stuff, and for when people need to get email/webmail/other web app that they need to log-in to remotely.
but until now it has been too expensive
That's a good one. I doubt that the expensiveness of HPC is something that Microsoft is going to solve. MS's marketing folks could have atleast thought of something that *sounds* like it might be true.
This kind of raises an interesting question - why aren't airlines using wifi? 802.11b/g uses the 2.4ghz range, that can basically be used by anyone. So I can't imagine that 2.4ghz stuff could interfer with the plane. If so, then I would assume that planes would be falling out of the sky as they fly over residential areas when taking off and landing.
The explosion may have been caused by brain dead operators, but the people who designed Chernobyl and other Soviet reactors could have and should have built a containment structure, like those around US (and presumably other country's as well) reactors. I am not a nuclear physicist, but I would assume that having a really thick concrete shield around the entire reactor would have significantly reduced the severity of the accident.
People said Microsoft couldn't make a decent browser in 1996
/. would agree that ten years later, they still can't. Popular by default (not by choice) does not necessarily equal decent.
I think most people on
Wow, sending electrical signals through my body! What's not to like about that. I'm sure it will never mess up or anything...
Yeah, but if a major (and by major I'm talking impact of a reasonably large sized asteroid) extinction happened 5,000 years ago, would we be here right now?
Those devices do not permanently store or archive them. This does.
I can't express how big of a smile would be on my face if somebody nailed AT&T in the ass for this. Its almost too good to be true.
No, in fact the second generation of the Mercury program (Mercury Atlas) was based off of the Atlas ballistic missile. And after that, Gemini was based off of the Titan ballistic missile. Apollo of course came next, and AFAIK no major sections of the Saturn rocket were based off of any ICBM designs.
What's really the big deal here? I mean, assuming that for some reason the people living in those areas "forget" they are not supposed to dig stuff up by the radioactive waste dump over a few generatinos, and assuming that some people way in the future try to, I would think that that civilization would figure out rather quickly that they shouldn't have dug stuff up there when some of their people start to die gruesomely. If civilization has regressed so much that they wouldn't have any geiger counters or any knowledge of radiation, then I would assume that some massive, world wide catastrophe has occured - in which case, who cares if ten or twenty more people die. I think there are more significant, and more urgent problems for people to focus on. Like maybe, how to reduce the amount of radioactive waste in the first place. Or how to use fusion to generate large amounts of energy without tons of radioactive waste.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know why the stat's for SSL servers so much different for regular HTTP? Are more business or ecomm(shudder) sites running on IIS? Or am I missing something.