Here's a picture suitable for posting on your refrigerator, to aid with dieting efforts. It combines the 'watching eyes' effect with the 'I'm gonna hurl' effect to maximize effect.
Instead, he donates his spare computer power to a global warming project.
Funny....I think that all the Slashdot gaming rigs out there are contributing quite a bit to global warming, but you don't hear us bragging about it... ^_^
Good day, gentlemen. As you are no doubt aware, I have recently perfected my race of genetically enhanced killer cane toads. My invincible batrachian army is currently rampaging across the continent of Australia, laying waste to all in their path. There is currently talk of deploying the Australian army to attempt to stem the tide of conquest...I'll tell you now that you needn't bother...the toads are quite unstoppable, and they only obey my commands.
You see, gentlemen, things will only get worse...even now, cargo containers filled with thousands of my warty warriors are quietly being delivered to major cities in every country in the world. At my signal, these containers will be opened via remote control, releasing the toads to wreak havok upon your fragile environments. As the toads spread relentlessly, they will destroy entire ecosystems, severely compromising the food supply of the planet. As the global famine ensues, no place on the planet will be safe. You will fall upon one another like wolves...civilization as you know it will cease to exist...that is...unless you pay me...
One hundred billion kajillion fafillion dollaaars!!!
The trick, and why you don't see it generally, is to construct self-policing schemes in such a way that they don't enable unscrupulous players to use them as tools of grief.'"
It's about time the problem with poorly written drivers in Windows was addressed...Perhaps Vista will be worth upgrading to, after all.
From TFA (emphasis mine):
The DQR system relies on scores to indicate a driver's quality level, and it derives those scores from user-submitted crash reports.
Or perhaps not.
Once again I'm being drafted as an involuntary beta tester. You know, I don't really mind testing Linux drivers...but when it comes to an OS I have to shell out money for, I kinda expect it to work.
Also, does the development of this new system mean that Microsoft is admitting the old system of submitting crash reports didn't work for shit? Doesn't exactly fill me with enthusiasm.
Finally, will this new system possibly be subject to abuse? Will it be possible for rival manufacturers to submit bogus crash reports to Microsoft to poison the ratings of their competitors?
All in all, not good news from Microsoft, but I guess we're used to that by now.
If they're so obvious, why didn't you post links to those categories, or better yet, applicable excerpts?
Don't forget to read interpretations
Fair enough...I read through Part 770 - Interpretations, but strangely enough, the word 'documentation' is only used once in the entire document. I've posted the relevant passage for clarity:
(2) Export documentation requirement.
(i) When preparing a license application for a numerical control system, the machine tool and the control unit are classified separately. If either the machine tool or the control unit requires a license, then the entire unit requires a license. If either a machine tool or a control unit is exported separately from the system, the exported component is classified on the license application without regard to the other parts of a possible system.
(ii) When preparing the Shipper's Export Declaration (SED) or Automated Export System (AES) record, a system being shipped complete (i.e., machine and control unit), should be reported under the Schedule B number for each machine. When either a control unit or a machine is shipped separately, it should be reported under the Schedule B number appropriate for the individual item being exported.
Please explain how the above supports your contention that 'detailed hardware documentation is considered the same as the product under the export license laws'.
In short, it looks like you thought you could try to justify your argument by pointing me to a ridiculously large government document, and then hoping I wouldn't bother to actually read it. You thought wrong.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your rant,
Translation: I can't refute it, so I'll shut my eyes and pretend it's not there.
other than to suggest you get legal advice somewhere other than mailing lists and agitprop web sites.
And this from the person who qualified their original contention with 'AFAIK' and "IANAL'. Pot, meet kettle.
And interestingly, you can't ban the export of a book, because a book is a form of free speech, and free speech is protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. So when a new version of PGP becomes available in the United States, it's source code is simply published in book form and mailed overseas, where the source can be retrieved by scanning it and using inexpensive optical character recognition software to convert the printed pages back to machine-readable program text files.
Given that, as you stated, crypto falls under the even more restrictive license class of 'munitions', if you can export PGP source code without violating U.S. export restrictions, I'm betting you can export data sheets too.
My point is that the HIFN's explanation of their requirement for personal info to satisfy their U.S. export license is pure codswallop, your nonsensical comments about HIFN 'fighting the man' notwithstanding.
