Sure, the camera people. Their native market - chemicals, film, film cameras - is gradually dying due to advances in technology elsewhere, and so they plan to sue themselves right back into the game. Sound like a familiar plan?
True enough, but I don't think that the long view - what happens for the next conflict? - will or should be too much of an impediment to how they fight the current conflict. Handicap yourself enough, and there may not be a next conflict, after all;)
Anyway, it may turn out that future satellites need to be hardened against such things more than they are now. Not too much of a problem if you can afford it....
There's a certain sort of Euro - and a certain sort of self-loathing American, for that matter - who deeply wishes to assume a position of moral superiority by casting American power as a result of American fear. The truth is, as a large country with diverse global interests, it's useful to be able to protect those interests despite the fact that they lie outside one's own borders. The Euros will eventually realize that very fact if they are serious about being a global counterbalance to the United States, and if they aren't serious, they'll pretty much have to settle for being an also-ran, a regional power rather than a global one. No fear needed, just foreign interests and the will to protect them as necessary. The moral superiority that is supposedly inherent in being weak and flaccid will evaporate in very short order should the Euros get serious about keeping up with the Joneses.
No political will. Setting aside the problems of states like Ireland, Switzerland and Finland - states with a firm tradition of military neutrality - the will to expend the economic resources in order to achieve parity with the US simply isn't there, not when you're talking about nearly doubling European defense spending in order to match US spending as a percentage of GDP. Europe may find the will to build a credible self-defense force now that the US is gradually drawing down its European forces, but it is extremely unlikely that Europe will have the ability to project power on anything approachig the scale of the US any time soon.
That treaty doesn't say any such thing. You are apparently referring to Article IV without having bothered to read it. Allow me to post it in its entirety:
States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.
The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited.
Kindly note that there is no prohibition on non-nuclear, non-WMD anti-satellite weapons being used in orbit. Further note that "orbit" is not a "celestial body", and therefore not covered by the second paragraph.
But hey, you got to take an obligatory swipe at the current administration, and you got modded all to hell by a bunch of people who didn't read your link either, so it's all good, right?
"The aftermath" is, rightly, not the purview of the military. The job of the military is to break shit and kill people - "the aftermath" is someone else's domain, reserved for "after" the fighting is all over. Reducing space junk and eliminating enemy satellites are mutually exclusive propositions, so you might as well choose which you want more, because you can't have both.
Very much so - the 10'th made up a significant portion of US forces in Afghanistan. And Fort Drum may not be International Falls, but it still gets quite cold up there in the winter;)
And I'd go so far as to say that the typical "left" liberal wouldn't criticize a conservative for being too thoughtful -- the usual criticism is that they're thoughtless, greedy, heartless bastards, or some such.
Of course, but we're really not talking about Ramsey Clark and Paul Wolfowitz - we know quite well what they think of each other, obviously - but rather about what that vast, mushy middle group thinks and perceives to be the case. There is a certain sort of very clever person who is hopelessly incapable of anything resembling empathy towards his fellow humans, and that combination (or the perception thereof) is absolute death for politicians - c.f. Michael Dukakis, for example.
It's not as if the entire might of the U.S. hinges on whatever the president is doing at that exact moment; there are millions of people involved in something like the invasion of Iraq. Plenty of people can be acting while others are thinking.
True enough, but then again, the context here is the presidency, and who's going to sit at that desk come January. There is a time for a politician to think, and a time for him to act, and heaven help the political man who gets stuck thinking when the consensus is that it's time to act. It is, of course, bad to be caught acting without thinking, but being seen as indecisive is a graver sin than being seen as rash, for whatever reason. Don't ask me why, but that's how it appears.
Well sure, it's just like whenever anyone hears doubt expressed about anything they fervently believe in.
Or it sounds Martian because it is Martian - don't discount the simple explanation out of hand;)
As far as I know, most of the left is of the opinion that negative attitudes toward the U.S. are the result of foreign policy decisions over the years, which, frankly, is a simpler, much more obvious explanation than the idea that "Al Qaeda terrorists hate our freedoms." It has better evidence, too.
