without once bothering to wonder whether it's appropriate on a small-screen embedded device. It isn't.
Calling someone a "douchebag" just because he has a more functional brain than you do is not nice. Remember, most people are far more intelligent than you, don't hate them for it.
If multitasking isn't appropriate on a small-screen device, why has the iPod and the iPhone had it from day one? They have you know. The difference between pre 4.0 and post 4.0 is that this functionality is now available to comapnies that are not called Apple. As you should know if you have ever used an iPhone, the Apple music player goes on playing in the background when you do other stuff on the phone. Try it. Press the "iPod" icon on your phone. Start playing music. Hit the home button - can you still hear the music? Sure you can. Bring up Echofon and check what Twitter is all about. Can you still hear the music? Of course you can. You can because the iPhone has had multitasking always, but only for Apple.
You are a moron sir, for calling people names just because you are so in love with Steve Jobs that you can not take valid criticism of his products. A sad moron in fact.
I'm pulling for Apple, personally - if you don't want anyone else to patent your idea, you should patent it before they do
You really are utterly and fantastically clueless, are you not? There is absolutely no need to patent something if you want to prevent others from patenting it. In this case there is absolutely no doubt that Apples attempt at patenting something already in production is absurd.
Alanis Morissette once played God. If this group of characters were able to make two good ID4 movies God would happily take on the role of Alanis Morissette so as to make a perfect song about this particular miracle.
Not sure I'd suffer through two sequels of the worst sci-fi movie ever just to help Smith with acting classes and Emmerich becoming a mediocre director (which is all he could ever aspire to be, no matter how much training).
Flash is a lot of things. It is a player. It is an SDK. It is a set of tools from Adobe to easily develop ActionScript applications. One such tool is the Flash toolkit you point to above. Another such tool is the Flex tools also sold by Adobe. At the end of the day they are tools to build ActionScript applications though. The SDK is free. You can download it from Adobe. There are tons of tools out in the wild that will make your Flash development easier, some use the free SDK from Adobe, others use other techniques.
The cost of building Flash apps can be exactly what you want it to be. From $0 and up.
So, how exactly is it costly for you to produce Flash apps? Siting the cost of the Flash tool is like saying you can't build C apps for Windows since Visual Studio cost money. Ignoring any alternative doesn't make it correct.
Cool, so we get to write LOB applications in BASIC 1985 again. Also known as JavaScript. Whoever thought that was a good idea should be executed by having every single print of Knuth dumped on him from a very tall building.
Since when did it cost ANYTHING to make a Flash game? Really. Since when? As far as I can see all the tools you need to write anything you want in Flash are free. Have you missed something?
I don't know why this is, but going back to HTML and JavaScript (in its current incarnation) is like going back to text terminals with amber output and developing in BASIC. It is ridiculous.
Adobe at least tried to get JavaScript overhauled but was voted down. Sure they had their own agenda, but JavaScript needs a complete overhaul in a capital way. Capital as in capital offence. It needs to be shot in the head and replaced by something that isn't an offence to software development practices everywhere.
Honestly, any developer suggesting that one should build large LOB enterprise applications using Javascript for ANYTHING should have his position reviewed. Obviously it is the only solution in many cases, but anywhere there are alternative solutions they should ALWAYS be chosen.
Five years down the line when people come to me and ask me to maintain some LOB application written with any amount of JavaScript, generated like in SEAM/Richfaces or written from scratch I will demand higher hourly pay than two Oracle DBAs plus an SAP consultant. LOBs enterprise apps written today to run in Browsers are going to become maintenance nightmares over the next few years.
Sorry, if you nick my code for an assignment, you better read it and understand it before you run it. Also, if you wan to nick my code, ASK first, and I'll probably say OK, but that I'd rather help you try to understand it first.
As a CS student my buddy and I (we were working as teams) were tired of people copying our stuff. We shared with anyone who wanted to, and had full read access for anyone to our code, so we didn't make it hard for them to copy. Still, it was annoying to do the work and then have others just copy and hand in.
