But if they're excellent candidates for being used in optical technologies such as optical switches and Internet connections, these new materials should not be used before several years -- if ever.
OK, I RTFA'd, but I didn't find any reason as to why. Did I miss something here?
These are already used in Australia, anyway. If you're convicted of a drink-driving offence, then your car must be fitted with an alcohol interlock for at least six months.
They are used here in the states as well. Unfortunately, these can be easily defeated by having a child or friend blow into the tube so the car starts.
Two of these new methods seem pretty easy to get around too. Wear gloves for the steering wheel, and sun glasses for the eye thingie. My biggest fear is a false positive! Don't get me wrong, it's great to see what Toyota is doing. However, I'm going to be pretty upset paying and extra grand for the next Toyota for a steering wheel sensor that may return a false positive, stranding my wife and daughter in a not-so-good part of town just after sunset because my wife used a alcohol based hand sanitizer.
I took offense to that too. "Austin is surrounded by Texas."
In Texas is Houston. Which contains Compaq (HP, now), Woot.com and NASA. Come on, is NASA not techie enough for you? Rice U, medical center and UofH. San Antonio has the river walk (Beer fest!) and a slew of military bases. Dallas... well, it had a TV show.
And there ain't nothin' wrong with Texans. Your average Texas redneck will give you the shirt off his back (not that you'd want it), have you over for dinner and offer you a place to stay if you needed it. Who was it that took in all those Katrina evacuees? I'll give you a hint: I didn't see Georgia or even friggin Louisiana stepping up to help out!
Oh, and Texas girls are some of the hottest anywhere. They qualify as Texas as well! Maybe the author doesn't like girls!
The most interesting application of pulsars I've heard of is using them like GPS transmitters. Since pulsars are about the most precise timing devices known, if you time the arrival of the pulse from at least four of them you can use the time differences to triangulate your position precisely anywhere in the solar system.
You'd need a GPS device that could detect the pulses from at least two pulsars from anywhere on earth. Now if you were to create a UPS (Unversal Positioning System) device that would work outside Terran interference, you'd have something!
"If CNN.com pays for it, and MSNBC.com does not, CNN.com will get better service.'"
And there's the rub. CNN won't be paying for it. CNN's customers will. So what he is saying is that free Internet will be unusably slow while "pay for service" Internet will run along at current speeds. The end user will have to pay a membership fee per site visited.
I'd consider Ajax a whole new protocol, compared to the original intention of the Web. Many really great 2.0 web pages are hardly recognizable as "Web" at all. Here I'm thinking of Google Maps in particular, though to a lesser degree with the Ajax-y webmail clients and threading pages like Digg.
I meant a different protocol like TCP, IP, and Netware, are all different protocols. I would think at least require IPv6.
I have to agree with you and Tim Berners-Lee and say that this is nothing more than a buzzword. "Web 1.1" maybe, but until it's based on a new protocols and possibly "pipes", it does not deserve a complete, whole number upgrade, or at least not an even number.
I honestly try to stay above the flames. Unfortunately BushGood=Flamebait and BushSux=Insightful here on slash. I think I've done a fair job siting everything I've said to others who simply reply with "So you're drinking the kool-aid and blaming the "intelligence failures" on the intelligence services?" (Uh yeah! Should I blame the Highway Dept or HUD? That Kool-Aid comment got modded up, btw)
As to the rest of your post, yeah, hindsight is 20/20. Unfortunately, most intelligence information isn't released real time so hindsight is only way that those of us without clearance will ever get to see it. I try my best to look back and put myself in the shoes of those in charge. I get my information for sources on both sides. I'm a member of DailyKos as well as LittleGreenFootballs. I watch Fox News and PBS and judge accordingly.
As to Cheney's ties with Halliburton, yeah, it looks suspicious, damn suspicious. But having grown up in Houston and having know Halliburton employees, I can tell you that they are an energy company like Disney is a theme-park company. They are more of a management company. It's not Halliburton employees rebuilding the water plants in Iraq, it's some other company hired by Halliburton. Halliburton is the only company in the world that can do what they do (like rebuild an entire country). That's why there were no other bids. Cheney worked there, he knows what the company can do and how to get the shit done. While it still looks bad, rest assured that all of Cheney's (and Bush's) money is in a blind trust. It may be in Halliburton, it may not. Most likely, it is in some sort of conservative mutual fund because no trust manager wants to tell the VP that he lost all of his money!
