" False. Air traffic controllers knew that the first plane had been hijacked half an hour before it hit the WTC."
They knew something was wrong, but they were unable to put the pieces together. You are correct though in your analysis that there needed to be changes in the system, but that is hardly Bush's fault as the problems were in the system that had existed when he took office. Perhaps he could have reformed the system within his first 8 months, but then you would have to blame Clinton for not reforming it in 8 years (along with every modern president before him).
It is not the president's responsibility to micromanage the air traffic controllers or fighter pilots, if it were this country would never run. Again, thats why the executive branch delegates power.
"Sounds like you don't have much confidence in the ability of the President to respond intelligently."
No, I don't have confidence in the hypothetical president described by the ggp who responded by immediately shooting down planes from the sky. Bush on the other hand waited so that his staf could gather information so he could make an intelligent decision.
"My understanding is that only the President had the authority to issue the order to shoot down an airliner. Correct me if I'm wrong."
You are wrong. At the very least I know the VP can, as that is what happened that day.
While Linux may be designed to be more secure than Windows, it is still not bulletproof. It still has flaws, and if it were used by 90-something percent of all home users you can bet someone would exploit those flaws.
" And if they scrambled aircraft quicker, maybe they could have shot down the second or third. " Doubtful. The accusation was that he froze after the second plane hit (after the first no one knew it was intentional), so there is no way he could have saved the second plane. And even then not enough was known to know that the Pentagon was at risk. A more likely scenario if he had acted rashly would be that dozens of innocent planes would have been shot down under the belief that they were going to hit other buildings. Sorry to spoil your Monday night quarterbacking.
"Bush looked and was completely unaible to deal with the catastrophy. It was only after the Satte of the Union ( or special session of congress, with Tony Blar, I forget) that he regained composure."
Most (including hard core democrats) thought he looked fine in his address to the nation that night. But sorry if you disaprove of his PR.
Besides, are you aware that our government is run by more than one person? Tasks are delegated to a large number of people, especially in an administration like Bush's. That ends up making for a much more effective government than one micro-managed by one person.
Pissed off another mod, oh well. If it were not for them we could end up with a half way balanced debate, who would want that?
The best part of being in a debate with currently over 1400 posts is that you can mock the mods without fear of getting knocked down. After all, no one is going to read it.
First of all, aiding Al Qaeda while they were planning 9-11 is different from planning 9-11 itself.
Second, saying an act is consistent with a policy is different from saying that policy was the justification for it.
Third, yes weapons programs was the primary justification for going to war for those of you who slept through the entire buildup and still think you know more about foreign policy than Rice, Powell, Rumsfield, and friends. Yes they (and the UN) thought Iraq still had their stockpiles of weapons, but the idea was to take out Saddam before he became an immediate threat.
Would you have preferred that he acted rashly without all the information available? Fact is we did not know immediately that it was Bin Laden. There are other dangerous terrorist groups other than Al Qaeda. I remember initially there was speculation that it could have been someone avenging the execution of McVeigh (I think the first plane hit almost exactly something like 3 months after his execution). There were already orders in place to defend against additional attacks. Taking a few minutes to think things over is not a sign of weakness. If you disagree, I sure am glad you are not in charge of our national security.
I think what the gp was saying was that Linux and Macs are not immune to being attacked in similar ways. They may be generally safer and immune to most attempts so far, but that is different from being immune.
" He and his administration have lied about the potential connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda"
He claimed there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which we know there were. If you interpreted "ties" to mean "Iraq helped Al Qaeda plan 9-11", then you are just an idiot.
"have lied about the weapons of mass destruction (remember Colin Powell with all his pretty satellite photos?)"
You mean the weapons programs we have since found evidence of (even if they were pretty crappy)?
"and has falsely invaded two countries which had nothing to do with terrorism."
You mean Afghanistan and Iraq? It is virtually undisputed that the Taliban protected Al Qaeda. And if you think Iraq "had nothing to do with terrorism", then you clearly know nothing about foreign policy.
Note that having something to do with terrorism is not the same as collaborating with Bin Laden on 9/11.
First, as a disclaimer, I have not seen the movie, nor do I plan to. Not because it is a liberal propaganda film, but because I am not in the practice of giving $9 to every schmuck with a video camera who tries to make a movie.