Our assignments required print-outs delivered with the software (yes, this is before there was even an internet) and we suspected people just copied our software, compiled it (which incidentally at the time could take hours) and ran it without even looking at it. So, just for fun, we inserted into our own code the equivalent of a system call to "rm -rf $HOME/*" (yes, this is before we got our Pyramid Unix boxes, so it was not exactly that). We did this two days before the assignment was to be delivered. It took less then an hour before we heard the first "WHAT THE F#CK HAPPENED???". Five teams were unable to deliver their assignments.
Interestingly two of the teams complained about our behavior to the professor. His only reaction was to ask if they had some serious mental problems (or the polite equivalent). I am sure today we would have been sued and the morons would have won since we "hacked" their accounts.
Re:Blame Sony, not the hacker
on
PS3 Hacked?
·
· Score: 1
Sigh. You studs, your attitude and your 30 seconds maximum intercourse. I was just curious dude. Get over your self.
Re:Blame Sony, not the hacker
on
PS3 Hacked?
·
· Score: 1
They want to use their PS3 as a Media Center, something that's simply impossible with the current setup
Could you elaborate please? Do we have different takes on what a Media Center is? I do believe my PS3 is currently functioning as a Media Center, doing video, images and music etc. Did I miss something?
In the long run it will, for sure. As the number of drivers on the road approaches zero, so does the number of accidents. I think zapping them is a great idea, but I'll stay off the roads until the practice has had its full effect and there is about 800 people left in the US.
just one way to try to compensate the many faults of the capitalist system
Says the one who just proved that he has no understanding of "the capitalist system" at all. Sorry dude, you are wrong, and you appear to be of limited intellect. I have given you as much documentation on that as you have given on your moronic "without doing any useful work". It is sadly not too rare to read moronic idiocy like that statement. Our education system, world wide, is in serious trouble.
Jayna Davis met with Yossef Bodansky (see above) and he said she was right on the money.
And that should be an indication of the quality of her work? Let's see... she's got a hang-up on John Doe #2, by her identified as Hussain al-Hussaini despite the fact that he is long since identified as a US soldier moving base. There is no evidence linking McVeigh to anyone of interest.
One conspiracy nut vouching for another, yeah, no wonder the "intelligence" community got everything wrong on the Iraq war. The WMDs, the situation on the ground, the troops needed, everything.
The funny thing about Yossef Bodansky is, despite his service on the Task Force, is that he doesn't really have a clue. I have partly read the horror that is "The Man Who Declared War on America". Apart from not appearing to be edited at all, with a massive amount of minutia detailed, it draw conclusions based on absurd conjecture that not only flies in the face of the observed facts, it flies in the face of basic reason. Bin Laden + Iran? Give me a break.
Sorry mate, as someone who thinks G.W. Bush was a bloody socialist (his economic policies were for sure) I pity the sorry state of the Repugnican party these days. Bodansky is not a serious writer, he is a partisan on a mission, and he is a conspiracy nut. Probably a favorite among the "Intelligence" Community.
Again, the US "intelligence" from pre-war Iraq is worse than the Swedish "intelligence" from around 1904.
The "intelligence" community in Sweden concluded that only a tiny fraction of the Norwegian population wanted independence from Sweden and that it was therefore perfectly safe to have a referendum in Norway on the topic. The Swedes obviously didn't want to grant independence to the Norwegians. The referendum ended with 95.95% of the Norwegian population voting for independence and Sweden being forced to cede control.
That case should be mandatory reading for all "intelligence" operators, and it is particularly relevant for the US intelligence community of 2001. Why? The Swedish intelligence service gave the Swedish King the result the King desired. In the same way that the intelligence flow in the run-up to the war on Iraq was from the White House to the "intelligence" community, not the other way around. It would have served the population a little better if someone in the "intelligence" community in 2003 had stood up and said "guys, why not use real intelligence here, perhaps that will make it easier to achieve our goals, whatever they might be". Instead we saw a bunch of politicized num-nuts who peddled garbage under pressure from a fat guy with a penchant for shooting people in the face.