I think you are taking it too far. It's much more simplistic than that.
I think you might be right...but I would still like to see this become a sounding-board for the issue of personal data as commodity. Codifying how personal data can be collected, how the data can bee stored and used, and especially how the owners will be compensated for the loss or misuse of said data, can only be beneficial, especially in this day and age.
Given our current government's "anti-terrorism" activities which is turning the US into a police state,
I think past-tense would have been more appropriate there...
is VERY likely that companies will be required to devulge this registration information to the FBI for investigation (it may already be happening.)
Not required....merely 'persuaded' (look to the phone companies for a good example).
And interestingly, you can't ban the export of a book, because a book is a form of free speech, and free speech is protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. So when a new version of PGP becomes available in the United States, it's source code is simply published in book form and mailed overseas, where the source can be retrieved by scanning it and using inexpensive optical character recognition software to convert the printed pages back to machine-readable program text files.
If you can export PGP source code without violating U.S. export restrictions, I'm betting you can export data sheets too. Therefore, HIFN's argument is invalid.
"50 personal questions" is not open access. Please don't lie about it.
Theo is essentially taking the position that personal information is tantamount to currency, and therefore, requesting personal info is tantamount to charging...hence, HIFN can no longer be considered Open Source. This position may currently be confined to OSS in general and the HIFN question in particular, but it's not difficult to imagine this argument generalized to apply to any situation in which an entity requests personal information. Personal info needs to be treated as the valuable commodity that it is...kudos to Theo for taking a stand on this issue.
Theo also addreses something many of us here are worried about:
>Registration at our extranet is required along with an email address >that can be confirmed. We cannot support anonymous FTP or http >downloads. The reason for this is that we are required by the >conditions of our US export licenses to know who and where our customers >are. If anyone objects to registration then we could not sell them >chips anyway so it does not seem an unreasonable restriction to us.
So the personal information you ask for in the registration process will be given to the US government if they ask? Without court documents demanding the information?
Even disregarding the 'personal info == currency' argument outlined above, this objection stands on its own. HIFN is basically stating that yes, the info gathered will be handed over to the U.S. government on request, to satisfy their licensing requirements. This alone is a deal-breaker.
Theo sums his entire argument up beautifully here:
We are not your customers. YOU ARE OUR CUSTOMER. Our driver sells your chips.
I know that our hifn driver has some problems. But because I cannot get data sheets without giving you private information, I will not spend even one moment more of my time to improve support for your products. Jason and I spent a lot of time writing that code in the past, but because your policies are privacy invasive towards us, and thus completely thankless for the sales that we have given you in the past -- we will not spend any more time on your crummy products.
Well said, Theo. I for one don't care to support a company who engages in such practices, and I would rather see no support for a product than half-assed support, because the driver writers were not allowed full, unfettered access to the data sheets.
And finally from Theo's response:
And if you continue baiting me, I will delete the driver from our source tree.
I stand by my statement that HIFN is not open.
Don't just say it, Theo, do it. If you stand by your statement, then HIFN has no place in the source tree, and should be deleted immediately.
You know, as much as I'd like to get all worked up about this issue and fire off another foamy-mouthed diatribe about the pervasiveness of government surveillance, Big Brother, etc., etc., I'm having difficulty justifying it. After all, this information is being posted out there, specifically for others to view. If you put a sign in your front yard declaring how much you hate the government, you shouldn't act too surprised when the government reads it.
"The main goal is to tap into the ability of every child to toss away a manual and figure out how to make gadgets work on their own, thus helping children help themselves to learn."
Negroponte then went on to say:
With this in mind, we won't be supplying any documentation for these laptops. Instead, we're going to make the children sift through MAN pages and beg for answers on various bulletin boards, where they will be ridiculed as clueless n00bs. Hey, it seems to work for the Linux community..."
Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important
on
Apache down, IIS up
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'm afraid I have to disagree.
It's not like they can pay large percentages of the industry to switch over.
What makes you think they can't? They certainly have the scratch, and as they've shown in the past, they're not at all averse to taking large financial hits to ruin a competitor.
At some point it has to come down to merit, and which server sys admins prefer to use.
