In any counterinsurgency, if the enemy has a sanctuary to run to, you're going to have a tough time. It doesn't matter how badly you kick his ass every time you meet - he gets to retreat, regroup, resupply, retrain, and reattack at the time and place of his choosing. The VC had North Vietnam, the Taliban have Pakistan. If you cannot enter a sanctuary area, you'll likely never knock them out completely. I find it humorous that BHO and the Democrats pledged to really go after Bin Laden rather than wasting time in Iraq - well, if Osama is alive the smart money says he is in Pakistan. Are we supposed to invade them now?
A couple of years ago I saw a documentary on production design called "Masters of Production: The Hidden Art of Hollywood". It was kind of a 'Hooray for Hollywood!' puff piece, but it had a lot of good stuff. One interesting point they brought up about Blade Runner was the impact of the SAG strike of 1980 - before Blade Runner started filming, the Screen Actors Guild and other sympathetic unions wet on strike, basically shutting down Hollywood production. As a result, the production design staff had a few extra months to work 'unofficially' on the look of the film, without the normal deadline pressures. A number of them credited the rich look of the film to the extra time they had to work on it.
Agree with the overall comment, but a nit: "Alexander Nevsky" was directed by Sergei Eisenstein, not Fritz Lang. The movie? Dated and hokey, but as propaganda goes, it's good for a laugh - if you made a drinking game for every time a Hun commits an atrocity, or a Russian does something noble, you'd die of alcohol poisoning before the Battle on the Ice. "The Huns burned a baby...drink!" Prokofiev's score, on the other hand, is awesome.
I should have clarified -- ISDN as a *consumer* technology. Yes, it has soldiered on in the enterprise sphere, but it's window as a consumer technology was very narrow, and quickly eclipsed by DSL and cable modems.
I've always thought of Plasma as the ISDN of TV technology -- it's an 'in-between' solution that is less than ideal and expensive, but provides a level of capability that early adopters and the rich are willing to pay for. Eventually it will pass from the scene, but for a limited number of people for a limited amount of time, it will do the job.
I wish people would stop trying to redefine terms to suit their political agenda. Please look up 'mercenary' in just about any dictionary. It is defined as someone hired to work for a foreign military.
If they are Americans hired to fight for America, they are by definition not mercenaries. If they were to work under the employ of other countries, or if Blackwater or other contractors hired foreign nationals to fight for us, then yes. In just about every case I've heard of, these guys have been former US military.
Debate all you want about their status under the Geneva Conventions and obligations under same, but just because you and Kos call them mercenaries doesn't make it so.
The only thing I wish I'd really known back then is that regret is, arguably, the only useless emotion. All the others, including those with negative connotations like hate or jealousy, can sometimes be channeled to a good end.
Not regret, it's useless. It only serves as a warning that it should be avoided in the future. It uses its' sidekick, embarrassment, to keep you from trying things you want to do, but are afraid to fail at. Embarrassment is overrated, it fades over time and can even become a source of humor, but regret stays forever.
Though maybe the only way to learn it is the hard way, what I wish I'd known is that you will never regret failing at something, you will only regret not having tried in the first place.
How about just Googling 'Iraqi blogs'? Too general for you? Try 'Healing Iraq', 'Iraq the Model', 'Riverbend', 'Salam Pax'.
No, I'm not giving you the URLs. Do at least a little work. Sheesh. These people have been blogging for over a year and a half - Salam Pax was blogging when Saddam was still in power. Sorry if I come across as caustic, but your question and the response by the ACs above show that people haven't made the merest attempt to find out for themselves. Anyone who really cared could find Iraqi blogs over a year ago.
I love how the statement of basic facts is considered "flamebait" by some moderators. Guess the truth is inconvenient for some people. Mod away you little chickenshits, I've got Karma to burn and I've grown tired of Slashdot turning into DU/Indymedia/DailyKos with some Linux thrown in. Do your worst, I don't give a damn.
Last major war in North America: 140 years ago (US Civil War) Last major war in Europe: 60 years ago (WW II)
Last conflict in North America: 85 years ago (Pershing pursuit of Pancho Villa) Last conflict in Europe: less than 10 years ago (Bosnia/Croatia/Kosovo, etc.)
Let's see if the Europeans can go better than fifty years without trying to kill each other, then they can lecture the US about cooperation. My prediction? There will be genocide in Europe within the next forty years - either by Europeans against unassimilated muslim immigrants, or vice versa. The murder of Theo van Gogh and the Dutch mosque burnings in retaliation are just a preview.
One could also point out the correlation between America's major wars in the last century and Democratic administrations -- WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam. Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy/LBJ. So does that mean the Dems should get the 'credit' for wars that cost the lives of over 600,000 Americans? Or is it possible all these correlations don't actually mean much?