Well, I do have access to more information that you can imagine
Yeah, right. And Iran and Iraq under Saddam were buddy-buddies. If the "intelligence" community believes that then they are even worse than I thought, and I didn't really think all that many fine thoughts about the people who fed information to politicians that led said politicians to say dumb-ass things like "we'll be greeted as liberators", "the war will pay for it self", "we do not need more ground troops".
I am sure Saddam would rather give G. W. Bush Sr. a blow job than get into bed with the Iranians. Particularly considering the fact that Iran has for years and years been feeding the rebellion in the south. Please elaborate on this if you can.
During the run-up to the war, Iraq did in fact send large convoys of vehicles into Syria and Iran
Iraqis were looting their own country in the run-up to the war, obviously and of course they did. That is not the same as Iraq and Iran sharing military material. Iran and Iraq has been more or less on a constant "brink of war" since they signed the peace treaty. Saddam feeding weapons to Iran, who would feed them right back to the Shiite insurgents in southern Iraq is such a ludicrous notion that only someone with "intelligence" in their job title could dream it up. Saddam was not a nice guy, but he did enjoy life, and feeding WMDs to Iran would be suicidal, US war or not. Again, your statements belie the concept of "intelligence".
Iraq was involved in the 93 WTC bombing... Laurie Mylroie... Jayna Davis
Sigh. This was just a little sad. And to think that I actually spent time discussing this with you. Your claim about working in the "intelligence" industry is a bold-faced lie. The only "intelligence" you employ in your daily work is the intelligence it takes to figure out when a meat patty needs to be flipped. The "documentation" you cite here is entirely conspiracy-nut material. Jayna Davis is a crackpot. If you tap her head a little hard it will implode due to the strong vacuum inside. All of her writing is absurd conjecture based on wild imagination.
You never worked with anything more intelligent than figuring out how not to burn a burger. You are simply Yet Another Crackpot Conspiracy Nut. Get well soon.
Well, that explains a lot then, doesn't it? "intelligence community", even the concept is a bloody joke these days.
He made large quantities of anthrax, for which he was unable to account
This is absolute rubbish. What we know to be the case was that Iraq had an amount, relatively large for sure, of basically an anthrax growth medium that could be used to produce anthrax. They were unable to account for all of it, but there were a number of explanations for why this could be the case. A very good explanatin being sheer incompetence.
There is a significant difference between being unable to account for the ability to grow anthrax and actual anthrax.
along with the anthrax scare in 2001
Yes that one. Funny that one, where US officials pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed the possibility that Iraq might have been behind it, at the same time knowing with 100% certainty that Iraq had nothing to do with it. The anthrax used in 2001 was quickly identified as not being from Iraq. Not that the intelligence community or the government let that stop them. Anything to build a rotten case for a war that was obvious we had no business being involved in.
Iraq produced and used various chemical munitions over the years
Most of the chemical munitions used by Iraq over the years were produced in the US and sold to the Iraqi. In the 1980s they started an extended program for chemical and biological weapons production, and at the same time receiving significant amounts of chemical munitions from the US. The large death tolls in Iran came using US produced chemical munitions. Rumsfeld was one of the (then civilians) who made it happen despite the illegality of it. This included tools to produce cyanide gas used against Iran and the Kurds.
Their penchant for WMDs and other unconventional weapons was well known
As was their inability to successfully produce most of them and the needed delivery systems.
We also know of large amounts that were smuggled to Iran
And still you wonder why people laugh when you call your self the "intelligence" community? Are you actually saying that Iraq was supplying Iran, a country who actively sought to overthrow the government of Iraq, with the means to overthrow them? Saddam wasn't that smart, but you have to be even dumber to think that he actively supplied weapons to people who tried to depose him. Only the US is that dumb - ref: Ollie North supplying Iran, at the time an important foe of the US, with weaponry.
There was widespread agreement that Iraq DID have WMDs
There was widespread agreement that Iraq might have some amount of biological and/or chemical munitions. There was also, outside of the inner circle of Dick Cheney, widespread agreement that they did not possess any sort of nuclear capabilities nor the ability to acquire such capabilities. There was in fact widespread agreement outside of the Cheney circle that Iraq was neither a clear nor present danger to anyone.