From what I've seen of it (and from what I know of Michael Moore), this is less of an issue based intelligent discussion than a hate based rant against Bush. The former I might be interested in seeing, the latter, well I think I'll keep my $9.
I love a good debate, thats one of the main reasons I keep coming here. Scrolling through the comments that have been made already today I saw a bunch of people making fun of Fox News for being conservative propaganda. Well, guess what? Fox News has actual debates. Yes, they may be often made with the conservative view acting as the 'home team' if you will, but you still see an intelligent analysis of the opinions of both sides. The other day I say a debate between Juan Williams and Fred Barnes, two intelligent people of very different political persuasions. As a consequence, by hearing both sides (and on any controversial issue there are always at least two sides) my viewpoint on the issues they discussed has grown.
A one-sided rant does not do this. It does not matter if all Moore's facts are strictly true, such a film does not illuminate truth, it only clouds it. Anyone who has studied logical fallacies knows this. Using nothing but strictly true facts I could argue just about anything. The thing that illuminates truth is not such a rant, but rather intelligent debates which (from what I have seen) Moore's film lacks.
I don't really mind such rants as long as they are billed as entertainment. I enjoy watching South Park which often has such rants. I enjoy late night comedians who will often make political jokes. And I even liked Moore's earlier film "Canadian Bacon" which I found quite funny. But in this case, the stated goal of the film is persuasion, not entertainment. Thus it is a miserable failure.
"The only restrictive part of the GPL is that GPLd works can only be used as parts of a GPL project. Proprietary projects cannot contain GPL works unless the proprietary project uses the GPL."
Not just that, they also can't link to GPLed code. And if the proprietary project uses the GPL, its not a proprietary project by defintion.
Anyways, saying you can't access this code unless you also agree to the license is a HUGE restriction. There may be good reasons for that restriction in certain circumstances, but that does not change the fact that the license is highly restricted.
"Quit whining about the GPL."
WTF? I'm not whining about it, I'm stating that the GPL is highly restrictive.
Better watch out, if they push them back too far they may end up removing Snow White from the public domain and be forced to pay the estate of the origional author.
Thing is, a lot of students just don't care. I was talking to my little brother last week (an English major I'm sorry to say) and he mentioned that he never applies updates. I warned him about the potential dangers and he just shrugged them off, claiming he hasn't had any problems so far (I'm not so sure about that, we used his computer for about 5 minutes and it crashed).
Maybe instead of banning after the computer gets infected, ban it if it is detected that the most recent updates have not been applied in a timely matter.
Re:Am I the only one saying WTF?
on
Spider-Man in India
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Explain to me why we're re-doing comics for other locales? Can't they make their own comics? "
How many Disney movies were based on old stories from other cultures?
I know of the practice, I was making this thing called a 'joke'.
I really should start putting disclaimers at the end of my posts saying when to not take them seriously. Though its not as bad as the time when I made a sarcastic comment about nuclear weapons being used in every war since WW2 (I think it was in response to someone claiming that once the technology is out of the bag, it will be used and no one can stop it) and some Vietnam vet got mad at me.
So what, he was supposed to meet with an unfortunate 'accident' back then but narrowly escaped death? I guess some people didn't like what he was saying about Y2K back in 1998.
Funny, the article that claimed he was 78 mentions that he was born in Febuary, 1920. Now I may not have the best grade in my advanced Calc class, but even I know 2004-1920 != 78.
"Still criticize them? Strange, since I've never posted anything criticizing them before (check my comments if you don't believe)"
Since you are giving me permission, fine.
You critized MS in this post right here.
And you praised open source development when done by companies other than MS here.
So why is it that when Linus makes an open source operating system its good, but when MS releases something with such a license they greedy corporate assholes just trying to get people to work for free?
What the hell is so wrong about the CPL? Its a perfectly good free software license, approved by the Open Source Initiative. A number of good products have come out under it, including Eclipse. You can still use the code, you just can't release it under an incompatible license. Same with the GPL. Where the fuck are you getting this idea that you can't reuse or change it?
Do you have any legitimate reason for disliking the CPL, other than the fact that MS uses it?
Don't be so antagonistic about topics you clearly have no clue about.
There is a big difference between trying to get a law through the presidential veto (which Congress can actually overide with a super majority) and getting an amendment ratified by the states. Just look at what happened with #27.
