Very few people actually want to use a PDA, so I don't see any attraction or market appeal here. It's just an investor scam designed to pump the stock. Apple is not stupid. Nobody is going to fall for this rumor.
Here is a start. Or this. Try going to news.google.com and search on iraq + al qaeda, or al-Zarqawi. Its not hard to find.
All I see in those links are allegations by the new Iraqi army, or the US administration. Neither of these are trustworthy sources. Anyone can claim they are Al Qaeda. Doesn't make it so.
By whom? I don't think the US is doing this. There was the rogue bunch of soldiers at Abu Gharaib, but most of them are already in jail for their crimes
Actually all the evidence points to this not being rogue elements, but a systematic plan, ordered from above. Even if they were rogues, that doesn't mean the torture did not happen. Only a fraction of the torture evidence has been released to the public.
If it were just a few "bad apples," then why is the administration arguing about the definition of torture, and the right to torture?
Yes, there is, that is where the term "unlawful combatant" or enemy combatant comes in. You have to obey the law of war and the treaty to qualify for the special protections and privileges of the treaty. Al Qaeda and company regularly commit war crimes, and fail the tests in Convention III, article 4, paragraph 2:
So, they are civilian criminals, who should be treated under civilian law. And what of those who are imprisoned, but are NOT Al Qaeda members? You cannot possibly tell me that thousands of Iraqis have suddenly become members of Al Qaeda, when Al Qaeda never even existed in Iraq before the war.
To try and prove that there isn't a war because some prisoners do not qualify for the special protections of prisoner of war status under the Geneva Conventions is silly.
"Special protections"? In many ways, POWs get less protection than civilians.
In any case, how does this apply to iraqi civilians who aren't terrorists? Why aren't they getting civilian protections? Even if the torture victims were all Al Qaeda members, how does this justify torture? What is the purpose of denying any human rights to prisoners, whether they are civilian or enemies?
Do you even read the news? Hundreds of Iraqi prisoners were released without charge. If you are not aware of this, you obviously are not informed enough. Are you saying that all these people were enemy combatants or criminals? If they were, why weren't they charged?
Iraqis were indiscriminately rounded up and imprisoned at Abu Ghraib I don't make a habit of archiving stories that have been so widely covered across the globe as to be common knowledge, but a quick internet search gives this link:
There were gross differences, Taguba said, between the actual number of prisoners on hand and the number officially recorded. A lack of proper screening also meant that many innocent Iraqis were wrongly being detained--indefinitely, it seemed, in some cases. The Taguba study noted that more than sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society, which should have enabled them to be released.
There are other sources out there, but I don't see why I should do your research for you. Moreover, the lack of transparency means that the administration is not giving details of who is imprisoned, so we have no real way of tracking these abuses. That is wrong in itself. Any system of justice, military or civilian, should be accountable and transparent.
What if this happened on American soil? What if there were terrorist cells in America, and YOU were suspected of being involved, and imprisoned indefinitely without access to lawyers or any trial? This is not spreading democracy or freedom, it's just spreading fear and injustice.
Even if you are correct that Al Qaeda is not allowed Geneva protection, or protection against torture - how is this relevant to innocent Iraqis being imprisoned and tortured? They are not members of the "enemy" - they are members of a supposedly now democratic and "free" Iraq. So how can they be allowed to be treated like this?
Al Qaeda is a world-wide organization with a presence in Iraq.
What evidence do you have of their presence in Iraq?
They hide among the population which is turning against them. Ordinary people are turning them in.
So, why are ordinary Iraqis being imprisoned and tortured, even if they have nothing to do with Al Qaeda or terrorism? If we are at war with Al Qaeda, saying that we should imprison Iraqis (without rights or trial) is like saying that the French should be imprisoned in WWII, because we were at war with the Nazis.
War on Terror is shorthand, not misnomer.
We also have a War on Drugs. Does that mean that drug users should be denied constitutional or international law rights? If it counts as war, why aren't they treated as POWs?
In order to qualify for the protections of a Prisoner of War under the Geneva Conventions you must meet certain standards. Al Qaeda and company violate the standards and therefore don't qualify for the protections and priviledges.
Please explain this. If they are not enemies in a war, then they are civilians, and deserve civilian protections. If they are enemies in a war, then they should be treated as POWs. There is no third category recognized under US or international law.
War on Al Qaeda is about the same as war on pirates in centuries past, or various guerilla groups. Nothing silly about it at all.
Well, under US law and international law, pirates, guerillas, and war criminals are granted criminal trials if captured.
Faulty logic, and quite silly.
Why is it silly?
Might I suggest that you actually read the Geneva Conventions?
Yes, I have. Might I suggest you actually explain what you mean? Where is it in the Geneva convention that allows anyone to be treated the way the US is treating prisoners? You don't actually present a logical argument. You just say "this is silly" and don't explain why.
