In Sun's world. You pay a little more for your hardware and 'Know' it is going to work.
You haven't run Solaris or their hardware in a while, have you? If you had, you wouldn't even think of saying that. Solaris and SUN hardware I used to be able to reboot, update, do whatever and I felt totally comfortable rebooting a machine across the country even if I'd have to get on a plane to fix it if it didn't work. Now I'd buy the ticket before rebooting it because it almost surely won't work. I've had it destroy disk drivers, overwrite firmware - discovering this after they literally replaced the entire machine debugging the problem. I have hardware from a SUN Spark 20 all the way up to 15K, lots of stuff in between. They even wanted to charge us $250/machine for the easy daylight saving time patch. That took me a whole 2 minutes to do by myself! Their support really sucks, often they don't even bother to ask for an explorer anymore and if they do, they don't even know what to do with it.
No, it isn't "going to work." Only a fool would bet his job on Solaris now and I'm a guy who used to be a cheerleader for them. I slept well knowing I recommended them. Not anymore, at least for the past 6 or so years. I'm throwing their stuff out as fast as I can. Now I have IBM, Egenera and HP blades. Not a lick of trouble from them and they are very FAST! The IBMs have been running for over a year and a half so they are their old blades and I think I had one bad blade out of 200 from that batch. It was replaced in 3 hours. SUN put in a frame (give us another chance!) about a year ago and they still don't have it running yet. Reading this at SUN? - come back guys, I'm waiting to use them. Anytime. Hello, are you guys there? I think we are supposed to get a new rep soon... yet another one. Hopefully one with good legs.
Stick a fork in it, Solaris is done.
By the way, Debian isn't a reliable Linux distro. If you want reliability, get an enterprise Linux such as RedHat Enterprise Linux. I've had the best luck with them. Next is the Fedora Linux, after that is Suse though Suse sucks in many ways. If you get it set up, it seems to be reliable. It just takes some getting used to. Just keep in mind the software may not be the absolute latest. This is also true of Solaris... sometimes painfully true as they are sometimes way the hell behind.
They are a wealth of information as long as you aren't talking to the pointy haired boss type. Remember that arguing with an idiot may make you an idiot as well. A lot of being a manger is listening to your people. The other is going to pointless meetings so see if you can get out of the ones you aren't really necessary to attend (Note - I worded it that way intentionally). The others I take charge if I can and try to end them as soon as possible. Get to the point, assign whatever and schedule the conclusive meeting and be done with it. Be careful of meeting hell - one after the other and nothing is ever decided. They will do it if they can and they don't even realize it.
Make sure you have time to get your stuff done and remember that someone else is doing what you used to do. Help them a bit if they need it, otherwise let them do their job. I know this will be hard and it is very tempting to tell them to just let you do it. You're a manager now. Let them learn how to do it. As painful as that may be. Here is a real asset to you - show them how to use google properly.
Keep up with technology. Things are moving - Virtual machines, san storage, blades just to name a few things. You need to learn to tell if someone is a master of the technology or they are BSing you. Beware of sales weisels, aka cool aid vendors. Don't sweat it, you can do it.
Same crap, different issue. They blocked my SMTP port because they thought it was spamming. It wasn't. I couldn't talk to anyone, nothing helped. I was SOL. So I had to bipass their silly port 25 restriction and send/receive my mail anyway. I wish they would get someone with a clue over there. BTW, they blocked the port 25 on my cable modem. They don't own it. Didn't seem to matter.
Economic, not nature. Seems that so many people forget their history. You're (We're) doomed to repeat it. The reason 1934 was so hot was because of the 1929 start of the depression. Farms failed and as the banks foreclosed on farms, they were abandoned. Nothing to hold the dirt down so it blew around and eroded which caused other problems and peaked in 1934 when people started to take farms back, things started to grow again and slowly we recovered in spite of FDR's best attempts to prolong the depression. Not that I want to sound like I'm bashing him, it was his help that was incredibly incompetent and gave him very bad advice.
Today we are once again getting rid of vast tracts of agricultural land and paving paradise. Big buildings, parking lots, houses, gone are the trees. Trees that put a LOT of moisture in the air. This process of water evaporating forces the temperature down. This is a physical effect and very well established science going back over 2000 years as the Romans used evaporating water to bring temperature down in their amphitheaters, even the Coliseum.
So yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that plants use to metabolize into O2. Greenhouses happen to be hot to trap sunlight and protect them. It isn't as if you pump CO2 into a greenhouse to make them hot! That is the lie part. CO2 causing global warming is simply Al Gore's attempt to "save us" from a made up disaster. After all, the 1992 GW report from the UN had no mention of humans causing GW. In 1993 it was added with absolutely no explanation why as pointed out by French scientists recently. I know about other significant problems for the "man is the cause for GW crowd" that will likely come out soon, so stay tuned.
I'll probably get moded down, how dare I tell it like it is.
I think they should include a 3D representation of what they inside of the shuttle looks like after a few drinks. Sort of a 'before and after' kind of thing.
Just think of how that female astronaut (two bagger, one bag on her and one bag on you in case her breaks) will look in that diaper! See, before - eh? After - WOW!
You know, I don't care if Saddam had a dream of detonating a nuke in Times Square or not, because the simple fact is, he didn't have the programs or the infrastructure to pull it off. Plus, there is a good probability that, however insane he was, he still had enough of a grip on reality to know that such action would lead to the complete annihilation of his regime. So talk of "mushroom clouds" was mere fearmongering by the President. If he really thought it would be a good idea to reduce the risk of nuclear detonation, he wouldn't be drastically underfunding programs to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union (as Kerry so rightly criticized him for during the 2004 debates).
Again, it looked like he did have the ability to do it. Everyone in the world thought that, for years. This is like saying the Soviets wouldn't do it because it would lead to their complete annihilation and likewise extend this to Israel, India, Pakistan and all the other nations that we know have the bomb. It is the "nuclear club" and they want in. Iran wants in, N. Korea wants in. Do you doubt N. Korea was trying to make a bomb too? Bill Clinton nearly went to war with them in the 1990s over that. You don't seem to realize these guys lose touch with reality. Saddam was doing other things that would lead to his demise and indeed did lead to his demise. He even killed members of his own family. He thought he was absolutely safe, especially when we fell back in 1992. After all, Castro has managed to survive all of these years right in the US's backyard. It is easy to think they are safe and we are a paper tiger.
As for the sixteen words, I'm aware of the wider debate over the factuality of the statement, and who knew what and when they forgot it. I was simply bringing it up to counter your ill-informed assertions about what anti-war activists are claiming. Nobody has claimed that there was no yellowcake in Iraq (and if you knew how easy it is to make the stuff, you'd understand why nobody is claiming it). So the fact that yellowcake was found proves nothing other than that Iraq had access to uranium ore and concentrated acid. As evidence for a determined nuclear weapons program, the stories you pointed to were laughable.
Odd, I know some of the original anti-war people and they still dispute that. Even after photographic evidence. They claimed it was staged or it wasn't really Iraq. Anything but admit the truth. I'm often amazed at how they can "connect the dots" even when they aren't there when they want to and yet can't in other situations when it is painfully obvious. Ok, you lost me. So those 16 words COULD have been in there because they are of no consequence and by extension not a lie after all? That was the original statement, that it was a lie. Now you seem to agree with me? You should make up your mind. I also obviously totally lost you with the Libby case and I knew I would because you don't know what you're talking about. Libby was accused of outing Valerie Plame (A supposed undercover CIA agent, here in the states) because her husband said Iraq wasn't trying to get Yellowcake from Niger (which by the way is a crazy argument anyway - why not do something to him directly?). Actually he in fact did confirm what the Bush administration was saying in a CIA report and his assertion that a letter from Iraq about this was a fake was shown to be a lie because he couldn't have possibly ever seen it to begin with. We also know from subsequent investigation it is highly likely Iraq was trying to buy Yellowcake from Niger as we know for sure they did meet, where they met, who was there from both sides and Niger doesn't have any other product that Iraq would be interested in. You also don't find Yellowcake in the wild, you seem to think you can. It is the intermediate step in refining it. I.e. it is a refined product. Clearly it is a concern if it is found in a country that has nuclear ambitions. If you disagree with that, then you are disagreeing with very long
The "lie" part of the yellowcake issue is the lie Bush put in the State of the Union address, which said that Iraq was seeking to import yellowcake from Nigeria. Yellowcake itself is a pretty common substance, created by any uranium mining process. Simply having yellowcake is a far, far cry from having the desire or ability to detonate a nuke within the United States.