Sure, until your PHB strolls in and declares that "we're switching to Microsoft!". Remember, Microsoft doesn't have to buy^H^H^Hconvince you, they just have to convince the guy who holds the purse strings.
Stumbled across this tidbit from a NewsForge article on the Go Daddy move:
The approximately 4.5 million domains that moved are, after all, inactive parked domains -- meaning few people are pointing their browsers at them. As for domains that actually do get Web traffic, plenty of those still remain on Linux at GoDaddy.com, something Microsoft failed to mention in its press release last month touting the domain transfer.
So, it appears that IIS is the webserver of choice for websites that don't actually need to be viewed. Hmm...
Also from the NewsForge article:
The obvious question is, did Microsoft pay Go Daddy or offer any incentive to move its parked domains to Windows? Adelman declined to clear up that issue one way or the other. "We can't discuss the technical aspects of our industry relationships."
That sounds an awful lot like a 'yes' to me...sure, I can't prove it, but if Microsoft didn't pay or offer incentives, I don't think Adelman would have had any trouble making that known.
So, basically, it looks like Microsoft paid Go Daddy to switch to IIS for their domains, the vast majority of which were parked anyway, in a rather transparent attempt to massage the numbers. Quelle suprise.
Yagu makes a good point...being in the IT industry, sometimes we mistakenly perceive things as being blindingly obvious, when in point of fact, it's still quite a mystery to the layman. Characterizing Joe Sixpack as a 'stupid dolt' equates ignorance with stupidity, which is fallacious and counterproductive.
Obviously, the 'stupid dolts' are smart enough to draw conclusions based upon the available intel they have access to...the real problem is that, as the author correctly pointed out, the lies are repeated until they become the truth. GIGO, and all that jazz.
There's no cure for stupidity, but there is a cure for ignorance: education. If we want to fight this FUD, we need to do it by teaching the truth, rather thn dismissing the vast majority of users as 'stupid dolts'. When we do that, we play right into the hands of the malware companies.
Not really...after all, these firms have absolutely no interest in eliminating the problem, but only in treating the symptoms. That's why they continually endorse an OS that is legendary for its security holes, while spreading FUD about more secure alternatives like *nix and MacOS, which have a chance of actually fixing the underlying problem.
Why does Slashdot continue to even acknowledge 'studies' performed by the Yankee Group? You think we would have learned our lesson by now...
Hard evidence of collusion may be lacking, but it's still patently obvious that Laura DiDio is a Microsoft shill.
Past experience should be enough to show this, but just in case it's not clear enough yet, here's a snippet of TFA:
But standard Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and Linux distributions from "niche" open source vendors, are offline more and longer than either Windows or Unix competitors, the survey said. The reason: the scarcity of Linux and open source documentation.
Translation: "We don't know how to support Linux, so it's Linux's fault."
Also from TFA:
The Yankee Group made a point of stressing that the survey was not sponsored or supported by any server OS maker.
I'll bet they did...when you turn out such a ridiculously skewed 'study', you pretty much have to make certain everyone knows how 'unbiased' it is.
However, when you study all the intel and make up your mind about which way to go based on that intel, even if some of it is conflicting, you are only going to present to the public the data that supports your decision.
Apparently, we don't have it settled at all. The issue here is that the administration did not make up their mind which way to go 'based on that intel', as you imply. They made up their mind based on their preexisting agenda, and then manipulated the intelligence to fit. Apparently, you still haven't bothered to read the Downing Street memo, so I've taken the liberty of quoting a relevant passage:
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
Call it cherry picking, but I don't see you sighting [sic] sources that are contrary to your position.
Well, in my defense, I'm not making a determination that will cost tens of thousands of innocent lives, either. I'm debating a topic on Slashdot, so the task of providing sources that are contrary to my position would ostensibly be your job.
Yes, three sources, all about Putin telling Bush that Iraq planned to attack the US. Two sources reported it as fact, one reporting it as bullshit.
Glad we finally agree on that.
And no, I did not carefully read each article. I read enough to get the jist [sic] and to see that it was what I was looking for.
Thank you for admitting that. You might want to check your sources more carefully in the future.
Sorry, but I've been to the mid-east as a soldier.
Sorry, but I don't blindly accept apocryphal claims as fact.