I understand why. If they could encode the films with whoever payed for and downloaded them. Then you know who's sharing. Kinda like coding pre-released films they send to the academy so they know who leaked them.
Read this article Bush' Complicit Role in 911 Attack -- HIGH TREASON or any of the many others that claims that Bush should be tried for high treason because he had warnings about 9-11 and did nothing. Do you agree?
Now read this article Putin says Iraq planned US attack, or any of the many others that say the same thing, and tell me again how Bush lied and there was no evidence for the war. You can't say Bush is to blame for doing when supposedly warned about 9-11 and then claim he was wrong for doing something to prevent the next attack.
Also please cite where sadam hussein killed 1.5 million innocent people. I havent read any sources that claim anywhere above a few hundred thousand (and even those numbers I would consider high, from what Ive read about him).
Do you seriously believe that a president should make a decision of that gravity on the basis of a single report and a one-liner from a career politician who obviously knows on which side his bread is buttered?
This single report was an accumulation of the intelligence we had concerning Iraqi WMD's. So while this was still just one report, it was more like THE report, which is why Bush felt it was a bit thin. Also keep in mind that Tenet was a Clinton appointee, not some politically motivated war-hawk.
As for foreign services talking about WMDs, do you have a quote? All I remember from every international news source (quoting both elected and intelligence officials) is that they thought the WMD charge was bogus.
Frontline had a pretty good documentary on this the other night. While it was actually a bit slated to left, it explained where much of the intel came from. Here is another example:
The first of several sensitive reports crossing his desk was from a foreign intelligence service source "who had direct access to Saddam and his inner circle." The source said "Iraq was aggressively and covertly developing (a nuclear weapon)." (Saddam's nuclear weapons) committee members assured Saddam that once fissile material was in hand, a bomb could be ready in 18 to 24 months."
Bush deserves full blame for the Iraq war, based on his lying (no other explanation really comes close to explaining his flip-flopping) and the complete absence of an actual reason to invade another country (that he was a bad guy had been known since the days that Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam in the eighties). Did you read the post you responded to. I listed several reasons for going into Iraq, each of them an act of war (attempting to assassinate a former US president for example). And as to the lying the claim, it's no secret that when Bush asked George Tenet, "is this all we have?" when looking at the Iraqi report, Tenet replied that it was a "slam dunk". Tenet's Wiki article and the Frontline link from above point this out. Don't take my word for it, google "Tenet "Slam Dunk"". You can't honestly call the President a liar for repeating what the Chief of the CIA told him.
So you're drinking the kool-aid and blaming the "intelligence failures" on the intelligence services? Not the administration, who attempted to discredit Valerie Plame's husband and his report that there was nothing to the Nigerian yellowcake story by outing her as a spy? And failed to listen to Hans Blix, who "accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix ). Maybe you should just admit that this was what Bush wanted, he did everything he could to make it happen, and it's his fault.
You mean this that we should have listened to this Hans Blix:
Blix said he views the U.S.-North Korea agreed framework as "a way of promoting the implementation of the safeguards agreement" which already exists between the IAEA and the DPRK. It was Pyongyang's announcement that it was withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), together with its threat to suspend permission for IAEA inspectors to carry 1ut their safeguards work, that triggered the North Korean nuclear crisis in March 1993.
And from your Wiki Link:
Hans Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games [3] and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission [4].
What possible consequences could Blix have been referring to? What "serious consequences" would have worked?
Frontline had an excellent documentary about intelligence failures. While it was certainly not friendly to the current administration, it told of a meeting between Bush and George Tenet, director of the CIA. The president read the report and said, "Is this all we have?" Tenet responded with, It's a "slam dunk"
So the cool-aid you claim I'm drinking is backed by PBS. Hardly a bastion of right-wing ideology. Maybe you should look into your own cup and see what's in there.
We live in a dictatorship. Bush can - and does - do anything he wants. His oath of office has been violated, he flouts the laws of the country, he holds prisoners without recourse to representation or even the opportunity to go in front of a judge, he tortures people, he lies to the public, starts wars of aggression, reads your mail, taps your phone...
The saddest thing is that no one is going to do anything about it. So I guess freedom and liberty were all just inertial effects we can thank the founders for. They're certainly gone now.