"...that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." (emphasis mine)
That was part of the oath I swore when I joined the military. I don't know where people get the idea that the only activity the military can conduct within our borders is training. What is the point of having a military if not to defend our own soil?
I agree that the military make lousy police officers -- no one in the military I know is keen on the idea. Where I disagree is the idea that searching for Al Qaeda operatives is strictly a law enforcement activity. By conventions of war they are spies or saboteurs, and we'd be well within our rights to summarily execute them, just as we did with German agents during WWII. (Well, we actually sent them to military tribunals, which is more than is required. Simply put, if you find a spy, you can shoot them.)
Now, if you were opposed to Eisenhower sending in the 101st Airborne to enforce desegregation, and to Janet Reno using Bradleys to help burn down the Branch Davidians, I'll at least give you credit for consistency. I would be plenty happy to leave it to the FBI if I had faith that they would faithfully follow up on intel given to them by the CIA, but there is a big disconnect there, which the previous administration was more than happy to exacerbate (i.e., the Gorelick memo).
Distributing solutions to the people? 15,000 French elderly died last summer because of a heat wave and it's the US that doesn't distribute solutions to the people?
Just because they're "based on official government data" doesn't mean they are unbiased or accurate.
1) Selective data: The author's thesis is Bush = Bad! so he/she only selects Clinton and Bush the elder/younger. As other posters have pointed out, why not include the Reagan years? The Carter years? (Stagflation, yee-haw!) Why not choose meaningful marker points in economic history, like the end of WWII? Because that would dull the axe they're so eager to grind.
2) Spinning the chart: Why do both the unemployment and stock market charts have Y-axes that do not start at ZERO? Because chopping off the bottom makes the area under the curve look disproportionately small when you want it to (unemployment) and disproportionately large when you want it to (the stock market). Further, why is the area under the curve even filled in? Unemployment rates and the dow jones average are not numbers meant to be *integrated*, but that is what the author is having you do visually. Look at the job creation graph -- it *is* a running total (an integral) from year to year, but then the author fills in the area under that line -- an integral of an integral!
3) Lack of context I: It's realistically a year before a President's policies affect the economy (time for Congress to enact legislation/budget and time for these to go into effect). If you moved the markers to the point where their first budget went into effect, then Bush I gets more credit for dropping unemployment, and Clinton has to take the hit for the uptick in unemployment during Bush II.
4) Lack of context II: The DotCom bubble. During the late '90s, we all looked at the ads for.com companies and asked "WTF are these people selling? Do they even have a product?" The bubble burst - deal with it. A lot of money was wasted, and things looked better than they really were. Now it's back to reality. I don't blame Clinton for the bubble, but it sure as hell isn't GWBs fault.
The author wants to say that life under a 'Bush' is bad, ignoring many things, including correlation != causation. I could just as well say that Democrats are Warmongers. After all, Wilson = WWI, Roosevelt = WWII, Truman = Korea, Kennedy/Johnson = Vietnam. See, aren't sweeping generalizations fun!?
Perish the thought! This is an interplanetary probe, carrying the honor and dignity of the Japanese nation. It will commit seppuku, as befitting a spacecraft of its' station. It would never commit hari kiri like some common communications satellite.
Of course, I'm not sure who will be the "second". Perhaps one of the other satellites or the Martians can finish the thing off...
There's always been a liberal bias among the editors (and many posters) on Slashdot, and I've accepted that, given the amount of other interesting stuff that shows up here.
However, I think we're starting to see the editors, like many others on the left, become totally unhinged. Come on, LA Weekly has a long diatribe from Vidal, and in one small section he basically says "E-voting sucks!", and this is "news for nerds"? This is just the flimsiest excuse to link to another "Bush sucks!", "Bush=Hitler" screed.
We get to read yet-another limousine liberal bemoan how this administration is just as bad as the Third Reich, and how their free speech rights are being suppressed -- somehow the irony of them constantly reminding us of this in various news media is lost on them.
Remember this moment folks, you were there to see Slashdot Jump The Shark (not an exact analogy, but the best I could come up with). I think it's all downhill from here. The Slashdot editors should just go with their true hearts' desire, and start posting wholesale articles from Chomsky and the folks at A.N.S.W.E.R. -- c'mon guys, you know you want to...
...back around 1988. Everyone called him "Leik the Flake". He was my Prof for "Theory of Propulsion", and all he talked about were 'lightcraft', which was all well and good, except we didn't learn much about such 'ancient' technologies as piston and jet engines. He managed to get a lot of grant money though, since these were the SDI years and his research involved ultra-high power lasers tracking hypersonic targets (just for different purposes). Of course, if the guy turns out to be a visionary, I'll be ahead of the curve on all this new-fangled laser rocket science!
Slashdot Mirror
"George Bush doesn't care about BlackBerries."