Point remains, there is a difference between something being written in the Constitution and something being interpreted as being in there by a bunch of judges. The former cannot be overridden except in extreme circumstances, with super-majorities in both houses of Congress and the states). The latter changes whenever the opinions of the judges changes, and just about anyone can petition for them to reconsider.
Except in how many of those situations would a bike or public transportation be sufficient for a fraction of the cost?
At 14 grand, it either has to cater to rich people with too much money on their hands, or to people who would be willing to use it as their only mode of transportation, and there is no way this little thing is practical enough to replace cars in most situations.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that is what the English-speaking world calls a "restriction".
Something that limits the use of the code under the license.
If the project as a whole is not under the GPL, it can't use GPL code.
You don't have to think that is a bad thing, some restrictions are good, but to say the GPL is unrestricted is just plain dumb.
They knew something was wrong, but they were unable to put the pieces together. You are correct though in your analysis that there needed to be changes in the system, but that is hardly Bush's fault as the problems were in the system that had existed when he took office. Perhaps he could have reformed the system within his first 8 months, but then you would have to blame Clinton for not reforming it in 8 years (along with every modern president before him).
It is not the president's responsibility to micromanage the air traffic controllers or fighter pilots, if it were this country would never run. Again, thats why the executive branch delegates power.
"Sounds like you don't have much confidence in the ability of the President to respond intelligently."
No, I don't have confidence in the hypothetical president described by the ggp who responded by immediately shooting down planes from the sky. Bush on the other hand waited so that his staf could gather information so he could make an intelligent decision.
"My understanding is that only the President had the authority to issue the order to shoot down an airliner. Correct me if I'm wrong."
You are wrong. At the very least I know the VP can, as that is what happened that day.
I'm glad you are not president.
While Linux may be designed to be more secure than Windows, it is still not bulletproof. It still has flaws, and if it were used by 90-something percent of all home users you can bet someone would exploit those flaws.
Doubtful. The accusation was that he froze after the second plane hit (after the first no one knew it was intentional), so there is no way he could have saved the second plane. And even then not enough was known to know that the Pentagon was at risk. A more likely scenario if he had acted rashly would be that dozens of innocent planes would have been shot down under the belief that they were going to hit other buildings. Sorry to spoil your Monday night quarterbacking.
"Bush looked and was completely unaible to deal with the catastrophy. It was only after the Satte of the Union ( or special session of congress, with Tony Blar, I forget) that he regained composure."
Most (including hard core democrats) thought he looked fine in his address to the nation that night. But sorry if you disaprove of his PR.
Besides, are you aware that our government is run by more than one person? Tasks are delegated to a large number of people, especially in an administration like Bush's. That ends up making for a much more effective government than one micro-managed by one person.
The best part of being in a debate with currently over 1400 posts is that you can mock the mods without fear of getting knocked down. After all, no one is going to read it.
Second, saying an act is consistent with a policy is different from saying that policy was the justification for it.
Third, yes weapons programs was the primary justification for going to war for those of you who slept through the entire buildup and still think you know more about foreign policy than Rice, Powell, Rumsfield, and friends. Yes they (and the UN) thought Iraq still had their stockpiles of weapons, but the idea was to take out Saddam before he became an immediate threat.
Yeah, and those procedures were activated. There were in place orders to shoot down the 4th plane if it hadn't crashed.
Would you have preferred that he acted rashly without all the information available? Fact is we did not know immediately that it was Bin Laden. There are other dangerous terrorist groups other than Al Qaeda. I remember initially there was speculation that it could have been someone avenging the execution of McVeigh (I think the first plane hit almost exactly something like 3 months after his execution). There were already orders in place to defend against additional attacks. Taking a few minutes to think things over is not a sign of weakness. If you disagree, I sure am glad you are not in charge of our national security.
I think what the gp was saying was that Linux and Macs are not immune to being attacked in similar ways. They may be generally safer and immune to most attempts so far, but that is different from being immune.
He claimed there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which we know there were. If you interpreted "ties" to mean "Iraq helped Al Qaeda plan 9-11", then you are just an idiot.
"have lied about the weapons of mass destruction (remember Colin Powell with all his pretty satellite photos?)"