Aside from the Geneva conventions, what about the conventions against torture? What about George Bush saying "The US does not torture"?
Not really, your municipal recycling center has to collect the paper, sort it, then ship it to a facility where they grind it up, bleach it, and turn it back into paper
But the recycling centers are usually much closer to where the waste is gathered, than they are to the trees. It's a lot harder to grind up a tree than it is to make a soup of old paper.
It's essentially the same process as making new paper from the beginning,
No, it's very different. The wood has to be processed into pulp first. The wood weighs a lot more (more transport costs). The used paper is lighter, already is close to pulp, and is closer to the manufacturing centers than the trees are.
You can tell that the benefit of recycled paper is marginal because there are very few for-profit operations that collect paper for recycling, though many for profit operations buy it from them (at extremely low cost) and use it.
What the hell are you talking about? recycling paper is quite profitable, and there are thousands of for-profit companies that do it.
I also notice you didn't mention the problem of waste disposal if we don't recycle, nor the problems of increased erosiion and other environmental effects if we have to cut down more trees if we are not recycling.
It seems like they were promoting their cards on a technicality. Their cards might support HDCP, but only if the host hardware supports HDCP. If the host refuses to support the technology, then that is technically not the graphics card vendor's problem.
I don't actually know anything about HDCP, but I assume it is an "end to end" system, where every component in the stream must support each other.
That may have been true in colleges and art departments, but they were never really mainstream. Especially in a global sense. You might want to put their total sales into perspective compared to floppy disks and CD-ROM. Students and graphic artists had particular needs, and Zip disks filled the gap. But not for most individuals or businesses, who did not use them.
Use some logic. How can it cost less energy to chop down a tree, ship it to a factory, then turn hard, wooden material into paper, than it costs to turn used paper, which is already in a pre-processed form that easily turns back into paper?
Not to mention the fact that the used paper has to to travel a much shorter distance to the recycling factory, than it does to come from the countryside to the city for consumption. And what about the costs of disposing of that paper without recycling it?
The bottom line is that the whole "SUVs are evil" concept is just lazy thinking by people who have no idea what the bigger problems are, so they pick on an easy target.
I'm not sure where you get this. I would not ascribe a human quality like "evil" to an inanimate object like an SUV, and pretty much nobody does. The fact is that SUVs are destructive and polluting. Do you deny this?
It's sort of like the fact that The Truth is that recycling paper uses more energy and creates more pollution than harvesting virgin trees and using them for paper
You are clearly deluded, because this is not "the truth." Where do you get your propaganda from? In reality, people who oppose SUVs do not do so because they are "evil" and you obviously haven't taken into account the entire costs of recycling paper versus throwing it away and chopping down more trees.
1. Al Qaeda is not from Iraq. In fact, Al Qaeda is probably a creation of the US, whose actual existence has been exaggerated.
2. Normal Iraqi people are not members of Al Qaeda. But they are the people being detained.
3. The idea of a "war" against such an amorphous and vague group is ridiculous. They should be targets of law enforcement. War is about nation-states and armies fighting one another. "War on Terror" is a misnomer.
4. If we are at war with Al Qaeda, then why doesn't the US treat them by Geneva conventions, and other standards for treating POWs? But the administration has denied that they are prisoners of war - they are "enemy combatants" - therefore, there must be no war, if they are not POWs.
It doesn't have to do with natural selection, because it has nothing to do with biology. Natural selection is about the genetic traits that get passed on to the next generation. Suicide is about social problems.
So, you could call it "social selection" but it has nothing to do with biology.
Auto accidents are accidental, but they are easily preventable. America puts very little effort into enforcing road safety compared to other countries. A concerted public safety campaign could easily prevent thousands of deaths a year, for very little money.
In contrast, occupying Iraq costs a lot of money, and puts more Americans at risk. Which is the better investment?
What makes you assume that suicidees are lonely, miserable and mopey? Many suicidees actually have many friends, and are very financially and socially successful. There are millions of reasons for suicide. Your sterotyping does not help.
Whay are you talking about times of war? The US is not at war with Iraq. In fact, didn't they hold elections? Isn't American occupying and trying to govern Iraq?
But regardless, no, they are completely incorrect when they point out that history is repeating itself. It is simply stupid to believe that Bush is going to suspend the constitution, set up a fascist dictatorship, and then start invading other countries to expand US territory while putting races of people he doesn't like into concentration camps to be exterminated.
Why? Hitler did not immediately start invading other countries or gassing Jews. He first built up a propaganda programme to make Germans feel he had their interests at heart. bush is going down EXACTLY the same path as pre-war Hitler. Just because he hasn't done all of the things Hitler has done, does not mean there aren't similarities.
It is STUPID to believe that because Bush went too far with domestic spying (and I do think he want too far), that it somehow means that Bush is setting up a vast conspiracy to spy on normal American citizens not directly related to terrorism.