Yeah, because all those imperialists in Darfur, Bali, the Philippines, etc., etc., really had it coming to them.
Umm, in this one instance maybe, but don't get too excited.
In any counterinsurgency, if the enemy has a sanctuary to run to, you're going to have a tough time. It doesn't matter how badly you kick his ass every time you meet - he gets to retreat, regroup, resupply, retrain, and reattack at the time and place of his choosing. The VC had North Vietnam, the Taliban have Pakistan. If you cannot enter a sanctuary area, you'll likely never knock them out completely. I find it humorous that BHO and the Democrats pledged to really go after Bin Laden rather than wasting time in Iraq - well, if Osama is alive the smart money says he is in Pakistan. Are we supposed to invade them now?
A couple of years ago I saw a documentary on production design called "Masters of Production: The Hidden Art of Hollywood". It was kind of a 'Hooray for Hollywood!' puff piece, but it had a lot of good stuff. One interesting point they brought up about Blade Runner was the impact of the SAG strike of 1980 - before Blade Runner started filming, the Screen Actors Guild and other sympathetic unions wet on strike, basically shutting down Hollywood production. As a result, the production design staff had a few extra months to work 'unofficially' on the look of the film, without the normal deadline pressures. A number of them credited the rich look of the film to the extra time they had to work on it.
Even worse -- it's some jacked-up cover of "All Along the Watchtower"
Agree with the overall comment, but a nit: "Alexander Nevsky" was directed by Sergei Eisenstein, not Fritz Lang. The movie? Dated and hokey, but as propaganda goes, it's good for a laugh - if you made a drinking game for every time a Hun commits an atrocity, or a Russian does something noble, you'd die of alcohol poisoning before the Battle on the Ice. "The Huns burned a baby...drink!" Prokofiev's score, on the other hand, is awesome.
"U.S. Publishes Saddam's Guide to Building Atom Bombs to Web"?
I should have clarified -- ISDN as a *consumer* technology. Yes, it has soldiered on in the enterprise sphere, but it's window as a consumer technology was very narrow, and quickly eclipsed by DSL and cable modems.
I've always thought of Plasma as the ISDN of TV technology -- it's an 'in-between' solution that is less than ideal and expensive, but provides a level of capability that early adopters and the rich are willing to pay for. Eventually it will pass from the scene, but for a limited number of people for a limited amount of time, it will do the job.
...how many degrees is he from Kevin Bacon?
If they are Americans hired to fight for America, they are by definition not mercenaries. If they were to work under the employ of other countries, or if Blackwater or other contractors hired foreign nationals to fight for us, then yes. In just about every case I've heard of, these guys have been former US military.
Debate all you want about their status under the Geneva Conventions and obligations under same, but just because you and Kos call them mercenaries doesn't make it so.
Not regret, it's useless. It only serves as a warning that it should be avoided in the future. It uses its' sidekick, embarrassment, to keep you from trying things you want to do, but are afraid to fail at. Embarrassment is overrated, it fades over time and can even become a source of humor, but regret stays forever.
Though maybe the only way to learn it is the hard way, what I wish I'd known is that you will never regret failing at something, you will only regret not having tried in the first place.
How about just Googling 'Iraqi blogs'? Too general for you? Try 'Healing Iraq', 'Iraq the Model', 'Riverbend', 'Salam Pax'.
No, I'm not giving you the URLs. Do at least a little work. Sheesh. These people have been blogging for over a year and a half - Salam Pax was blogging when Saddam was still in power. Sorry if I come across as caustic, but your question and the response by the ACs above show that people haven't made the merest attempt to find out for themselves. Anyone who really cared could find Iraqi blogs over a year ago.
I love how the statement of basic facts is considered "flamebait" by some moderators. Guess the truth is inconvenient for some people. Mod away you little chickenshits, I've got Karma to burn and I've grown tired of Slashdot turning into DU/Indymedia/DailyKos with some Linux thrown in. Do your worst, I don't give a damn.
Last major war in North America: 140 years ago (US Civil War)
Last major war in Europe: 60 years ago (WW II)
Last conflict in North America: 85 years ago (Pershing pursuit of Pancho Villa)
Last conflict in Europe: less than 10 years ago (Bosnia/Croatia/Kosovo, etc.)
Let's see if the Europeans can go better than fifty years without trying to kill each other, then they can lecture the US about cooperation. My prediction? There will be genocide in Europe within the next forty years - either by Europeans against unassimilated muslim immigrants, or vice versa. The murder of Theo van Gogh and the Dutch mosque burnings in retaliation are just a preview.
One could also point out the correlation between America's major wars in the last century and Democratic administrations -- WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam. Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy/LBJ. So does that mean the Dems should get the 'credit' for wars that cost the lives of over 600,000 Americans? Or is it possible all these correlations don't actually mean much?
