The funny thing is, many of the people on slashdot who scoff at the anti-nuclear extremists turn around and apply the same standard of evidence to the evils of GPS that their anti-nuke opponents do to atomic energy
Except that they may not be any of the same people. Just because there are vocal./ers scoffing at the anti-nuclear crowd, and there are vocal./ers complining about GPS, it says nothing about the correlation of the two.
Please explain, why not use the onboad nics? After all for a respectable server we're not talking about your el cheapo embedded NIC as found on many desktop motherboards, but Intel e1000's, Broadcom's and others.
Nothing wrong with using the embedded NIC's at all.
I think that Judges drawing from international cases as well as national cases is a good thing, as long as they are not *required* to use precendents from international cases (which they are not).
The fact they can and do draw from international rulings doesn't make you any more or less subject to foreign laws as the argument still has to fit the applicable local laws, like any judges ruling (lest it face overturn on appeal)
Precedents from other jurisdications can be used as persuasive precedents by courts, both in the US and outside the US. This is in contrast to the authoratative precedent of local jurisdiction.
For example, when the SCOTUS rules against Anti-Sodomy laws in 2003, they drew upon international precedents as a partial basis for their ruling.
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001421.htm l
You are getting stock, not stock options - this is getting more common.
We used to have options grants, but have forgone this for a combination of cash and stock grants.
Re:No, check your facts bud...
on
Verified Voting
·
· Score: 1
the wtimes link is broken, the abc link says essentially the same thing that I quoted earlier.
that coupled with the new video showing explosives and other ordinance and the case becomes even more compelling
Re:No, check your facts bud...
on
Verified Voting
·
· Score: 1
The last I've read, and the source for which I've quoted is that the 3rd ID did find explosives, but not sealed explosives, but neither did they do a exhastive search. If you have a source saying otherwise please share it. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
But again, this is slightly off the main cause of concern for me and others, and why it should be explored. That question is why hadn't any forces been there to do a search and secure anything remaining prior to the discovery that it's all gone?
And yes, I am aware of the fact that we have secured and destroyed a large amount of munitions, and thats good, but OTOH, there is a lot we have not, and most of that has ended up in the hands of those that oppose us.
Kerry (and for that matter Bush's) military records have nothing to do with this.
Re:No, check your facts bud...
on
Verified Voting
·
· Score: 1
take off your blinders for a minute and reread your own posts.
The 3rd ID has said there were explosives there, although the ones they found did not have seals on them.
Kerry has not attacked the troops, but the plan which called for a very small force and a quick strike to baghdad. good for a quick war, but not sufficent to secure all the sites that needed securing. BTW this is not a new argument, in fact there are many, many sites where looters have obtained munitions as there has been no/little security at many sites.
Yes, there might have been less than 380tons as the facts stand now, but there is still a very significant amount that is unaccounted for.
I for one want to know the real story. If the facts ultimately vindicate the US commands actions, then that's all the better, however until we know what really happened, it's imperative that we question the appropriate people until the facts are known.
I do not accept that we should not ask the hard questions when so much is at stake.
Agreed, they were under IAEA seal. Biggest question in my mind is
Given we knew about them, why werent the troops under orders to check for them, and failing that, why wasnt' a follow up visit made after the invasion to determine the status of the munitions?
The russian angle seems highly improbable, but I'll await further developments here.
I agree it's not exactly clear, but to say it's wrong, wrong wrong is not fair at this point. So their status at this stage is not known, but it raises serious questions.
from http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.exp losives/
"News reports during the conflict indicated that troops from the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division entered the Al Qaqaa site on April 4, 2003, finding thousands of boxes of white powder that preliminary tests determined was an explosive. The 101st Airborne Division troops arrived six days later.
No material under IAEA seal was found, but Pentagon officials said the troops were not under orders to conduct a thorough inspection."
There are reports that they were there when the Airborne stopped off before there before heading to baghdad. So it does appear they were lost due to the lack of US forces securing them, but when and how is a bit of a mystery still.
more to the point though, if there had been WMD, it seems that the careless approach to securing these types of sites would likely have put these into the insurgents hands.
Because it's creating a buzz about voting. For so long the percentage of eligible voters actually voting has been so low in this country that we obviously do need to remind people that democracy will not continue to function (some might say it's not functioning now) if the majority of people do not vote.
By building up the notion that voting is the responsibility of each citizen, hopefully voter drives like this will reverse the trend of declining voter ranks and bring some change to the current status quo in Politics and elections.
It's not so simplistic. As an AC reply pointed out, were your theory to hold true scooters should be safer than SUVs since they have less mass.