Why? It actually appears he is already doing this - spying on environmental and human rights groups.
Yes, Iomega did have the HD-based Jazz, thanks for reminding me. The first removable media I bought was the SyQuest HD cartriges. That was years before the Iomega Zip.
However, by the time Jazz came out, Iomega was on its last legs. When they were even remotely popular, it was the ~100MB floppy disks. I don't think they sold very many of their HD models at all.
Every cent counts. It's also not just the cost of the caddy - it's the cost of shipping the caddy. Bulkier and heavier packages mean greater shipping costs, when you are talking large numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Very few people actually want to use a PDA, so I don't see any attraction or market appeal here. It's just an investor scam designed to pump the stock. Apple is not stupid. Nobody is going to fall for this rumor.
All I see in those links are allegations by the new Iraqi army, or the US administration. Neither of these are trustworthy sources. Anyone can claim they are Al Qaeda. Doesn't make it so.
By whom? I don't think the US is doing this. There was the rogue bunch of soldiers at Abu Gharaib, but most of them are already in jail for their crimes
Actually all the evidence points to this not being rogue elements, but a systematic plan, ordered from above. Even if they were rogues, that doesn't mean the torture did not happen. Only a fraction of the torture evidence has been released to the public.
If it were just a few "bad apples," then why is the administration arguing about the definition of torture, and the right to torture?
Yes, there is, that is where the term "unlawful combatant" or enemy combatant comes in. You have to obey the law of war and the treaty to qualify for the special protections and privileges of the treaty. Al Qaeda and company regularly commit war crimes, and fail the tests in Convention III, article 4, paragraph 2:
So, they are civilian criminals, who should be treated under civilian law. And what of those who are imprisoned, but are NOT Al Qaeda members? You cannot possibly tell me that thousands of Iraqis have suddenly become members of Al Qaeda, when Al Qaeda never even existed in Iraq before the war.
To try and prove that there isn't a war because some prisoners do not qualify for the special protections of prisoner of war status under the Geneva Conventions is silly.
"Special protections"? In many ways, POWs get less protection than civilians.
In any case, how does this apply to iraqi civilians who aren't terrorists? Why aren't they getting civilian protections? Even if the torture victims were all Al Qaeda members, how does this justify torture? What is the purpose of denying any human rights to prisoners, whether they are civilian or enemies?
Do you even read the news? Hundreds of Iraqi prisoners were released without charge. If you are not aware of this, you obviously are not informed enough. Are you saying that all these people were enemy combatants or criminals? If they were, why weren't they charged?
Iraqis were indiscriminately rounded up and imprisoned at Abu Ghraib I don't make a habit of archiving stories that have been so widely covered across the globe as to be common knowledge, but a quick internet search gives this link:
There are other sources out there, but I don't see why I should do your research for you. Moreover, the lack of transparency means that the administration is not giving details of who is imprisoned, so we have no real way of tracking these abuses. That is wrong in itself. Any system of justice, military or civilian, should be accountable and transparent.
What if this happened on American soil? What if there were terrorist cells in America, and YOU were suspected of being involved, and imprisoned indefinitely without access to lawyers or any trial? This is not spreading democracy or freedom, it's just spreading fear and injustice.
What do you mean by that?
Even if you are correct that Al Qaeda is not allowed Geneva protection, or protection against torture - how is this relevant to innocent Iraqis being imprisoned and tortured? They are not members of the "enemy" - they are members of a supposedly now democratic and "free" Iraq. So how can they be allowed to be treated like this?
What evidence do you have of their presence in Iraq?
They hide among the population which is turning against them. Ordinary people are turning them in.
So, why are ordinary Iraqis being imprisoned and tortured, even if they have nothing to do with Al Qaeda or terrorism? If we are at war with Al Qaeda, saying that we should imprison Iraqis (without rights or trial) is like saying that the French should be imprisoned in WWII, because we were at war with the Nazis.
War on Terror is shorthand, not misnomer.
We also have a War on Drugs. Does that mean that drug users should be denied constitutional or international law rights? If it counts as war, why aren't they treated as POWs?
In order to qualify for the protections of a Prisoner of War under the Geneva Conventions you must meet certain standards. Al Qaeda and company violate the standards and therefore don't qualify for the protections and priviledges.
Please explain this. If they are not enemies in a war, then they are civilians, and deserve civilian protections. If they are enemies in a war, then they should be treated as POWs. There is no third category recognized under US or international law.
War on Al Qaeda is about the same as war on pirates in centuries past, or various guerilla groups. Nothing silly about it at all.
Well, under US law and international law, pirates, guerillas, and war criminals are granted criminal trials if captured.
Faulty logic, and quite silly.
Why is it silly?
Might I suggest that you actually read the Geneva Conventions?