Quite frankly, I'm tired of people claiming that their liberty is gone when, without freedom of speech, they wouldn't be able to say such a thing! They can say that they have LESS rights, but don't try to claim that we live under some sort of oppressive dictatorship when we've had elections every two years with multiple candidates. The topper, IMHO is that the Republicans didn't win the last set of elections. If they were half as corrupt as you and others claim, we either would not have had the elections, they would've only had Republican candidates, or it would have been a landslide to the right. None of which happened.
As to this topic, it's not like the NSA is going to be steaming open all of your letters. This is intended for situations like the anthrax scare a while back. Do you really expect the postmaster to wait for a warrant when a bomb-sniffing dog signals something? Are they just supposed to stand around and wait if NBC (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological) detection equipment goes off? This is the type of emergency the Prez was referring to when he "in the case of emergency". I'm sure he doesn't want to be impeached for authorizing the opening of a letter that's leaking white powder and he's covering his ass.
Wait, wait, wait.... You're blaming the left wing (and centrists, too, for that matter) for trying to hold Bush accountable for all of the lying and whatnot? Perhaps if his administration hadn't done it with Iraq, he wouldn't be blamed for it, and he'd be more willing to go after North Korea. Don't try to pass the blame - Bush and his administration are the ones who cried wolf, it's not the townspeoples' fault that they're not rushing in to save him this time.
Blame the intelligence services for all of the lying and whatnot as it was more that Bush that thought Iraq had NEW WMD's. (We found plenty of the old ones that had been "destroyed", but not the stockpiles required to make the headlines.) And, quite frankly, it wasn't just the WMD's. It was the soon to be disbanded Oil for food program, the firing on American and allied planes and soldiers, the assassination attempt of a former US President, and the 1.5 million innocent people killed by Hussein. Of course we need not forget Putin telling GWB that Russian intel believed that Iraq was planning an attack in the US. After all the flack that GWB took for not stopping 9-11 when there was intel, no matter how vague (Presidential Daily Brief: Al Qaeda determined to attack in the US), I understand why we attacked Iraq. If you bashed Bush for not stopping 9-11, then you really can't honestly bash him for attacking Iraq.
Besides, since we have the same intel on N. Korea that we have on Iraq, why would you support attacking N. Korea and NOT support attacking Iraq?
How long 'til Bush Bashing is considered Karma Whoring? God knows that being a conservative is one way ticket to "Troll", "Flamebait" and my all time favorite, "Overrated".
Back to your comment: Funny... a bioweapons program in N. Korea? With nukes and everything? Real, tangible weapons of mass destruction? With a prosperous true democracy only minutes away? Where's the sabre-rattling? Why hasn't Colin Powell been dispatched to the UN? How come Condi's not talking about mushroom clouds?
Well, if Bush hadn't received so much shit for the last war, he might be a bit more willing to go at it again. I'm sure the last thing the administration wants to give you guys another reason to protest for impeachment.
Also, and more importantly, there's a boat-load in S. Korea and Japan that are quietly praying the problem will go away. The governments in these countries don't want us to do anything about it right now because they know their cities will either glow in the dark or sit under a cloud of poisonous fumes. On the other hand, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia wanted Saddam Hussein gone and encouraged us to take action.
I don't know how well this would work unless the PS3 contains a video input. Although Myth could be used to view DVD's and such, but watching TV could prove to be impossible.
I could be wrong, but I think you just lose hardware 3D acceleration. It would be like having onboard video on your PC; Windows work fine, but you are not going to play Doom3 on it.
Question for you (and all other PS3 owners who are/want to install YDL on their PS3): why? This isn't a troll, just something I don't understand. So you spend $600+ (that's the cost of a PS3 near me) and instead of using it play games (it's intended function) you install YDL which removes your ability to play PS3 games (if I understand everything correctly). So, why go to all that effort? Why not simply use it for playing games or go out and buy another computer if you wish to run Linux?
The first and simple answer is, "Because you can!" To clarify a bit further: Installing Linux on a PS3 will not render it unable to play games. It will dual boot into Linux or the PS3/OS. The only thing it costs you as far as gameplay is space on your HDD. Still, if you have 60 GB of saved games on your PS3, you need to step away from the console and go outside! I can understand the cost being an issue, but you are not going to be able to build a 3Ghz PowerPC system for under $600, much less a Cell based system. Although I understand the system acts as a PPC and does not advantage of SPU's that are part of the Cell. (Remember a Cell is a PPC chip with 8 Synergistic Processing Units attached). Once they compile YDL for the Cell, the performance jump should be phenomenal, which would make it worth buying a PS3 JUST to run Linux!