Are you serious? You doubt Saddam wanted a nuclear bomb and detonate it here? I bet you said that with a strait face too. You really have no clue who Saddam was, do you? Sorry, your thought was just so.... I'll say amazing I can't believe it. As for the State of the Union propagada from the left about the yellowcake - Factcheck did an analysis on it here - http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_ur anium.html . You obviously don't understand what was known at the time, by whom and why something is believed and when something is a lie. It wasn't a lie and if you look at what fact check says I think you will have to agree. I could be wrong on that, however I can hope you will understand what they wrote. (insert Geico caveman joke here)
Nobody disputes that hundreds of degraded shells and canisters of sarin and other chemical weapons were found in Iraq. Are these the "500 WMDs" you're talking about? If so, what a pathetic cry from what we expected to find.
Are you serious? Plenty of people still dispute a WMD of any kind was ever found, indeed the guy I was responding to it seems by what he wrote. I don't know what you were expecting. Are you even aware that we invaded based on Saddam violating the 1992 cease fire? The same agreement he was violating on a daily basis? We invaded for exactly those WMDs because that is what was specified in the 1992 agreement. Clearly you have been reading far too much propaganda from the left. The administration did mention that Saddam had yellowcake (Shown in my previous reply), a nuclear facility (Readily verified by thousands of sources), and nuclear scientists (again verified all over the place). Gee, someone might think he wants to build a nuclear device. Imagine that. As for the "degraded" shells you talk about, a number of them have been used as IEDs and were still very much effective. Regardless, the US just finished up destroying old chemical weapons from the 1950s. That is right, 1950s - does that sound depleted to you? From time to time they still find old chemical weapons in Washington DC from when they used to make them there during WW I. That is right, nearly a century ago. They are still very dangerous. Saying they are "depleted" is a joke. They would still kill you just as dead.
If you think George Tenet -- by the mere fact of being a Clinton appointee -- somehow puts the Seal of Clintonian Approval on everything to come out of the CIA in the run-up to the war, well, your thinking is far too muddled for me to understand or to repair.
Yea, I should have worded that a bit better reading what I wrote. I can see why you would think that. What I meant is it goes to show that Bush didn't "install" his man at the CIA to push his agenda as so many seem to think. Further, he didn't "make up" the evidence or Tenet would have seen to it Bush was hung out to dry. It also shows there was no change in thinking from the Clinton years - bombing Iraq on a daily basis during the Clinton administration to the Bush administration's handling of Iraq in the early days. Same people over there, same advice. Advice the rest of the world believed as well. Something you don't seem to understand. A lot of people on slashdot seem to think Bush came to office hell bent on going to war with Iraq. Some even say it was over oil which is very logic challenged. We already owned those fields by the food for oil program that was in place for nearly a decade. Iron fist security provided by Saddam. We got cheap oil, no hassle. B
You should have said true. Look here - http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/nuclear/nuclear-mater ial-found-in-iraqi-homes-and-schools . Or simply type in "Iraq yellow cake greenpeace india" into google and read it. The AL tubes was also true, however that one is up for debate unfortunately. I wouldn't call it a lie, however. If you were the guy looking at the evidence you would have believed they were what he said too. Unless you think you are that much better than all the Congressmen that looked at it too. Some of them know what they are looking at. Also keep in mind the CIA - George Tenent was appointed by Bill Clinton. So unless you want us all to believe that somehow Bush got Clinton to go along with this, admit it is BS. The lying liars are on the left that couldn't stand Bush to begin with. Again, hard to dismiss the photographs Greenpeace has of the yellow cake, in Iraq, in Baghdad. Unless you want us to believe that Greenpeace is a friend of Bush. Only a fool would say the yellow cake stuff is lie after looking at what is out there documenting it. Only the ignorant keep repeating it without checking it out.