I've talked with people there that were happy about what we did in Kuwait in the early '90's.
Please explain what Kuwait has to do with the current conflict.
I heard about attrocities [sic] that took place and even saw some scars (and by scars, I mean missing limbs, tongues and eyes, and bodies. Not just bodies and missing limbs on adult men, but women and children as well.)
Lovely. When I saw claim about being a soldier in the mid-east, I knew that a shameless appeal to emotion wasn't far behind...
So when you say that this war is unjust, I ask you to take that question to a man that had his wife raped and the video sent to his kids. Take that question to any of the many mass graves filled with men, or better yet, to the mass graves filled with women, some still holding their children who were burried [sic] alive in their dead mother's arms.
The atrocities perpetrated by the Hussein regime on the Iraqis are indeed horrific, but they cannot and do not justify the atrocities perpetrated by the Bush regime, no matter how desperately you wish that was the case.
WMD's are not the only reason we went into Iraq.
WMDs are the only reason of any significance. We've known for some time that Saddam was a brutal despot, but we didn't really care until, our nerves still raw from 9/11, we were told by our leaders that Saddam had WMDs and were planning to strike us with them.
Unfortunately, it's the only one that was presented to the UN and the one the media latched onto.
It was the only one presented to the U.N. because the atrocities were old news. If you recall, the U.N. didn't buy the WMD story...that was when Bush stated that the U.S. "doesn't need permission from the international community
I was trying to point out there were conflicting intelligence reports.
The links you cited were not 'conflicting intelligence reports'. They were all stories about one event: Putin saying that the U.S. was warned about Iraq after 9/11.
Which one do you believe if you're in charge? Do you risk the populations of New York or LA or do you attack a country that has tried to assassinate a US president and continues to kill its own dissenting population?
False dilemma. Please provide a link showing how the President had intelligence that the populations of New York or L.A. were 'at risk'. Failing that, please provide a link showing how the president had intelligence that any city's population was at risk. Failing that, please retract your fallacious, inflammatory, and misleading statement.
You arguments stand on their own merit without having to insult me.
I'm sorry you perceived that as an insult. I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
You are doing just fine, son.
Thanks, dad.
Do you think that you are not smart enough to have a discussion without hurling insults?
Nice attempt at playing the sympathy card, but it's not gonna wash. Just man up and admit you didn't bother to read the links you provided, so we can move on.
You disappoint me.
Ditto.
Distorted the facts or presented the ones that supported their pre-determined conclusion?
You say that like there's an appreciable difference between the two. There isn't. Their job is to study all the available intelligence and draw meaningful conclusions, not cherry-pick whatever reports happen to further their own agenda.
I feel it's the latter
Irrelevant, as there is no important distinction between the two.
and it's not that uncommon
Sadly, you'll get no argument from me there. It seems to have become alarmingly common of late.
or even unethical.
HOLD IT RIGHT THERE. Are you seriously maintaining that it is ethical for an administration to manipulate intelligence to justify their political agenda? Remember, that manipulated intelligence was pivotal in persuading Congress and the American public into going to war...a war that has proven to be manifestly unjust, and which has cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers, as well as tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Think real hard before you answer that.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a picture suitable for posting on your refrigerator, to aid with dieting efforts. It combines the 'watching eyes' effect with the 'I'm gonna hurl' effect to maximize effect.
Instead, he donates his spare computer power to a global warming project.
Funny....I think that all the Slashdot gaming rigs out there are contributing quite a bit to global warming, but you don't hear us bragging about it... ^_^
So...3 percent of the Chinese Web population employs the Maxthon browser for Web search without having used it?From TFA:
Good day, gentlemen. As you are no doubt aware, I have recently perfected my race of genetically enhanced killer cane toads. My invincible batrachian army is currently rampaging across the continent of Australia, laying waste to all in their path. There is currently talk of deploying the Australian army to attempt to stem the tide of conquest...I'll tell you now that you needn't bother...the toads are quite unstoppable, and they only obey my commands.
You see, gentlemen, things will only get worse...even now, cargo containers filled with thousands of my warty warriors are quietly being delivered to major cities in every country in the world. At my signal, these containers will be opened via remote control, releasing the toads to wreak havok upon your fragile environments. As the toads spread relentlessly, they will destroy entire ecosystems, severely compromising the food supply of the planet. As the global famine ensues, no place on the planet will be safe. You will fall upon one another like wolves...civilization as you know it will cease to exist...that is...unless you pay me...