So, I take it drivers may be developed- either by Nvidia or OS (i.e. SourceForge)? I guess what I am really asking is - there is no hardware "lock", right? Drivers "can" be developed for the GPU?
I see no reason why they can't be. Still the only thing you are missing at this point is 3D acceleration, much like using the nv driver on a PC based Linux distro.
I'm sorry, who is being ignorant? Are you telling me that the Bush admin was NOT pushing for all of the patriot act changes that were rammed through days after 9/11 to become permanent? I was referring to liberties that have been lost in every war we've ever had since 1776. The ignorance I was referring to is an ignorance of history.
Sorry, but I'm not the ignorant one here. Permanent, in the case of the PATRIOT Act, means "not set to expire". The PATRIOT Act is set to expire every few years. This means that a majority of congress is needed to extend it. Republicans are not always going to have that majority (and back then they knew that). It would be harder, although not by much, to overturn a law than to simply allow it to expire. It takes 34% of congress to allow it expire (filibuster the debate on renewing it until it expires), but 51% to overturn it, if it were permanent. Granted, overturning it could be filibustered as well, but not forever, as when there is an expiration date, you have a point where you can quit and still win.
So please don't call me ignorant and then botch the definition of "permanent" like that. I can tell you're a bright guy. You don't need to do things like that to make your point.
It was Christmas 2001 at my brother's place. His wife's brother, David, worked for the FBI. Much of his job dealt with terrorism. I asked him what happened? Why did we have no idea 9-11 was going to happen. This is what he told me:
We knew something was up. There was a lot of chatter going on, a lot of meetings, and a lot of money being transferred. The only reason we knew this was because foreign intelligence sources told us so. We would know when phone calls went out and were received and even when meetings were being held. Unfortunately, there was nothing we could do about it. If we tried to get a warrant to tap a phone or raid a meeting, we had to give a reason as to why we were requesting it. We couldn't say that it was because a UAE Intelligence officer told us, because that would compromise his operation. We couldn't tell them we paid for the information from a corrupt Afghani official because Clinton made it illegal to receive information from anyone with any type of criminal or terrorist background, which pretty much made it illegal to get information from anyone in the Afghan, Syrian, or Palestinian authorities. And of course, we couldn't just raid it without authorization, because then bleeding-heart-liberals would be all over our asses. We'd have to release anyone we captured, tip our hand, and possibly do jail time ourselves. All we could do is sit back, wait and hope something fell into our laps. Unfortunately, it didn't until 9-11.
So I can understand the President's position. If intelligence thinks that reading a letter will stop a terrorist attack, then he should be allowed to authorize it without fear of impeachment. However, I agree with you that any abuse of this, such as reading Hillary Clinton's mail or even using this for something non-terror related (drug war or whatever), should be punished to the fullest extent!
Slashdot Mirror
But if they're excellent candidates for being used in optical technologies such as optical switches and Internet connections, these new materials should not be used before several years -- if ever.
OK, I RTFA'd, but I didn't find any reason as to why.
Did I miss something here?
These are already used in Australia, anyway. If you're convicted of a drink-driving offence, then your car must be fitted with an alcohol interlock for at least six months.
They are used here in the states as well. Unfortunately, these can be easily defeated by having a child or friend blow into the tube so the car starts.
Two of these new methods seem pretty easy to get around too. Wear gloves for the steering wheel, and sun glasses for the eye thingie. My biggest fear is a false positive!
Don't get me wrong, it's great to see what Toyota is doing. However, I'm going to be pretty upset paying and extra grand for the next Toyota for a steering wheel sensor that may return a false positive, stranding my wife and daughter in a not-so-good part of town just after sunset because my wife used a alcohol based hand sanitizer.
I took offense to that too. "Austin is surrounded by Texas."
In Texas is Houston. Which contains Compaq (HP, now), Woot.com and NASA. Come on, is NASA not techie enough for you? Rice U, medical center and UofH.
San Antonio has the river walk (Beer fest!) and a slew of military bases.
Dallas... well, it had a TV show.
And there ain't nothin' wrong with Texans. Your average Texas redneck will give you the shirt off his back (not that you'd want it), have you over for dinner and offer you a place to stay if you needed it. Who was it that took in all those Katrina evacuees? I'll give you a hint: I didn't see Georgia or even friggin Louisiana stepping up to help out!