Where is the "news"? How come they didn't report this "nuclear disaster"? They don't report anything that would help Bush unless they have no choice. Same thing happened in nowheresville USA, I bet most men, women and children in the world would know about it. People still know about TMI even though more radiation is put into the atmosphere every day by coal burning plants. Turns out coal veins are often right next to radioactive deposits.
So now if you have been reading other responses, you also know WMDs were found in Iraq, over 500 of them. Now you know Yellowcake was also found and by Greenpeace. You should also know by now that we did put Saddam before a court, he was convicted and hung in less than 5 years. We also found buried jets, schools with munitions to the ceiling and on and on and on.
Don't flame/mod me down. Let the truth set you free. Look at the pictures. Read the articles. Even if some of them claim yellowcake can't be used for nuclear weapons. I think everyone knows it can be. It was there and we have proof that isn't even disputed.
The city is already seeking state approval to charge drivers a fee to enter Manhattan below 86th Street, which would require the use of license plate readers. If the plan is approved, the police will most likely collect information from those readers too, Kelly said."
How come the NY Times story writer didn't realize that they already have tolls to get into Manhattan below 86th street? They could simply increase the toll, no fancy license plate reader is necessary. Maybe the NY Times story writer has never driven a car into Manhattan?
First, the sum trumpeted by Sen. Grassley in 1983 for the "toilet seat" was $640, not $40,000. Second, it was not a seat but a shroud for the toilet assembly, made corrosion-resistant because it was designed for Navy airplanes that are used near salt water -- in other words, it was a complete airplane bathroom enclosure. Not a bad price.
Not just any Navy airplane, it was for a P-3 Orion. A submarine warfare aircraft. The reason for the high price was due to inflation courtesy of good old President Carter who thought he could inflate his way out of his troubles. Lockheed raised the price of the aircraft by percentage (i.e. raise everything by X%) not realizing some things like a toilet seat didn't inflate that much. Other things like the highly specialized aircraft parts did. Amazing how the inflated $640 price is sometimes wildly misquoted as $40,000 or even more. By the way, it was just the seat. It showed up in the illustrated parts catalog for 1980 which is next to impossible to find now.
A side note - it is the toilet seat that nobody used. The reason being if you did use it, you owed the rest of the crew a case of beer.
This seems so stupid. Most wiretap laws require you to intercept the sound via a wiretap. There was no wire to tap in this case. I think they should prosecute the cop and the prosecutor for obstruction of justice, intimidation, false arrest and RICO violations. Put the prosecutor in General Population. I think this is an abuse and the prosecutor, cops should be taught the lesson to not abuse their positions.
I just got pre-approved to buy some gutted property in New Orleans.
I write this because a lot of people on slashdot are young and don't know any better. These "pre-approvals" are nothing more than a trap to get information out of you. You almost certainly won't be approved if you were to pursue buying that house. They will give you a sorry Charlie letter and sell your information based on how you answered. I used to intentionally fill the name out wrong on some of these to see what would come back. Every time I would get a slew of new junk mail. New name, new target I suppose.
By the way, don't buy in New Orleans. It is a nice place to visit, however I wouldn't want to live there. Too much corruption. They make the Hollywood's version of what they want us to think the "wild wild west" was look law abiding.
Now, let me get back to answering this letter from a guy in Nigeria who needs my help on freeing up some money... just kidding.
I used to do all that stuff - grinding, press, even had a microwave maker by Black and Decker which I don't think is for sale anymore. In the end after decades of drinking coffee I simply put in a filter, use the cheapest ground stuff I can find and call it a day. Better yet, the cheapest usually ends up being Maxwell House. They seem to have a good handle on the clinker issue so you end up with good coffee all the time. Love to smell it too.
This is in contrast to Starbucks junk which I sometimes get when I'm not in the office. It seems to always taste and smell burnt. I wish there was a "Not burnt starbucks" store. Duncan Donuts seems to have consistently good coffee.
The best damn coffee I ever had was at the Pentagon Ritz, years ago. I think it was made by a chef. I have no idea what it cost, I was there as a guest. In fact my mouth is watering just thinking about it. As I recall everyone that drank it was also wide awake. I have also had typical hotel type coffee from the Ritz.
According to the security researcher who ran that very ad on Google for 6 months, 0.16% (409 of 259,723) would click on it.