You mean the weapons programs we have since found evidence of (even if they were pretty crappy)?
"and has falsely invaded two countries which had nothing to do with terrorism."
You mean Afghanistan and Iraq? It is virtually undisputed that the Taliban protected Al Qaeda. And if you think Iraq "had nothing to do with terrorism", then you clearly know nothing about foreign policy.
Note that having something to do with terrorism is not the same as collaborating with Bin Laden on 9/11.
From what I've seen of it (and from what I know of Michael Moore), this is less of an issue based intelligent discussion than a hate based rant against Bush. The former I might be interested in seeing, the latter, well I think I'll keep my $9.
I love a good debate, thats one of the main reasons I keep coming here. Scrolling through the comments that have been made already today I saw a bunch of people making fun of Fox News for being conservative propaganda. Well, guess what? Fox News has actual debates. Yes, they may be often made with the conservative view acting as the 'home team' if you will, but you still see an intelligent analysis of the opinions of both sides. The other day I say a debate between Juan Williams and Fred Barnes, two intelligent people of very different political persuasions. As a consequence, by hearing both sides (and on any controversial issue there are always at least two sides) my viewpoint on the issues they discussed has grown.
A one-sided rant does not do this. It does not matter if all Moore's facts are strictly true, such a film does not illuminate truth, it only clouds it. Anyone who has studied logical fallacies knows this. Using nothing but strictly true facts I could argue just about anything. The thing that illuminates truth is not such a rant, but rather intelligent debates which (from what I have seen) Moore's film lacks.
I don't really mind such rants as long as they are billed as entertainment. I enjoy watching South Park which often has such rants. I enjoy late night comedians who will often make political jokes. And I even liked Moore's earlier film "Canadian Bacon" which I found quite funny. But in this case, the stated goal of the film is persuasion, not entertainment. Thus it is a miserable failure.
Not just that, they also can't link to GPLed code. And if the proprietary project uses the GPL, its not a proprietary project by defintion.
Anyways, saying you can't access this code unless you also agree to the license is a HUGE restriction. There may be good reasons for that restriction in certain circumstances, but that does not change the fact that the license is highly restricted.
"Quit whining about the GPL."
WTF? I'm not whining about it, I'm stating that the GPL is highly restrictive.
Someone is a little bit over defensive today.
Better watch out, if they push them back too far they may end up removing Snow White from the public domain and be forced to pay the estate of the origional author.
Maybe instead of banning after the computer gets infected, ban it if it is detected that the most recent updates have not been applied in a timely matter.
Xenophobic slashdotters?
"Explain to me why we're re-doing comics for other locales? Can't they make their own comics? "
How many Disney movies were based on old stories from other cultures?
I really should start putting disclaimers at the end of my posts saying when to not take them seriously. Though its not as bad as the time when I made a sarcastic comment about nuclear weapons being used in every war since WW2 (I think it was in response to someone claiming that once the technology is out of the bag, it will be used and no one can stop it) and some Vietnam vet got mad at me.
You really should do your homework before you waste our time posting here.
So what, he was supposed to meet with an unfortunate 'accident' back then but narrowly escaped death? I guess some people didn't like what he was saying about Y2K back in 1998.
Funny, the article that claimed he was 78 mentions that he was born in Febuary, 1920. Now I may not have the best grade in my advanced Calc class, but even I know 2004-1920 != 78.
"Still criticize them? Strange, since I've never posted anything criticizing them before (check my comments if you don't believe)"
Since you are giving me permission, fine.
You critized MS in this post right here.
And you praised open source development when done by companies other than MS here.
So why is it that when Linus makes an open source operating system its good, but when MS releases something with such a license they greedy corporate assholes just trying to get people to work for free?
Do you have any legitimate reason for disliking the CPL, other than the fact that MS uses it?
Don't be so antagonistic about topics you clearly have no clue about.
Point remains, there is a difference between something being written in the Constitution and something being interpreted as being in there by a bunch of judges. The former cannot be overridden except in extreme circumstances, with super-majorities in both houses of Congress and the states). The latter changes whenever the opinions of the judges changes, and just about anyone can petition for them to reconsider.
At 14 grand, it either has to cater to rich people with too much money on their hands, or to people who would be willing to use it as their only mode of transportation, and there is no way this little thing is practical enough to replace cars in most situations.