Oh, and Texas girls are some of the hottest anywhere. They qualify as Texas as well! Maybe the author doesn't like girls!
The most interesting application of pulsars I've heard of is using them like GPS transmitters. Since pulsars are about the most precise timing devices known, if you time the arrival of the pulse from at least four of them you can use the time differences to triangulate your position precisely anywhere in the solar system.
You'd need a GPS device that could detect the pulses from at least two pulsars from anywhere on earth. Now if you were to create a UPS (Unversal Positioning System) device that would work outside Terran interference, you'd have something!
"If CNN.com pays for it, and MSNBC.com does not, CNN.com will get better service.'"
And there's the rub. CNN won't be paying for it. CNN's customers will. So what he is saying is that free Internet will be unusably slow while "pay for service" Internet will run along at current speeds. The end user will have to pay a membership fee per site visited.
How is this an improvement again?
I'd consider Ajax a whole new protocol, compared to the original intention of the Web. Many really great 2.0 web pages are hardly recognizable as "Web" at all. Here I'm thinking of Google Maps in particular, though to a lesser degree with the Ajax-y webmail clients and threading pages like Digg.
I meant a different protocol like TCP, IP, and Netware, are all different protocols. I would think at least require IPv6.
But then I would not be able to put gas in my hybrid to drive to the store to buy my Nabisco cookies.
I have to agree with you and Tim Berners-Lee and say that this is nothing more than a buzzword. "Web 1.1" maybe, but until it's based on a new protocols and possibly "pipes", it does not deserve a complete, whole number upgrade, or at least not an even number.
Nice to see I ignited a flamewar. ;)
I honestly try to stay above the flames. Unfortunately BushGood=Flamebait and BushSux=Insightful here on slash. I think I've done a fair job siting everything I've said to others who simply reply with "So you're drinking the kool-aid and blaming the "intelligence failures" on the intelligence services?" (Uh yeah! Should I blame the Highway Dept or HUD? That Kool-Aid comment got modded up, btw)
As to the rest of your post, yeah, hindsight is 20/20. Unfortunately, most intelligence information isn't released real time so hindsight is only way that those of us without clearance will ever get to see it. I try my best to look back and put myself in the shoes of those in charge. I get my information for sources on both sides. I'm a member of DailyKos as well as LittleGreenFootballs. I watch Fox News and PBS and judge accordingly.
As to Cheney's ties with Halliburton, yeah, it looks suspicious, damn suspicious. But having grown up in Houston and having know Halliburton employees, I can tell you that they are an energy company like Disney is a theme-park company. They are more of a management company. It's not Halliburton employees rebuilding the water plants in Iraq, it's some other company hired by Halliburton. Halliburton is the only company in the world that can do what they do (like rebuild an entire country). That's why there were no other bids. Cheney worked there, he knows what the company can do and how to get the shit done. While it still looks bad, rest assured that all of Cheney's (and Bush's) money is in a blind trust. It may be in Halliburton, it may not. Most likely, it is in some sort of conservative mutual fund because no trust manager wants to tell the VP that he lost all of his money!
Again, your comment was well said!
I understand why. If they could encode the films with whoever payed for and downloaded them. Then you know who's sharing. Kinda like coding pre-released films they send to the academy so they know who leaked them.
Read this article Bush' Complicit Role in 911 Attack -- HIGH TREASON or any of the many others that claims that Bush should be tried for high treason because he had warnings about 9-11 and did nothing. Do you agree?
Now read this article Putin says Iraq planned US attack, or any of the many others that say the same thing, and tell me again how Bush lied and there was no evidence for the war.
You can't say Bush is to blame for doing when supposedly warned about 9-11 and then claim he was wrong for doing something to prevent the next attack.
Also please cite where sadam hussein killed 1.5 million innocent people. I havent read any sources that claim anywhere above a few hundred thousand (and even those numbers I would consider high, from what Ive read about him).
According to This Site, millions died in the Iran/Iraq war alone. Other sites claim that 1.5 million died from the "oil-for-food" program because instead of food and medicine, Saddam bought palaces. UNICEF has put the number of child deaths to 500,000.[9] The reasons include lack of medical supplies, malnutrition, and especially disease owing to lack of clean water. (keep in mind, this is just children, and only during the oil-for-food times. There are also several mass graves, gassed Kurds, thousands that just disappeared and the smattering of politicians that stood in his way on his rise to power.)