I have to wonder if that is the number of law firms out there that use google, noticed the ad and thought they won the lottery. Get a PC, put critical data on it, then click the ad. Then sue Google, the sponsor and laugh all the way to the bank. I bet they were thinking this is way too easy... Slam dunk lawsuit!
Nobody seems to realize that this is politics pure and simple. They feel they must prop up women in education, even though women outnumber men at just about every campus. Some campuses they outnumber men 2 or more to 1. It is politically useful to help women, it isn't politically useful to help men and especially white men.
I'm not being a troll, this is a fact of life.
I know you guys like more than someone saying so. I have seen this for many years, here is a recent article - http://www.glennsacks.com/mysterious_decline_where .htm . Please read it. The future of the world is at stake.
I don't see anyone that has metioned that this is in fact an opportunity for someone. Just as Unisys decided to assert their gif patent when it was just a few years from expiring, someone out there could save their bacon. Approach them, license it cheap. Profit. Seldom do you have a captive market for a product like this one.
I pretty much blame myself for not encouraging the kid to research it on his own. But I thought about it a lot afterwards and wondered if we don't give our children enough credit. Does this happen often?
I have raised kids, been a Boy Scout leader, 4-H leader, Explorer leader, Science Fair judge and so on. You just have to do the best you can. I used to feel bad about that too. If you think you can do better, do better next time or if you can still contact the kid, fix it now. Be careful of being too helpful, that can be bad too. Some things they must do themselves. The good news is that most kids are very tough. If they were going to be something in life, they will be. He will get it in his head you are wrong and try to prove it, learning a lot while doing it. I have learned a great deal trying to show one of my elders was wrong. Sometimes I really was right and (s)he learns. You may want to bring up geodesic domes and perhaps Buckminster Fuller himself.
It's a crime to submit false information to a government agency. Jeff Bezos should spend a couple of years in... federal penitentiary.
Why only Jeff? How about the lawyers? Why should they get off? Let's put them in jail for a while. Maybe then they will stop trying to rip everyone off with something like the one click patent that obviously fulfils the obvious exclusion. If I were the USPTO and I got a dump like that, I think I'd do whatever I could to terminate the patent. I bet a judge would feel the same way and may even seek dicipline against the lawyers if they dared to persue it.
Wrong. The Vacuum Tube Diode (also known as the Fleming Valve) was invented by John Ambrose Fleming in 1904*.
Actually you meant to say is that I was right. The original article has to be wrong to begin with. He didn't invent it and he didn't discover it. Probably an April fools joke posting. Sort of like the bit about Algore and inventing the Internet that got out of hand and took on a life of its own.
As for the Fleming part, you admit that Edison discovered it and then say I'm wrong trying to say the other guy invented it? How could you observe the effect without having the device considering what we are talking about? Edison discovered many things that he didn't persue, however he did in fact still invent those things. This is especially the case if he didn't see a market in it and with AC power that is certainly the case. Probably the biggest blunder he ever made, side of Tesla leaving his lab. I'm surprised you didn't concede the point as I would have and responded as you did. You should say Fleming Re-Invented it (or re-discovered it) and give credit to Edison in 1880 as I said in the first place and you acknowledged in the second place. Maybe Fleming is important to you for some reason? Anyhow, turns out it doesn't matter in this case, the guy is still wrong.
the particular vacuum tube he was looking at is known as a "Vacuum Tube Diode"
Eh?... Even if you consider a vacuum tube a LED, it was discovered in the 1800's so it is still wrong. Unless you believe that Edison and many others were complete idiots and didn't notice it. Even so, he still wouldn't be a genius, he didn't invent it. It is a blog entry off of a blog entry, hardly anything of authority. Worse, people might believe it along with the flying Spaghetti monster, SCO is a great company, and the tooth fairy. Maybe this could be one for The Mythbusters!
I'm highly skeptical since he observed a diode before it was even created. Long before it was even created. If he was looking at anything, he was looking at a vacuum tube.
If you're going to be a global warming denier, it behooves you to choose some more convincing arguments than a 1974 media scare story which was not generally accepted by climatologists, and it also behooves you to not put forward the argument that climatology and meterology are the same thing, because they are not.