Yes, I have. Might I suggest you actually explain what you mean? Where is it in the Geneva convention that allows anyone to be treated the way the US is treating prisoners? You don't actually present a logical argument. You just say "this is silly" and don't explain why.
Aside from the Geneva conventions, what about the conventions against torture? What about George Bush saying "The US does not torture"?
But the recycling centers are usually much closer to where the waste is gathered, than they are to the trees. It's a lot harder to grind up a tree than it is to make a soup of old paper.
It's essentially the same process as making new paper from the beginning,
No, it's very different. The wood has to be processed into pulp first. The wood weighs a lot more (more transport costs). The used paper is lighter, already is close to pulp, and is closer to the manufacturing centers than the trees are.
You can tell that the benefit of recycled paper is marginal because there are very few for-profit operations that collect paper for recycling, though many for profit operations buy it from them (at extremely low cost) and use it.
What the hell are you talking about? recycling paper is quite profitable, and there are thousands of for-profit companies that do it.
I also notice you didn't mention the problem of waste disposal if we don't recycle, nor the problems of increased erosiion and other environmental effects if we have to cut down more trees if we are not recycling.
because it isn't. Unless there is some underlying biological disease, most suicidees are no different genetically - they are just different socially.
Indeed. So clearly traits that tend toward suicide aren't going a terribly good thing to pass along.
but those traits are most often caused by societal effects, not genetic ones.
No, suicide is typically about psychological problems.
And what causes psychological problems? Mostly society, not genetics.
What makes you believe that HD-DVD is more consumer friendly? Sounds like Microsoft propaganda to me.
I don't actually know anything about HDCP, but I assume it is an "end to end" system, where every component in the stream must support each other.
That may have been true in colleges and art departments, but they were never really mainstream. Especially in a global sense. You might want to put their total sales into perspective compared to floppy disks and CD-ROM. Students and graphic artists had particular needs, and Zip disks filled the gap. But not for most individuals or businesses, who did not use them.
Not to mention the fact that the used paper has to to travel a much shorter distance to the recycling factory, than it does to come from the countryside to the city for consumption. And what about the costs of disposing of that paper without recycling it?
I'm not sure where you get this. I would not ascribe a human quality like "evil" to an inanimate object like an SUV, and pretty much nobody does. The fact is that SUVs are destructive and polluting. Do you deny this?
It's sort of like the fact that The Truth is that recycling paper uses more energy and creates more pollution than harvesting virgin trees and using them for paper
You are clearly deluded, because this is not "the truth." Where do you get your propaganda from? In reality, people who oppose SUVs do not do so because they are "evil" and you obviously haven't taken into account the entire costs of recycling paper versus throwing it away and chopping down more trees.
What are your sources?
2. Normal Iraqi people are not members of Al Qaeda. But they are the people being detained.
3. The idea of a "war" against such an amorphous and vague group is ridiculous. They should be targets of law enforcement. War is about nation-states and armies fighting one another. "War on Terror" is a misnomer.
4. If we are at war with Al Qaeda, then why doesn't the US treat them by Geneva conventions, and other standards for treating POWs? But the administration has denied that they are prisoners of war - they are "enemy combatants" - therefore, there must be no war, if they are not POWs.
So, you could call it "social selection" but it has nothing to do with biology.
In contrast, occupying Iraq costs a lot of money, and puts more Americans at risk. Which is the better investment?
What makes you assume that suicidees are lonely, miserable and mopey? Many suicidees actually have many friends, and are very financially and socially successful. There are millions of reasons for suicide. Your sterotyping does not help.
Care to explain what you mean, or is reasoning and intelligent discourse not your strong suit?
So, how can we be considered "at war" with Iraq?
Why? Hitler did not immediately start invading other countries or gassing Jews. He first built up a propaganda programme to make Germans feel he had their interests at heart. bush is going down EXACTLY the same path as pre-war Hitler. Just because he hasn't done all of the things Hitler has done, does not mean there aren't similarities.
It is STUPID to believe that because Bush went too far with domestic spying (and I do think he want too far), that it somehow means that Bush is setting up a vast conspiracy to spy on normal American citizens not directly related to terrorism.
Why? It actually appears he is already doing this - spying on environmental and human rights groups.
Why is this stupid? Is there a logical reason Bush can't be compared to Hitler?
2. What do you mean about working wonders? Many suicidees are great people, it's the bastards that make the world so miserable who should die.
However, by the time Jazz came out, Iomega was on its last legs. When they were even remotely popular, it was the ~100MB floppy disks. I don't think they sold very many of their HD models at all.
No, they were oversized floppy disks in cartridges. And they were never very popular.
Every cent counts. It's also not just the cost of the caddy - it's the cost of shipping the caddy. Bulkier and heavier packages mean greater shipping costs, when you are talking large numbers.