Yeah, other than break, what? 18 straight UN violations on WMDs
Sigh. Before you jump down my throat, Israel has the right to exist, and their bombing of Gaza last summer, and Lebanon before that, were both fully justified, and the world should be ashamed about the way we treat Israel. On the other hand, no country in the world has broker more UN resolutions than has Israel, and I don't see us bombing Tel Aviv any time soon.
For us to go to war there has to be a justifiable reason. A clear and present danger to our interests. Iraq was not a threat to anyone else but a handful of camels, and Saddam was mostly a threat to whatever young women he'd gather around him.
Sadly the Cheney gang had decided already in 1996 that Iraq was next o
Interesting. You have given us two articles, one from Wikipedia and one from an interview with the new head of the IAEA. The Wiki doesn't disagree with me at all, and the interview with Mr. Amano just re-iterates that he has seen no hard evidence.
Despite the fact that he has seen no hard evidence, the IAEA advocates sanctions. Must be odd to advocate sanctions if they do not believe there are armament motives in the Iranian behavior.
Most amusingly the Wiki article even quotes a Pakistani ministers who says Iran was actively pursuing Pakistan for help in developing the bomb, offering $4 billion for technology.
I'd like to see you explain how the Wiki, which is the only one that directly talks to my point, invalidates it. Does all countries agree that Iran is pursuing this? Officially, no. Did I say that all countries agree? Nah. All countries in the world couldn't even agree what the weather was like at any given location at any given time.
Before the Iraq war, U.S. intel, Jordanian intel , UK intel, Russian intel, French intel, et al all said that Iraq had WMDs
The controversy was not over WMDs as such but nuclear WMDs. There was general agreement that there might be tiny amounts of gas left, but not much else. There were two intelligence agencies that claimed to believe there were significant amounts of WMDs in general, and a program for nuclear WMDs in particular. That was the US and British intelligence agencies. Both agencies supported their claims on a report that was known, long before the invasion, to be bogus.
When you say they all agreed there were WMDs that is substantially incorrect, they all agreed that there might be insignificant amounts of gas left from the 1970s and early 1980s. Nobody outside the US/British thought that they did anything nuclear, in fact it was well known that they did not. Nobody thought there was any reason to invade since Iraq had done nothing wrong and nothing to warrant an invasion.
Most of the world supported the overthrow of the Taliban and the putting of Al Qaeda on the run.
Absolutely, but then again, he wasn't saying they were not, was he? It's a weird kind of straw man you are using since it is pointless. It only proves you are dumb.
Even though most of the world agreed we should do what we did in Afghanistan, if anything they think we should have done a lot more, they also agreed that it wouldn't really produce any results vis-a-vis terrorism. Afghanistan has been the way it is now for thousands of years. Nobody ever managed to change it, and a half-hearted attempt from the US sure wasn't going to alter that record.
Just like how everyone "knows" that Iran isn't making nuclear weapons now, am I right?
BZZZT! WRONG! There is, outside of Iran, a general consensus that Iran is attempting to create nuclear weapons. In the same way that there was a general consensus outside of the head of Dick Cheney that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
When you try to argue a point, just making shit up is not a good tactic.
The whole world is sinking (ok, the water is rising)
It is? Well, yes, at about 0.7mm a year for a long time, with the most dramatic rising happening between 8 000 and 6 000 years ago. The common perception is that sea level increase should have accelerated in the 20th century but no such acceleration has been measured. Some people work with the number 1.8mm/year but that is the upper bound, not the average rise.
For the record, I am not one of those global warming deniers, just trying to keep the records straight.
The areas of the earth where people are most plagued by sea level, such as the Gulf of Mexico (New Orleans) and certain parts of the Pacific, the "increasing" sea level is not related to actual increasing sea levels. In New Orleans it is a problem of mis-management of a river and the resulting lack of "beach-building". In most of the low-lying areas of the Pacific now in trouble the problem is not rising sea but sinking land - it is geological.
There is nothing to indicate that increasing sea levels will become a major issue this century, and it may never become a problem. Even as Pacific Islands are sinking below the sea.