One hundred billion kajillion fafillion dollaaars!!!
Gentlemen, you have my demands...peace out.
From TFA:
Yeah...we have the same problem in real life.
Of course it's the most secure OS ever. No one can compromise an OS that hasn't even been released yet.
It's about time the problem with poorly written drivers in Windows was addressed...Perhaps Vista will be worth upgrading to, after all.
From TFA (emphasis mine):
Or perhaps not.
Once again I'm being drafted as an involuntary beta tester. You know, I don't really mind testing Linux drivers...but when it comes to an OS I have to shell out money for, I kinda expect it to work.
Also, does the development of this new system mean that Microsoft is admitting the old system of submitting crash reports didn't work for shit? Doesn't exactly fill me with enthusiasm.
Finally, will this new system possibly be subject to abuse? Will it be possible for rival manufacturers to submit bogus crash reports to Microsoft to poison the ratings of their competitors?
All in all, not good news from Microsoft, but I guess we're used to that by now.
You're preaching to the choir, brother.
The applicable categories are obvious.
If they're so obvious, why didn't you post links to those categories, or better yet, applicable excerpts?
Don't forget to read interpretations
Fair enough...I read through Part 770 - Interpretations, but strangely enough, the word 'documentation' is only used once in the entire document. I've posted the relevant passage for clarity:
Please explain how the above supports your contention that 'detailed hardware documentation is considered the same as the product under the export license laws'.
and supplement 2.
Which supplement 2? The Supplement No. 2 to Part 764 - Denied Persons List, or the Supplement No. 2 to Part 774 - General Technology and Software Notes? (HINT: Neither supplement contains anything to support your contention that 'detailed hardware documentation is considered the same as the product under the export license laws'.)
In short, it looks like you thought you could try to justify your argument by pointing me to a ridiculously large government document, and then hoping I wouldn't bother to actually read it. You thought wrong.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your rant,
Translation: I can't refute it, so I'll shut my eyes and pretend it's not there.
other than to suggest you get legal advice somewhere other than mailing lists and agitprop web sites.
And this from the person who qualified their original contention with 'AFAIK' and "IANAL'. Pot, meet kettle.
AFAIK (and IANAL), detailed hardware documentation is considered the same as the product under the export license laws.
Please post links supporting this contention, or withdraw it.
Cryptographic technology actually falls under an even more restrictive license class - munitions.
Whle this is true, the source code can still be legally exported in written format, since it falls under Free Speech.
From this article:
Given that, as you stated, crypto falls under the even more restrictive license class of 'munitions', if you can export PGP source code without violating U.S. export restrictions, I'm betting you can export data sheets too.
My point is that the HIFN's explanation of their requirement for personal info to satisfy their U.S. export license is pure codswallop, your nonsensical comments about HIFN 'fighting the man' notwithstanding.
Well, it would appear that a condition of obtaining an export licence for their products is that they be able to identify their customers.
This is entirely beside the point. The driver writers are not customers.
Documentation of a product is not restricted by export licenses pertaining to that product...only the product itself is restricted.
I think you are taking it too far. It's much more simplistic than that.
I think you might be right...but I would still like to see this become a sounding-board for the issue of personal data as commodity. Codifying how personal data can be collected, how the data can bee stored and used, and especially how the owners will be compensated for the loss or misuse of said data, can only be beneficial, especially in this day and age.
Given our current government's "anti-terrorism" activities which is turning the US into a police state,
I think past-tense would have been more appropriate there...
is VERY likely that companies will be required to devulge this registration information to the FBI for investigation (it may already be happening.)
Not required....merely 'persuaded' (look to the phone companies for a good example).
How would this violate U.S. Export Licenses
It wouldn't. Exporting documentation...even source code...is protected as Free Speech, provided the export is in book format.
From this article:
If you can export PGP source code without violating U.S. export restrictions, I'm betting you can export data sheets too. Therefore, HIFN's argument is invalid.
Please provide links supporting this contention.