Do you seriously believe that a president should make a decision of that gravity on the basis of a single report and a one-liner from a career politician who obviously knows on which side his bread is buttered?
This single report was an accumulation of the intelligence we had concerning Iraqi WMD's. So while this was still just one report, it was more like THE report, which is why Bush felt it was a bit thin. Also keep in mind that Tenet was a Clinton appointee, not some politically motivated war-hawk.
Frontline had a pretty good documentary on this the other night. While it was actually a bit slated to left, it explained where much of the intel came from. Here is another example:
Bush deserves full blame for the Iraq war, based on his lying (no other explanation really comes close to explaining his flip-flopping) and the complete absence of an actual reason to invade another country (that he was a bad guy had been known since the days that Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam in the eighties).
Did you read the post you responded to. I listed several reasons for going into Iraq, each of them an act of war (attempting to assassinate a former US president for example). And as to the lying the claim, it's no secret that when Bush asked George Tenet, "is this all we have?" when looking at the Iraqi report, Tenet replied that it was a "slam dunk". Tenet's Wiki article and the Frontline link from above point this out. Don't take my word for it, google "Tenet "Slam Dunk"". You can't honestly call the President a liar for repeating what the Chief of the CIA told him.
You mean this that we should have listened to this Hans Blix:
And from your Wiki Link:
What possible consequences could Blix have been referring to? What "serious consequences" would have worked?
Frontline had an excellent documentary about intelligence failures. While it was certainly not friendly to the current administration, it told of a meeting between Bush and George Tenet, director of the CIA. The president read the report and said, "Is this all we have?" Tenet responded with, It's a "slam dunk"
So the cool-aid you claim I'm drinking is backed by PBS. Hardly a bastion of right-wing ideology. Maybe you should look into your own cup and see what's in there.
I was responding to the GP:
We live in a dictatorship. Bush can - and does - do anything he wants. His oath of office has been violated, he flouts the laws of the country, he holds prisoners without recourse to representation or even the opportunity to go in front of a judge, he tortures people, he lies to the public, starts wars of aggression, reads your mail, taps your phone...
The saddest thing is that no one is going to do anything about it. So I guess freedom and liberty were all just inertial effects we can thank the founders for. They're certainly gone now.
Quite frankly, I'm tired of people claiming that their liberty is gone when, without freedom of speech, they wouldn't be able to say such a thing! They can say that they have LESS rights, but don't try to claim that we live under some sort of oppressive dictatorship when we've had elections every two years with multiple candidates. The topper, IMHO is that the Republicans didn't win the last set of elections. If they were half as corrupt as you and others claim, we either would not have had the elections, they would've only had Republican candidates, or it would have been a landslide to the right. None of which happened.
As to this topic, it's not like the NSA is going to be steaming open all of your letters. This is intended for situations like the anthrax scare a while back. Do you really expect the postmaster to wait for a warrant when a bomb-sniffing dog signals something? Are they just supposed to stand around and wait if NBC (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological) detection equipment goes off? This is the type of emergency the Prez was referring to when he "in the case of emergency". I'm sure he doesn't want to be impeached for authorizing the opening of a letter that's leaking white powder and he's covering his ass.
That's how I see it anyway.
Wait, wait, wait.... You're blaming the left wing (and centrists, too, for that matter) for trying to hold Bush accountable for all of the lying and whatnot? Perhaps if his administration hadn't done it with Iraq, he wouldn't be blamed for it, and he'd be more willing to go after North Korea. Don't try to pass the blame - Bush and his administration are the ones who cried wolf, it's not the townspeoples' fault that they're not rushing in to save him this time.
Blame the intelligence services for all of the lying and whatnot as it was more that Bush that thought Iraq had NEW WMD's. (We found plenty of the old ones that had been "destroyed", but not the stockpiles required to make the headlines.) And, quite frankly, it wasn't just the WMD's. It was the soon to be disbanded Oil for food program, the firing on American and allied planes and soldiers, the assassination attempt of a former US President, and the 1.5 million innocent people killed by Hussein. Of course we need not forget Putin telling GWB that Russian intel believed that Iraq was planning an attack in the US. After all the flack that GWB took for not stopping 9-11 when there was intel, no matter how vague (Presidential Daily Brief: Al Qaeda determined to attack in the US), I understand why we attacked Iraq. If you bashed Bush for not stopping 9-11, then you really can't honestly bash him for attacking Iraq.