Slashdot Mirror
without once bothering to wonder whether it's appropriate on a small-screen embedded device. It isn't.
Calling someone a "douchebag" just because he has a more functional brain than you do is not nice. Remember, most people are far more intelligent than you, don't hate them for it.
If multitasking isn't appropriate on a small-screen device, why has the iPod and the iPhone had it from day one? They have you know. The difference between pre 4.0 and post 4.0 is that this functionality is now available to comapnies that are not called Apple. As you should know if you have ever used an iPhone, the Apple music player goes on playing in the background when you do other stuff on the phone. Try it. Press the "iPod" icon on your phone. Start playing music. Hit the home button - can you still hear the music? Sure you can. Bring up Echofon and check what Twitter is all about. Can you still hear the music? Of course you can. You can because the iPhone has had multitasking always, but only for Apple.
You are a moron sir, for calling people names just because you are so in love with Steve Jobs that you can not take valid criticism of his products. A sad moron in fact.
April 12.
I'm pulling for Apple, personally - if you don't want anyone else to patent your idea, you should patent it before they do
You really are utterly and fantastically clueless, are you not? There is absolutely no need to patent something if you want to prevent others from patenting it. In this case there is absolutely no doubt that Apples attempt at patenting something already in production is absurd.
Stop being a clueless apologist for Apple.
Alanis Morissette once played God. If this group of characters were able to make two good ID4 movies God would happily take on the role of Alanis Morissette so as to make a perfect song about this particular miracle.
Not sure I'd suffer through two sequels of the worst sci-fi movie ever just to help Smith with acting classes and Emmerich becoming a mediocre director (which is all he could ever aspire to be, no matter how much training).
Flash is a lot of things. It is a player. It is an SDK. It is a set of tools from Adobe to easily develop ActionScript applications. One such tool is the Flash toolkit you point to above. Another such tool is the Flex tools also sold by Adobe. At the end of the day they are tools to build ActionScript applications though. The SDK is free. You can download it from Adobe. There are tons of tools out in the wild that will make your Flash development easier, some use the free SDK from Adobe, others use other techniques.
The cost of building Flash apps can be exactly what you want it to be. From $0 and up.
So, how exactly is it costly for you to produce Flash apps? Siting the cost of the Flash tool is like saying you can't build C apps for Windows since Visual Studio cost money. Ignoring any alternative doesn't make it correct.
Cool, so we get to write LOB applications in BASIC 1985 again. Also known as JavaScript. Whoever thought that was a good idea should be executed by having every single print of Knuth dumped on him from a very tall building.
Since when did it cost ANYTHING to make a Flash game? Really. Since when? As far as I can see all the tools you need to write anything you want in Flash are free. Have you missed something?
I don't know why this is, but going back to HTML and JavaScript (in its current incarnation) is like going back to text terminals with amber output and developing in BASIC. It is ridiculous.
Adobe at least tried to get JavaScript overhauled but was voted down. Sure they had their own agenda, but JavaScript needs a complete overhaul in a capital way. Capital as in capital offence. It needs to be shot in the head and replaced by something that isn't an offence to software development practices everywhere.
Honestly, any developer suggesting that one should build large LOB enterprise applications using Javascript for ANYTHING should have his position reviewed. Obviously it is the only solution in many cases, but anywhere there are alternative solutions they should ALWAYS be chosen.
Five years down the line when people come to me and ask me to maintain some LOB application written with any amount of JavaScript, generated like in SEAM/Richfaces or written from scratch I will demand higher hourly pay than two Oracle DBAs plus an SAP consultant. LOBs enterprise apps written today to run in Browsers are going to become maintenance nightmares over the next few years.
I'd never worked with Java before (this was a long time ago)
Considering Java wasn't "a long time ago", that's an absurd statement :-)
Sorry, if you nick my code for an assignment, you better read it and understand it before you run it. Also, if you wan to nick my code, ASK first, and I'll probably say OK, but that I'd rather help you try to understand it first.
Some times not even later.
As a CS student my buddy and I (we were working as teams) were tired of people copying our stuff. We shared with anyone who wanted to, and had full read access for anyone to our code, so we didn't make it hard for them to copy. Still, it was annoying to do the work and then have others just copy and hand in.