That was part of the oath I swore when I joined the military. I don't know where people get the idea that the only activity the military can conduct within our borders is training. What is the point of having a military if not to defend our own soil?
I agree that the military make lousy police officers -- no one in the military I know is keen on the idea. Where I disagree is the idea that searching for Al Qaeda operatives is strictly a law enforcement activity. By conventions of war they are spies or saboteurs, and we'd be well within our rights to summarily execute them, just as we did with German agents during WWII. (Well, we actually sent them to military tribunals, which is more than is required. Simply put, if you find a spy, you can shoot them.)
Now, if you were opposed to Eisenhower sending in the 101st Airborne to enforce desegregation, and to Janet Reno using Bradleys to help burn down the Branch Davidians, I'll at least give you credit for consistency. I would be plenty happy to leave it to the FBI if I had faith that they would faithfully follow up on intel given to them by the CIA, but there is a big disconnect there, which the previous administration was more than happy to exacerbate (i.e., the Gorelick memo).
Funny that a statement of fact is considered a 'troll' F.O.A.D., asswipes
Distributing solutions to the people? 15,000 French elderly died last summer because of a heat wave and it's the US that doesn't distribute solutions to the people?
Just because they're "based on official government data" doesn't mean they are unbiased or accurate.
.com companies and asked "WTF are these people selling? Do they even have a product?" The bubble burst - deal with it. A lot of money was wasted, and things looked better than they really were. Now it's back to reality. I don't blame Clinton for the bubble, but it sure as hell isn't GWBs fault.
1) Selective data: The author's thesis is Bush = Bad! so he/she only selects Clinton and Bush the elder/younger. As other posters have pointed out, why not include the Reagan years? The Carter years? (Stagflation, yee-haw!) Why not choose meaningful marker points in economic history, like the end of WWII? Because that would dull the axe they're so eager to grind.
2) Spinning the chart: Why do both the unemployment and stock market charts have Y-axes that do not start at ZERO? Because chopping off the bottom makes the area under the curve look disproportionately small when you want it to (unemployment) and disproportionately large when you want it to (the stock market). Further, why is the area under the curve even filled in? Unemployment rates and the dow jones average are not numbers meant to be *integrated*, but that is what the author is having you do visually. Look at the job creation graph -- it *is* a running total (an integral) from year to year, but then the author fills in the area under that line -- an integral of an integral!
3) Lack of context I: It's realistically a year before a President's policies affect the economy (time for Congress to enact legislation/budget and time for these to go into effect). If you moved the markers to the point where their first budget went into effect, then Bush I gets more credit for dropping unemployment, and Clinton has to take the hit for the uptick in unemployment during Bush II.
4) Lack of context II: The DotCom bubble. During the late '90s, we all looked at the ads for
The author wants to say that life under a 'Bush' is bad, ignoring many things, including correlation != causation. I could just as well say that Democrats are Warmongers. After all, Wilson = WWI, Roosevelt = WWII, Truman = Korea, Kennedy/Johnson = Vietnam. See, aren't sweeping generalizations fun!?
Of course, I'm not sure who will be the "second". Perhaps one of the other satellites or the Martians can finish the thing off...
There's always been a liberal bias among the editors (and many posters) on Slashdot, and I've accepted that, given the amount of other interesting stuff that shows up here.
However, I think we're starting to see the editors, like many others on the left, become totally unhinged. Come on, LA Weekly has a long diatribe from Vidal, and in one small section he basically says "E-voting sucks!", and this is "news for nerds"? This is just the flimsiest excuse to link to another "Bush sucks!", "Bush=Hitler" screed.
We get to read yet-another limousine liberal bemoan how this administration is just as bad as the Third Reich, and how their free speech rights are being suppressed -- somehow the irony of them constantly reminding us of this in various news media is lost on them.
Remember this moment folks, you were there to see Slashdot Jump The Shark (not an exact analogy, but the best I could come up with). I think it's all downhill from here. The Slashdot editors should just go with their true hearts' desire, and start posting wholesale articles from Chomsky and the folks at A.N.S.W.E.R. -- c'mon guys, you know you want to...
OK, I admit it -- it took me until season two of Buffy to not think of Anthony Stewart Head as the Taster's Choice guy.
...back around 1988. Everyone called him "Leik the Flake". He was my Prof for "Theory of Propulsion", and all he talked about were 'lightcraft', which was all well and good, except we didn't learn much about such 'ancient' technologies as piston and jet engines. He managed to get a lot of grant money though, since these were the SDI years and his research involved ultra-high power lasers tracking hypersonic targets (just for different purposes). Of course, if the guy turns out to be a visionary, I'll be ahead of the curve on all this new-fangled laser rocket science!