Besides, since we have the same intel on N. Korea that we have on Iraq, why would you support attacking N. Korea and NOT support attacking Iraq?
Yet there it is again. More lying claims of WMDs designed to incite the US into waging an unjustified war against (insert country name here).
You'd have a point, except it is China, Japan and S. Korea making the claims. Are they all lying too?
How long 'til Bush Bashing is considered Karma Whoring? God knows that being a conservative is one way ticket to "Troll", "Flamebait" and my all time favorite, "Overrated".
Back to your comment:
Funny... a bioweapons program in N. Korea? With nukes and everything? Real, tangible weapons of mass destruction? With a prosperous true democracy only minutes away? Where's the sabre-rattling? Why hasn't Colin Powell been dispatched to the UN? How come Condi's not talking about mushroom clouds?
Well, if Bush hadn't received so much shit for the last war, he might be a bit more willing to go at it again. I'm sure the last thing the administration wants to give you guys another reason to protest for impeachment.
Also, and more importantly, there's a boat-load in S. Korea and Japan that are quietly praying the problem will go away. The governments in these countries don't want us to do anything about it right now because they know their cities will either glow in the dark or sit under a cloud of poisonous fumes. On the other hand, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia wanted Saddam Hussein gone and encouraged us to take action.
Ah!!! Frontend! I get it now.
I guess I'm a bit slow on Thursdays too!
It would make an excellent MythTV frontend.
I don't know how well this would work unless the PS3 contains a video input. Although Myth could be used to view DVD's and such, but watching TV could prove to be impossible.
How much graphics functionality is left out?
I could be wrong, but I think you just lose hardware 3D acceleration. It would be like having onboard video on your PC; Windows work fine, but you are not going to play Doom3 on it.
Question for you (and all other PS3 owners who are/want to install YDL on their PS3): why? This isn't a troll, just something I don't understand. So you spend $600+ (that's the cost of a PS3 near me) and instead of using it play games (it's intended function) you install YDL which removes your ability to play PS3 games (if I understand everything correctly). So, why go to all that effort? Why not simply use it for playing games or go out and buy another computer if you wish to run Linux?
The first and simple answer is, "Because you can!"
To clarify a bit further:
Installing Linux on a PS3 will not render it unable to play games. It will dual boot into Linux or the PS3/OS. The only thing it costs you as far as gameplay is space on your HDD. Still, if you have 60 GB of saved games on your PS3, you need to step away from the console and go outside!
I can understand the cost being an issue, but you are not going to be able to build a 3Ghz PowerPC system for under $600, much less a Cell based system. Although I understand the system acts as a PPC and does not advantage of SPU's that are part of the Cell. (Remember a Cell is a PPC chip with 8 Synergistic Processing Units attached). Once they compile YDL for the Cell, the performance jump should be phenomenal, which would make it worth buying a PS3 JUST to run Linux!
So, I take it drivers may be developed- either by Nvidia or OS (i.e. SourceForge)? I guess what I am really asking is - there is no hardware "lock", right? Drivers "can" be developed for the GPU?
I see no reason why they can't be. Still the only thing you are missing at this point is 3D acceleration, much like using the nv driver on a PC based Linux distro.
I'm sorry, who is being ignorant? Are you telling me that the Bush admin was NOT pushing for all of the patriot act changes that were rammed through days after 9/11 to become permanent?
I was referring to liberties that have been lost in every war we've ever had since 1776. The ignorance I was referring to is an ignorance of history.
Sorry, but I'm not the ignorant one here. Permanent, in the case of the PATRIOT Act, means "not set to expire". The PATRIOT Act is set to expire every few years. This means that a majority of congress is needed to extend it. Republicans are not always going to have that majority (and back then they knew that). It would be harder, although not by much, to overturn a law than to simply allow it to expire. It takes 34% of congress to allow it expire (filibuster the debate on renewing it until it expires), but 51% to overturn it, if it were permanent. Granted, overturning it could be filibustered as well, but not forever, as when there is an expiration date, you have a point where you can quit and still win.
So please don't call me ignorant and then botch the definition of "permanent" like that. I can tell you're a bright guy. You don't need to do things like that to make your point.
So I can understand the President's position. If intelligence thinks that reading a letter will stop a terrorist attack, then he should be allowed to authorize it without fear of impeachment. However, I agree with you that any abuse of this, such as reading Hillary Clinton's mail or even using this for something non-terror related (drug war or whatever), should be punished to the fullest extent!