You seem to have missed my point on several levels. Maybe I can explain it better. I'm not a GW denier (make sure you are addressing the right issue first of all, for some reason if you say anything negative about GW, the GW people assume you reject everything entirely.), I'm a gloom and doom skeptic. We also know that it used to be warmer in as recently as in the past 1000 years until the little ice age that the article talks about (if you RTFA... understand that a lot of people on/. don't RTFA, however I'm sure you did... didn't you?). I'm also skeptical that it is all caused by man and even more skeptical that man can somehow "fix" it. That is, is something broken in the first place? When man tries to "fix" things to do with nature in the past, he often screws it up good. If you look at the UN reports that start in 1992, it had no mention of man being the cause anywhere. The next year suddenly somehow man was responsible without any scientific evidence. Purely a political move by the environmentalists as the other guy was saying. It can also waste money on a global scale never seen before.
...snip... It does not follow that climatologists are wrong... snip...
It also doesn't mean that they are right. Clearly climatologists had better have a grip on meteorology and meteorologists had better know climatetology. What you said I feel reduces a climatologist to little more than an uninformed meteorologist, or maybe it just seems that way. Need I point out the 1974 Time magazine article and cover where climatologists were convinced that we were about to go into an ice age? Yes, that is right, 1974. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,9 44914,00.html . Now what was that you were saying about how reliable they are? He is also right in saying that even if there is global warming as they say it is, it doesn't mean an end to the earth. We need to make sure that any "solution" to this "problem" isn't worse than doing nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it isn't "going to work." Only a fool would bet his job on Solaris now and I'm a guy who used to be a cheerleader for them. I slept well knowing I recommended them. Not anymore, at least for the past 6 or so years. I'm throwing their stuff out as fast as I can. Now I have IBM, Egenera and HP blades. Not a lick of trouble from them and they are very FAST! The IBMs have been running for over a year and a half so they are their old blades and I think I had one bad blade out of 200 from that batch. It was replaced in 3 hours. SUN put in a frame (give us another chance!) about a year ago and they still don't have it running yet. Reading this at SUN? - come back guys, I'm waiting to use them. Anytime. Hello, are you guys there? I think we are supposed to get a new rep soon... yet another one. Hopefully one with good legs.
Stick a fork in it, Solaris is done.
By the way, Debian isn't a reliable Linux distro. If you want reliability, get an enterprise Linux such as RedHat Enterprise Linux. I've had the best luck with them. Next is the Fedora Linux, after that is Suse though Suse sucks in many ways. If you get it set up, it seems to be reliable. It just takes some getting used to. Just keep in mind the software may not be the absolute latest. This is also true of Solaris... sometimes painfully true as they are sometimes way the hell behind.
Make sure you have time to get your stuff done and remember that someone else is doing what you used to do. Help them a bit if they need it, otherwise let them do their job. I know this will be hard and it is very tempting to tell them to just let you do it. You're a manager now. Let them learn how to do it. As painful as that may be. Here is a real asset to you - show them how to use google properly.
Keep up with technology. Things are moving - Virtual machines, san storage, blades just to name a few things. You need to learn to tell if someone is a master of the technology or they are BSing you. Beware of sales weisels, aka cool aid vendors. Don't sweat it, you can do it.
Good luck
Same crap, different issue. They blocked my SMTP port because they thought it was spamming. It wasn't. I couldn't talk to anyone, nothing helped. I was SOL. So I had to bipass their silly port 25 restriction and send/receive my mail anyway. I wish they would get someone with a clue over there. BTW, they blocked the port 25 on my cable modem. They don't own it. Didn't seem to matter.
Today we are once again getting rid of vast tracts of agricultural land and paving paradise. Big buildings, parking lots, houses, gone are the trees. Trees that put a LOT of moisture in the air. This process of water evaporating forces the temperature down. This is a physical effect and very well established science going back over 2000 years as the Romans used evaporating water to bring temperature down in their amphitheaters, even the Coliseum.
So yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that plants use to metabolize into O2. Greenhouses happen to be hot to trap sunlight and protect them. It isn't as if you pump CO2 into a greenhouse to make them hot! That is the lie part. CO2 causing global warming is simply Al Gore's attempt to "save us" from a made up disaster. After all, the 1992 GW report from the UN had no mention of humans causing GW. In 1993 it was added with absolutely no explanation why as pointed out by French scientists recently. I know about other significant problems for the "man is the cause for GW crowd" that will likely come out soon, so stay tuned.
I'll probably get moded down, how dare I tell it like it is.
Again, it looked like he did have the ability to do it. Everyone in the world thought that, for years. This is like saying the Soviets wouldn't do it because it would lead to their complete annihilation and likewise extend this to Israel, India, Pakistan and all the other nations that we know have the bomb. It is the "nuclear club" and they want in. Iran wants in, N. Korea wants in. Do you doubt N. Korea was trying to make a bomb too? Bill Clinton nearly went to war with them in the 1990s over that. You don't seem to realize these guys lose touch with reality. Saddam was doing other things that would lead to his demise and indeed did lead to his demise. He even killed members of his own family. He thought he was absolutely safe, especially when we fell back in 1992. After all, Castro has managed to survive all of these years right in the US's backyard. It is easy to think they are safe and we are a paper tiger.
Odd, I know some of the original anti-war people and they still dispute that. Even after photographic evidence. They claimed it was staged or it wasn't really Iraq. Anything but admit the truth. I'm often amazed at how they can "connect the dots" even when they aren't there when they want to and yet can't in other situations when it is painfully obvious. Ok, you lost me. So those 16 words COULD have been in there because they are of no consequence and by extension not a lie after all? That was the original statement, that it was a lie. Now you seem to agree with me? You should make up your mind. I also obviously totally lost you with the Libby case and I knew I would because you don't know what you're talking about. Libby was accused of outing Valerie Plame (A supposed undercover CIA agent, here in the states) because her husband said Iraq wasn't trying to get Yellowcake from Niger (which by the way is a crazy argument anyway - why not do something to him directly?). Actually he in fact did confirm what the Bush administration was saying in a CIA report and his assertion that a letter from Iraq about this was a fake was shown to be a lie because he couldn't have possibly ever seen it to begin with. We also know from subsequent investigation it is highly likely Iraq was trying to buy Yellowcake from Niger as we know for sure they did meet, where they met, who was there from both sides and Niger doesn't have any other product that Iraq would be interested in. You also don't find Yellowcake in the wild, you seem to think you can. It is the intermediate step in refining it. I.e. it is a refined product. Clearly it is a concern if it is found in a country that has nuclear ambitions. If you disagree with that, then you are disagreeing with very long
Are you serious? You doubt Saddam wanted a nuclear bomb and detonate it here? I bet you said that with a strait face too. You really have no clue who Saddam was, do you? Sorry, your thought was just so.... I'll say amazing I can't believe it. As for the State of the Union propagada from the left about the yellowcake - Factcheck did an analysis on it here - http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_ur anium.html . You obviously don't understand what was known at the time, by whom and why something is believed and when something is a lie. It wasn't a lie and if you look at what fact check says I think you will have to agree. I could be wrong on that, however I can hope you will understand what they wrote. (insert Geico caveman joke here)
Are you serious? Plenty of people still dispute a WMD of any kind was ever found, indeed the guy I was responding to it seems by what he wrote. I don't know what you were expecting. Are you even aware that we invaded based on Saddam violating the 1992 cease fire? The same agreement he was violating on a daily basis? We invaded for exactly those WMDs because that is what was specified in the 1992 agreement. Clearly you have been reading far too much propaganda from the left. The administration did mention that Saddam had yellowcake (Shown in my previous reply), a nuclear facility (Readily verified by thousands of sources), and nuclear scientists (again verified all over the place). Gee, someone might think he wants to build a nuclear device. Imagine that. As for the "degraded" shells you talk about, a number of them have been used as IEDs and were still very much effective. Regardless, the US just finished up destroying old chemical weapons from the 1950s. That is right, 1950s - does that sound depleted to you? From time to time they still find old chemical weapons in Washington DC from when they used to make them there during WW I. That is right, nearly a century ago. They are still very dangerous. Saying they are "depleted" is a joke. They would still kill you just as dead.