Of course it's not that simple, If one could explain crash dynamics in a few sentences life would be simply indeed.
again, in simple terms, it would be best if all vehicles weighed about the same, that way they take equal (or nearly equal) responsibility for dissipating energy.
in a single car crash, it's better to have the lightest car you can while still having enough structure and crumple zones to dissipate the energy
and yes this post is a simplified version of reality
However, with all of the SUV bashing you see on this site, it should be mentioned that they are the safest vehicles on the road.
Bullshit.
While it's true that if you are in a huge SUV and hit a car, the SUV will come off better, the overall safety picture is not good for SUV drivers.
The additional mass also has downsides. In single vehicle accidents it's better to have less mass as there is less energy to dissipate. According to the NHTSA, single vehicle accidents accounted for only 18% of crashes, but 44% of fatalities.
Larger vehicles have longer stopping distances, increasing the likelyhood of a crash.
Also figures from the NHSTA show that SUV fatality rates are 11% higher than cars.
According to those statistics, the safest vehicles are minivans, with a fatality rate of 2.76 per billion miles travelled, 2nd were large cars, with a rate of 3.3 fatalities per billion miles. The largest SUV's came in 3rd with 3.79 fatalities per billion miles
Russ Feingold (D - WI) - the only senator to oppose the act (from either party)
in the house, the picture was a bit different
For HR 3162 (house version of patriot act), the votes were
For : 211 Republicans, 145 Democrats, 1 Independent
Against : 3 Republicans, 62 Democrats, 1 Independant
clearly the Democrats were less enamored of the legislation than were republicans, although not in sufficient numbers
But that's missing the point. The Dems do not (as a whole) want a Patriot II, the Republican leadership does.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they weren't against taxation per say, but against taxation without representation, as they had no say in the goverment that taxed them.
The funny thing is, many of the people on slashdot who scoff at the anti-nuclear extremists turn around and apply the same standard of evidence to the evils of GPS that their anti-nuke opponents do to atomic energy
./ers scoffing at the anti-nuclear crowd, and there are vocal ./ers complining about GPS, it says nothing about the correlation of the two.
Except that they may not be any of the same people. Just because there are vocal
Anyone else have any Thomas the Train DVDs
No, but I have Thomas the Tank Engine DVD's, but yes the startup delay annoys no end.
Please explain, why not use the onboad nics? After all for a respectable server we're not talking about your el cheapo embedded NIC as found on many desktop motherboards, but Intel e1000's, Broadcom's and others.
Nothing wrong with using the embedded NIC's at all.
Uhh, the receptionist answers the main incoming line, you can't just change that or route it to voicemail.
I think that Judges drawing from international cases as well as national cases is a good thing, as long as they are not *required* to use precendents from international cases (which they are not).
The fact they can and do draw from international rulings doesn't make you any more or less subject to foreign laws as the argument still has to fit the applicable local laws, like any judges ruling (lest it face overturn on appeal)
Precedents from other jurisdications can be used as persuasive precedents by courts, both in the US and outside the US. This is in contrast to the authoratative precedent of local jurisdiction.
m l
For example, when the SCOTUS rules against Anti-Sodomy laws in 2003, they drew upon international precedents as a partial basis for their ruling.
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001421.ht
You are getting stock, not stock options - this is getting more common. We used to have options grants, but have forgone this for a combination of cash and stock grants.
the wtimes link is broken, the abc link says essentially the same thing that I quoted earlier.
that coupled with the new video showing explosives and other ordinance and the case becomes even more compelling
The last I've read, and the source for which I've quoted is that the 3rd ID did find explosives, but not sealed explosives, but neither did they do a exhastive search. If you have a source saying otherwise please share it. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
But again, this is slightly off the main cause of concern for me and others, and why it should be explored. That question is why hadn't any forces been there to do a search and secure anything remaining prior to the discovery that it's all gone?
And yes, I am aware of the fact that we have secured and destroyed a large amount of munitions, and thats good, but OTOH, there is a lot we have not, and most of that has ended up in the hands of those that oppose us.
Kerry (and for that matter Bush's) military records have nothing to do with this.
take off your blinders for a minute and reread your own posts.
The 3rd ID has said there were explosives there, although the ones they found did not have seals on them.
Kerry has not attacked the troops, but the plan which called for a very small force and a quick strike to baghdad. good for a quick war, but not sufficent to secure all the sites that needed securing. BTW this is not a new argument, in fact there are many, many sites where looters have obtained munitions as there has been no/little security at many sites.
Yes, there might have been less than 380tons as the facts stand now, but there is still a very significant amount that is unaccounted for.