Our assignments required print-outs delivered with the software (yes, this is before there was even an internet) and we suspected people just copied our software, compiled it (which incidentally at the time could take hours) and ran it without even looking at it. So, just for fun, we inserted into our own code the equivalent of a system call to "rm -rf $HOME/*" (yes, this is before we got our Pyramid Unix boxes, so it was not exactly that). We did this two days before the assignment was to be delivered. It took less then an hour before we heard the first "WHAT THE F#CK HAPPENED???". Five teams were unable to deliver their assignments.
Interestingly two of the teams complained about our behavior to the professor. His only reaction was to ask if they had some serious mental problems (or the polite equivalent). I am sure today we would have been sued and the morons would have won since we "hacked" their accounts.
Sigh. You studs, your attitude and your 30 seconds maximum intercourse. I was just curious dude. Get over your self.
They want to use their PS3 as a Media Center, something that's simply impossible with the current setup
Could you elaborate please? Do we have different takes on what a Media Center is? I do believe my PS3 is currently functioning as a Media Center, doing video, images and music etc. Did I miss something?
In the long run it will, for sure. As the number of drivers on the road approaches zero, so does the number of accidents. I think zapping them is a great idea, but I'll stay off the roads until the practice has had its full effect and there is about 800 people left in the US.
just one way to try to compensate the many faults of the capitalist system
Says the one who just proved that he has no understanding of "the capitalist system" at all. Sorry dude, you are wrong, and you appear to be of limited intellect. I have given you as much documentation on that as you have given on your moronic "without doing any useful work". It is sadly not too rare to read moronic idiocy like that statement. Our education system, world wide, is in serious trouble.
EOM
Jayna Davis met with Yossef Bodansky (see above) and he said she was right on the money.
And that should be an indication of the quality of her work? Let's see... she's got a hang-up on John Doe #2, by her identified as Hussain al-Hussaini despite the fact that he is long since identified as a US soldier moving base. There is no evidence linking McVeigh to anyone of interest.
One conspiracy nut vouching for another, yeah, no wonder the "intelligence" community got everything wrong on the Iraq war. The WMDs, the situation on the ground, the troops needed, everything.
The funny thing about Yossef Bodansky is, despite his service on the Task Force, is that he doesn't really have a clue. I have partly read the horror that is "The Man Who Declared War on America". Apart from not appearing to be edited at all, with a massive amount of minutia detailed, it draw conclusions based on absurd conjecture that not only flies in the face of the observed facts, it flies in the face of basic reason. Bin Laden + Iran? Give me a break.
Sorry mate, as someone who thinks G.W. Bush was a bloody socialist (his economic policies were for sure) I pity the sorry state of the Repugnican party these days. Bodansky is not a serious writer, he is a partisan on a mission, and he is a conspiracy nut. Probably a favorite among the "Intelligence" Community.
Again, the US "intelligence" from pre-war Iraq is worse than the Swedish "intelligence" from around 1904.
The "intelligence" community in Sweden concluded that only a tiny fraction of the Norwegian population wanted independence from Sweden and that it was therefore perfectly safe to have a referendum in Norway on the topic. The Swedes obviously didn't want to grant independence to the Norwegians. The referendum ended with 95.95% of the Norwegian population voting for independence and Sweden being forced to cede control.
That case should be mandatory reading for all "intelligence" operators, and it is particularly relevant for the US intelligence community of 2001. Why? The Swedish intelligence service gave the Swedish King the result the King desired. In the same way that the intelligence flow in the run-up to the war on Iraq was from the White House to the "intelligence" community, not the other way around. It would have served the population a little better if someone in the "intelligence" community in 2003 had stood up and said "guys, why not use real intelligence here, perhaps that will make it easier to achieve our goals, whatever they might be". Instead we saw a bunch of politicized num-nuts who peddled garbage under pressure from a fat guy with a penchant for shooting people in the face.