From Theo's response:
Theo is essentially taking the position that personal information is tantamount to currency, and therefore, requesting personal info is tantamount to charging...hence, HIFN can no longer be considered Open Source. This position may currently be confined to OSS in general and the HIFN question in particular, but it's not difficult to imagine this argument generalized to apply to any situation in which an entity requests personal information. Personal info needs to be treated as the valuable commodity that it is...kudos to Theo for taking a stand on this issue.
Theo also addreses something many of us here are worried about:
Even disregarding the 'personal info == currency' argument outlined above, this objection stands on its own. HIFN is basically stating that yes, the info gathered will be handed over to the U.S. government on request, to satisfy their licensing requirements. This alone is a deal-breaker.
Theo sums his entire argument up beautifully here:
Well said, Theo. I for one don't care to support a company who engages in such practices, and I would rather see no support for a product than half-assed support, because the driver writers were not allowed full, unfettered access to the data sheets.
And finally from Theo's response:
Don't just say it, Theo, do it. If you stand by your statement, then HIFN has no place in the source tree, and should be deleted immediately.
You know, as much as I'd like to get all worked up about this issue and fire off another foamy-mouthed diatribe about the pervasiveness of government surveillance, Big Brother, etc., etc., I'm having difficulty justifying it. After all, this information is being posted out there, specifically for others to view. If you put a sign in your front yard declaring how much you hate the government, you shouldn't act too surprised when the government reads it.
From Negroponte's address in TFA:
Negroponte then went on to say:
I'm afraid I have to disagree.
It's not like they can pay large percentages of the industry to switch over.
What makes you think they can't? They certainly have the scratch, and as they've shown in the past, they're not at all averse to taking large financial hits to ruin a competitor.
At some point it has to come down to merit, and which server sys admins prefer to use.
Sure, until your PHB strolls in and declares that "we're switching to Microsoft!". Remember, Microsoft doesn't have to buy^H^H^Hconvince you, they just have to convince the guy who holds the purse strings.
Stumbled across this tidbit from a NewsForge article on the Go Daddy move:
So, it appears that IIS is the webserver of choice for websites that don't actually need to be viewed. Hmm...
Also from the NewsForge article:
That sounds an awful lot like a 'yes' to me...sure, I can't prove it, but if Microsoft didn't pay or offer incentives, I don't think Adelman would have had any trouble making that known.
So, basically, it looks like Microsoft paid Go Daddy to switch to IIS for their domains, the vast majority of which were parked anyway, in a rather transparent attempt to massage the numbers. Quelle suprise.
Yagu makes a good point...being in the IT industry, sometimes we mistakenly perceive things as being blindingly obvious, when in point of fact, it's still quite a mystery to the layman. Characterizing Joe Sixpack as a 'stupid dolt' equates ignorance with stupidity, which is fallacious and counterproductive.
Obviously, the 'stupid dolts' are smart enough to draw conclusions based upon the available intel they have access to...the real problem is that, as the author correctly pointed out, the lies are repeated until they become the truth. GIGO, and all that jazz.
There's no cure for stupidity, but there is a cure for ignorance: education. If we want to fight this FUD, we need to do it by teaching the truth, rather thn dismissing the vast majority of users as 'stupid dolts'. When we do that, we play right into the hands of the malware companies.
Not really...after all, these firms have absolutely no interest in eliminating the problem, but only in treating the symptoms. That's why they continually endorse an OS that is legendary for its security holes, while spreading FUD about more secure alternatives like *nix and MacOS, which have a chance of actually fixing the underlying problem.
It's a reference to a Simpsons episode:
Why does Slashdot continue to even acknowledge 'studies' performed by the Yankee Group? You think we would have learned our lesson by now...
Hard evidence of collusion may be lacking, but it's still patently obvious that Laura DiDio is a Microsoft shill.
Past experience should be enough to show this, but just in case it's not clear enough yet, here's a snippet of TFA:
Translation: "We don't know how to support Linux, so it's Linux's fault."
Also from TFA:
I'll bet they did...when you turn out such a ridiculously skewed 'study', you pretty much have to make certain everyone knows how 'unbiased' it is.
No, of course not.
Well, that's a relief. Glad we got that settled.
However, when you study all the intel and make up your mind about which way to go based on that intel, even if some of it is conflicting, you are only going to present to the public the data that supports your decision.