I for one want to know the real story. If the facts ultimately vindicate the US commands actions, then that's all the better, however until we know what really happened, it's imperative that we question the appropriate people until the facts are known.
I do not accept that we should not ask the hard questions when so much is at stake.
Agreed, they were under IAEA seal. Biggest question in my mind is
Given we knew about them, why werent the troops under orders to check for them, and failing that, why wasnt' a follow up visit made after the invasion to determine the status of the munitions?
The russian angle seems highly improbable, but I'll await further developments here.
I agree it's not exactly clear, but to say it's wrong, wrong wrong is not fair at this point. So their status at this stage is not known, but it raises serious questions.
p losives/
from http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.ex
"News reports during the conflict indicated that troops from the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division entered the Al Qaqaa site on April 4, 2003, finding thousands of boxes of white powder that preliminary tests determined was an explosive. The 101st Airborne Division troops arrived six days later.
No material under IAEA seal was found, but Pentagon officials said the troops were not under orders to conduct a thorough inspection."
There are reports that they were there when the Airborne stopped off before there before heading to baghdad. So it does appear they were lost due to the lack of US forces securing them, but when and how is a bit of a mystery still.
more to the point though, if there had been WMD, it seems that the careless approach to securing these types of sites would likely have put these into the insurgents hands.
of course programming won't become extinct. This is trash journalism at it's best.
Oh wait, it is USA Today, I didn't expect anything else
some US Soldiers did many acts that we should not be proud of in Vietnam, although that is not to fault the majority who did act responsibly.
He's not lying, it did actually happen. I think he did the right thing by speaking out, nothing is served by papering it over and ignoring reality.
Because it's creating a buzz about voting. For so long the percentage of eligible voters actually voting has been so low in this country that we obviously do need to remind people that democracy will not continue to function (some might say it's not functioning now) if the majority of people do not vote.
By building up the notion that voting is the responsibility of each citizen, hopefully voter drives like this will reverse the trend of declining voter ranks and bring some change to the current status quo in Politics and elections.
if you make it to chicagoland you should try goose island, they brew a good pils (not to mention their other fine brews)
http://www.gooseisland.com/beers/beers.html
Management in this case being enterprise management of IE configuration, rather than the ability of the end user to manage their cookes, etc.
It's not so simplistic. As an AC reply pointed out, were your theory to hold true scooters should be safer than SUVs since they have less mass.
Of course it's not that simple, If one could explain crash dynamics in a few sentences life would be simply indeed.
again, in simple terms, it would be best if all vehicles weighed about the same, that way they take equal (or nearly equal) responsibility for dissipating energy. in a single car crash, it's better to have the lightest car you can while still having enough structure and crumple zones to dissipate the energy and yes this post is a simplified version of reality
However, with all of the SUV bashing you see on this site, it should be mentioned that they are the safest vehicles on the road.
Bullshit.
While it's true that if you are in a huge SUV and hit a car, the SUV will come off better, the overall safety picture is not good for SUV drivers.
The additional mass also has downsides. In single vehicle accidents it's better to have less mass as there is less energy to dissipate. According to the NHTSA, single vehicle accidents accounted for only 18% of crashes, but 44% of fatalities.
Larger vehicles have longer stopping distances, increasing the likelyhood of a crash.
Also figures from the NHSTA show that SUV fatality rates are 11% higher than cars.
According to those statistics, the safest vehicles are minivans, with a fatality rate of 2.76 per billion miles travelled, 2nd were large cars, with a rate of 3.3 fatalities per billion miles. The largest SUV's came in 3rd with 3.79 fatalities per billion miles
time to adjust your review mirror methinks
Russ Feingold (D - WI) - the only senator to oppose the act (from either party)
in the house, the picture was a bit different For HR 3162 (house version of patriot act), the votes were
For : 211 Republicans, 145 Democrats, 1 Independent
Against : 3 Republicans, 62 Democrats, 1 Independant
clearly the Democrats were less enamored of the legislation than were republicans, although not in sufficient numbers
But that's missing the point. The Dems do not (as a whole) want a Patriot II, the Republican leadership does.
It's happened before (sans injury).
like this one UAL , Ontario, CA 1997
or this one UAL Rialto, CA 1997
or this Air taxi reports blue light, 1996
make of it what you will, but it's probably not activity aimed at aircraft specifically.
Situation Normal.
he can't be whacked with the DMCA on this
the DMCA does not forbid reverse engineering, but reverse engineering for the purpose of bypassing copyright protection.
Since there is no copyright proctection being circumvented here, the DMCA does not apply