Well, I do have access to more information that you can imagine
Yeah, right. And Iran and Iraq under Saddam were buddy-buddies. If the "intelligence" community believes that then they are even worse than I thought, and I didn't really think all that many fine thoughts about the people who fed information to politicians that led said politicians to say dumb-ass things like "we'll be greeted as liberators", "the war will pay for it self", "we do not need more ground troops".
I am sure Saddam would rather give G. W. Bush Sr. a blow job than get into bed with the Iranians. Particularly considering the fact that Iran has for years and years been feeding the rebellion in the south. Please elaborate on this if you can.
During the run-up to the war, Iraq did in fact send large convoys of vehicles into Syria and Iran
Iraqis were looting their own country in the run-up to the war, obviously and of course they did. That is not the same as Iraq and Iran sharing military material. Iran and Iraq has been more or less on a constant "brink of war" since they signed the peace treaty. Saddam feeding weapons to Iran, who would feed them right back to the Shiite insurgents in southern Iraq is such a ludicrous notion that only someone with "intelligence" in their job title could dream it up. Saddam was not a nice guy, but he did enjoy life, and feeding WMDs to Iran would be suicidal, US war or not. Again, your statements belie the concept of "intelligence".
Iraq was involved in the 93 WTC bombing ... Laurie Mylroie ... Jayna Davis
Sigh. This was just a little sad. And to think that I actually spent time discussing this with you. Your claim about working in the "intelligence" industry is a bold-faced lie. The only "intelligence" you employ in your daily work is the intelligence it takes to figure out when a meat patty needs to be flipped. The "documentation" you cite here is entirely conspiracy-nut material. Jayna Davis is a crackpot. If you tap her head a little hard it will implode due to the strong vacuum inside. All of her writing is absurd conjecture based on wild imagination.
You never worked with anything more intelligent than figuring out how not to burn a burger. You are simply Yet Another Crackpot Conspiracy Nut. Get well soon.
Newsflash. I work in the intelligence community
Well, that explains a lot then, doesn't it? "intelligence community", even the concept is a bloody joke these days.
He made large quantities of anthrax, for which he was unable to account
This is absolute rubbish. What we know to be the case was that Iraq had an amount, relatively large for sure, of basically an anthrax growth medium that could be used to produce anthrax. They were unable to account for all of it, but there were a number of explanations for why this could be the case. A very good explanatin being sheer incompetence.
There is a significant difference between being unable to account for the ability to grow anthrax and actual anthrax.
along with the anthrax scare in 2001
Yes that one. Funny that one, where US officials pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed the possibility that Iraq might have been behind it, at the same time knowing with 100% certainty that Iraq had nothing to do with it. The anthrax used in 2001 was quickly identified as not being from Iraq. Not that the intelligence community or the government let that stop them. Anything to build a rotten case for a war that was obvious we had no business being involved in.
Iraq produced and used various chemical munitions over the years
Most of the chemical munitions used by Iraq over the years were produced in the US and sold to the Iraqi. In the 1980s they started an extended program for chemical and biological weapons production, and at the same time receiving significant amounts of chemical munitions from the US. The large death tolls in Iran came using US produced chemical munitions. Rumsfeld was one of the (then civilians) who made it happen despite the illegality of it. This included tools to produce cyanide gas used against Iran and the Kurds.
Their penchant for WMDs and other unconventional weapons was well known
As was their inability to successfully produce most of them and the needed delivery systems.
We also know of large amounts that were smuggled to Iran
And still you wonder why people laugh when you call your self the "intelligence" community? Are you actually saying that Iraq was supplying Iran, a country who actively sought to overthrow the government of Iraq, with the means to overthrow them? Saddam wasn't that smart, but you have to be even dumber to think that he actively supplied weapons to people who tried to depose him. Only the US is that dumb - ref: Ollie North supplying Iran, at the time an important foe of the US, with weaponry.
There was widespread agreement that Iraq DID have WMDs
There was widespread agreement that Iraq might have some amount of biological and/or chemical munitions. There was also, outside of the inner circle of Dick Cheney, widespread agreement that they did not possess any sort of nuclear capabilities nor the ability to acquire such capabilities. There was in fact widespread agreement outside of the Cheney circle that Iraq was neither a clear nor present danger to anyone.