Yea, I should have worded that a bit better reading what I wrote. I can see why you would think that. What I meant is it goes to show that Bush didn't "install" his man at the CIA to push his agenda as so many seem to think. Further, he didn't "make up" the evidence or Tenet would have seen to it Bush was hung out to dry. It also shows there was no change in thinking from the Clinton years - bombing Iraq on a daily basis during the Clinton administration to the Bush administration's handling of Iraq in the early days. Same people over there, same advice. Advice the rest of the world believed as well. Something you don't seem to understand. A lot of people on slashdot seem to think Bush came to office hell bent on going to war with Iraq. Some even say it was over oil which is very logic challenged. We already owned those fields by the food for oil program that was in place for nearly a decade. Iron fist security provided by Saddam. We got cheap oil, no hassle. B
Where is the "news"? How come they didn't report this "nuclear disaster"? They don't report anything that would help Bush unless they have no choice. Same thing happened in nowheresville USA, I bet most men, women and children in the world would know about it. People still know about TMI even though more radiation is put into the atmosphere every day by coal burning plants. Turns out coal veins are often right next to radioactive deposits.
So now if you have been reading other responses, you also know WMDs were found in Iraq, over 500 of them. Now you know Yellowcake was also found and by Greenpeace. You should also know by now that we did put Saddam before a court, he was convicted and hung in less than 5 years. We also found buried jets, schools with munitions to the ceiling and on and on and on.
Don't flame/mod me down. Let the truth set you free. Look at the pictures. Read the articles. Even if some of them claim yellowcake can't be used for nuclear weapons. I think everyone knows it can be. It was there and we have proof that isn't even disputed.
A side note - it is the toilet seat that nobody used. The reason being if you did use it, you owed the rest of the crew a case of beer.
This seems so stupid. Most wiretap laws require you to intercept the sound via a wiretap. There was no wire to tap in this case. I think they should prosecute the cop and the prosecutor for obstruction of justice, intimidation, false arrest and RICO violations. Put the prosecutor in General Population. I think this is an abuse and the prosecutor, cops should be taught the lesson to not abuse their positions.
By the way, don't buy in New Orleans. It is a nice place to visit, however I wouldn't want to live there. Too much corruption. They make the Hollywood's version of what they want us to think the "wild wild west" was look law abiding.
Now, let me get back to answering this letter from a guy in Nigeria who needs my help on freeing up some money... just kidding.
This is in contrast to Starbucks junk which I sometimes get when I'm not in the office. It seems to always taste and smell burnt. I wish there was a "Not burnt starbucks" store. Duncan Donuts seems to have consistently good coffee.
The best damn coffee I ever had was at the Pentagon Ritz, years ago. I think it was made by a chef. I have no idea what it cost, I was there as a guest. In fact my mouth is watering just thinking about it. As I recall everyone that drank it was also wide awake. I have also had typical hotel type coffee from the Ritz.
I'm not being a troll, this is a fact of life.
I know you guys like more than someone saying so. I have seen this for many years, here is a recent article - http://www.glennsacks.com/mysterious_decline_where .htm . Please read it. The future of the world is at stake.
I don't see anyone that has metioned that this is in fact an opportunity for someone. Just as Unisys decided to assert their gif patent when it was just a few years from expiring, someone out there could save their bacon. Approach them, license it cheap. Profit. Seldom do you have a captive market for a product like this one.
As for the Fleming part, you admit that Edison discovered it and then say I'm wrong trying to say the other guy invented it? How could you observe the effect without having the device considering what we are talking about? Edison discovered many things that he didn't persue, however he did in fact still invent those things. This is especially the case if he didn't see a market in it and with AC power that is certainly the case. Probably the biggest blunder he ever made, side of Tesla leaving his lab. I'm surprised you didn't concede the point as I would have and responded as you did. You should say Fleming Re-Invented it (or re-discovered it) and give credit to Edison in 1880 as I said in the first place and you acknowledged in the second place. Maybe Fleming is important to you for some reason? Anyhow, turns out it doesn't matter in this case, the guy is still wrong.
I'm highly skeptical since he observed a diode before it was even created. Long before it was even created. If he was looking at anything, he was looking at a vacuum tube.