Apparently, we don't have it settled at all. The issue here is that the administration did not make up their mind which way to go 'based on that intel', as you imply. They made up their mind based on their preexisting agenda, and then manipulated the intelligence to fit. Apparently, you still haven't bothered to read the Downing Street memo, so I've taken the liberty of quoting a relevant passage:
Call it cherry picking, but I don't see you sighting [sic] sources that are contrary to your position.
Well, in my defense, I'm not making a determination that will cost tens of thousands of innocent lives, either. I'm debating a topic on Slashdot, so the task of providing sources that are contrary to my position would ostensibly be your job.
Yes, three sources, all about Putin telling Bush that Iraq planned to attack the US. Two sources reported it as fact, one reporting it as bullshit.
Glad we finally agree on that.
And no, I did not carefully read each article. I read enough to get the jist [sic] and to see that it was what I was looking for.
Thank you for admitting that. You might want to check your sources more carefully in the future.
Sorry, but I've been to the mid-east as a soldier.
Sorry, but I don't blindly accept apocryphal claims as fact.
I've talked with people there that were happy about what we did in Kuwait in the early '90's.
Please explain what Kuwait has to do with the current conflict.
I heard about attrocities [sic] that took place and even saw some scars (and by scars, I mean missing limbs, tongues and eyes, and bodies. Not just bodies and missing limbs on adult men, but women and children as well.)
Lovely. When I saw claim about being a soldier in the mid-east, I knew that a shameless appeal to emotion wasn't far behind...
So when you say that this war is unjust, I ask you to take that question to a man that had his wife raped and the video sent to his kids. Take that question to any of the many mass graves filled with men, or better yet, to the mass graves filled with women, some still holding their children who were burried [sic] alive in their dead mother's arms.
The atrocities perpetrated by the Hussein regime on the Iraqis are indeed horrific, but they cannot and do not justify the atrocities perpetrated by the Bush regime, no matter how desperately you wish that was the case.
WMD's are not the only reason we went into Iraq.
WMDs are the only reason of any significance. We've known for some time that Saddam was a brutal despot, but we didn't really care until, our nerves still raw from 9/11, we were told by our leaders that Saddam had WMDs and were planning to strike us with them.
Unfortunately, it's the only one that was presented to the UN and the one the media latched onto.
It was the only one presented to the U.N. because the atrocities were old news. If you recall, the U.N. didn't buy the WMD story...that was when Bush stated that the U.S. "doesn't need permission from the international community
I was trying to point out there were conflicting intelligence reports.
The links you cited were not 'conflicting intelligence reports'. They were all stories about one event: Putin saying that the U.S. was warned about Iraq after 9/11.
Which one do you believe if you're in charge? Do you risk the populations of New York or LA or do you attack a country that has tried to assassinate a US president and continues to kill its own dissenting population?
False dilemma. Please provide a link showing how the President had intelligence that the populations of New York or L.A. were 'at risk'. Failing that, please provide a link showing how the president had intelligence that any city's population was at risk. Failing that, please retract your fallacious, inflammatory, and misleading statement.
You arguments stand on their own merit without having to insult me.
I'm sorry you perceived that as an insult. I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
You are doing just fine, son.
Thanks, dad.
Do you think that you are not smart enough to have a discussion without hurling insults?
Nice attempt at playing the sympathy card, but it's not gonna wash. Just man up and admit you didn't bother to read the links you provided, so we can move on.
You disappoint me.
Ditto.
Distorted the facts or presented the ones that supported their pre-determined conclusion?
You say that like there's an appreciable difference between the two. There isn't. Their job is to study all the available intelligence and draw meaningful conclusions, not cherry-pick whatever reports happen to further their own agenda.
I feel it's the latter
Irrelevant, as there is no important distinction between the two.
and it's not that uncommon
Sadly, you'll get no argument from me there. It seems to have become alarmingly common of late.
or even unethical.
HOLD IT RIGHT THERE. Are you seriously maintaining that it is ethical for an administration to manipulate intelligence to justify their political agenda? Remember, that manipulated intelligence was pivotal in persuading Congress and the American public into going to war...a war that has proven to be manifestly unjust, and which has cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers, as well as tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Think real hard before you answer that.