Yeah, other than break, what? 18 straight UN violations on WMDs
Sigh. Before you jump down my throat, Israel has the right to exist, and their bombing of Gaza last summer, and Lebanon before that, were both fully justified, and the world should be ashamed about the way we treat Israel. On the other hand, no country in the world has broker more UN resolutions than has Israel, and I don't see us bombing Tel Aviv any time soon.
For us to go to war there has to be a justifiable reason. A clear and present danger to our interests. Iraq was not a threat to anyone else but a handful of camels, and Saddam was mostly a threat to whatever young women he'd gather around him.
Sadly the Cheney gang had decided already in 1996 that Iraq was next o
Interesting. You have given us two articles, one from Wikipedia and one from an interview with the new head of the IAEA. The Wiki doesn't disagree with me at all, and the interview with Mr. Amano just re-iterates that he has seen no hard evidence.
Despite the fact that he has seen no hard evidence, the IAEA advocates sanctions. Must be odd to advocate sanctions if they do not believe there are armament motives in the Iranian behavior.
Most amusingly the Wiki article even quotes a Pakistani ministers who says Iran was actively pursuing Pakistan for help in developing the bomb, offering $4 billion for technology.
I'd like to see you explain how the Wiki, which is the only one that directly talks to my point, invalidates it. Does all countries agree that Iran is pursuing this? Officially, no. Did I say that all countries agree? Nah. All countries in the world couldn't even agree what the weather was like at any given location at any given time.
Before the Iraq war, U.S. intel, Jordanian intel , UK intel, Russian intel, French intel, et al all said that Iraq had WMDs
The controversy was not over WMDs as such but nuclear WMDs. There was general agreement that there might be tiny amounts of gas left, but not much else. There were two intelligence agencies that claimed to believe there were significant amounts of WMDs in general, and a program for nuclear WMDs in particular. That was the US and British intelligence agencies. Both agencies supported their claims on a report that was known, long before the invasion, to be bogus.
When you say they all agreed there were WMDs that is substantially incorrect, they all agreed that there might be insignificant amounts of gas left from the 1970s and early 1980s. Nobody outside the US/British thought that they did anything nuclear, in fact it was well known that they did not. Nobody thought there was any reason to invade since Iraq had done nothing wrong and nothing to warrant an invasion.
Most of the world supported the overthrow of the Taliban and the putting of Al Qaeda on the run.
Absolutely, but then again, he wasn't saying they were not, was he? It's a weird kind of straw man you are using since it is pointless. It only proves you are dumb.
Even though most of the world agreed we should do what we did in Afghanistan, if anything they think we should have done a lot more, they also agreed that it wouldn't really produce any results vis-a-vis terrorism. Afghanistan has been the way it is now for thousands of years. Nobody ever managed to change it, and a half-hearted attempt from the US sure wasn't going to alter that record.
Just like how everyone "knows" that Iran isn't making nuclear weapons now, am I right?
BZZZT! WRONG! There is, outside of Iran, a general consensus that Iran is attempting to create nuclear weapons. In the same way that there was a general consensus outside of the head of Dick Cheney that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
When you try to argue a point, just making shit up is not a good tactic.
The whole world is sinking (ok, the water is rising)
It is? Well, yes, at about 0.7mm a year for a long time, with the most dramatic rising happening between 8 000 and 6 000 years ago. The common perception is that sea level increase should have accelerated in the 20th century but no such acceleration has been measured. Some people work with the number 1.8mm/year but that is the upper bound, not the average rise.
For the record, I am not one of those global warming deniers, just trying to keep the records straight.
The areas of the earth where people are most plagued by sea level, such as the Gulf of Mexico (New Orleans) and certain parts of the Pacific, the "increasing" sea level is not related to actual increasing sea levels. In New Orleans it is a problem of mis-management of a river and the resulting lack of "beach-building". In most of the low-lying areas of the Pacific now in trouble the problem is not rising sea but sinking land - it is geological.
There is nothing to indicate that increasing sea levels will become a major issue this century, and it may never become a problem. Even as Pacific Islands are sinking below the sea.