You're probably right. As someone meeting in the middle of the river here, however temporarily, allow me to report that the caricature that they hate us because we're free is probably less widely held on the right than the left might wish to think. Of course there are those, but there is also a strong contingent for whom the proper answer to the question "Why do they hate us so?" is "Who gives a fuck?" They hate you because you're strong and they're weak. They hate you because you're rich and they're poor. They hate you because you're secular/atheistic and modern, and they long for the glory days of the 13'th century. They hate you because you can impose your will on them, which we do from time to time, rather than them being able to impose their will on you, which they desperately desire to do but cannot. In short, there's a large group of people out there who will not have their hatred of you cured by anything you can do, unless you're willing to become someone else's vassal, or better yet, simply cease to exist. I understand perfectly why they hate us - I simply don't care.
To kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able, in any country, until their armies, shattered and broken-winged, depart from all the lands of Islam." As far as I know, he's never said that he's angry or upset about the fact that we have freedoms here at home in the U.S.; the whole thing has to do with the U.S. (and our allies) having military forces in Muslim countries.
Action, reaction. Why are we there? Why do we have military forces there? Would we be there at all if Islamic "civil" society wasn't constantly teetering on the brink of complete dysfunction, wholly incapable of restraining its own homegrown monsters? Rather than embracing them in the name of some absurd pan-Arab fantasy?
I think not. If people elsewhere want to shit in their own dinner plates, so be it, but I elect a government to pursue my interests and the inte
Who cares if the commission's view is shared by the OSS crew.
In other words, even if the people ostensibly harmed by Microsoft don't think they've actually been harmed, we should go ahead and punish MS anyway. Rather than remedy some harm done to someone, we can go ahead and do it simply because we like the idea of punching MS in the nose.
'Course, there's the problem that in the U.S., intelligence and education are not valued, and any person X who is even slightly more intellectual than another random person Y is usually dismissed by Y as being one o' them namby-pamby brainiac types.
Now, now - don't be snarky;)
Let's just say that there's a certain distrust of politicians - people in general, really - who appear to be overanalytical. Sometimes that distrust is a healthy, rational thing - see, for example, Robert McNamara's prosecution of the Vietnam War, or Ted Sorenson's career in general. Or if you prefer a view from the left, perhaps Henry Kissinger or Paul Wolfowitz could be regarded in that manner.
It's not that they distrust the educated or the intelligent per se, I think. Rather, there's this sort of impatience with those who insist on contemplation when the consensus is that action is the proper next step. This is why a (slight) majority of people can believe that Iraq is headed in the wrong direction, and simultaneously also believe that Bush is a more credible commander-in-chief than John Kerry. Kerry is nuanced and contemplative, and in a lot of ways, we're past all that now. To take a more extreme example, I don't think that the far, far left is aware just how badly that Katha Pollitt post-9/11 navel-gazing kind of thing ("Why do they hate us so?") played for much of flyover country - whether she knows it or not, that sort of thing came across as positively Martian to many, many people.
Basically, a large portion of the electorate is in the mood for Action Man to be president right now, not Multilateral Discussion Man, and they will continue to be so inclined until Action Man's actions either blow up in his face, which so far they haven't, or they reduce/eliminate the perceived problem in the minds of the electorate. Multilateral Discussion Man may have better luck in 2008, but this year, he's got a hard row to hoe. And John Kerry has his mission already laid out for the debate tomorrow night - I'm not Thurston Howell, I'm a regular guy, and I'm Smart Action Man, unlike this other guy. Kerry's not dead yet, but he will be if he can't fully carry out those two tasks.
I notice that you didn't actually challenge the assertion itself (that Bush is a drooling moron).:)
Because then you might stop doing it, and as you may have guessed, I have something of a vested interest in seeing that sort of thing perpetuated, to a degree;)
Shhhhh. It's a secret, one that the Boston Brahmin is not conditioned to understand, I think. The secret is that the American electorate doesn't really want intellectuals running the show. Putting intellectuals in the White House gets you a Woodrow Wilson, and who wants that? Consider TR for a moment - a man of bold talk, bold action, and firm convictions. (Sound familiar?) And Teddy is generally fondly remembered these days, despite the fact that he was not into the whole nuance thing.
Successful candidates in this day and age, whether John Kennedy or Bill Clinton or GWB, are those who are best able to position themselves as regular guys, the kind of regular guy who you'd feel comfortable about giving your house keys to, so he could keep an eye on things when you left on vacation for a couple of weeks. Bush's numbers are remarkably soft, and he is in fact a fairly weak candidate - the Democrats have, as is their wont from time to time, managed to find someone who is even weaker in John Kerry, having thus far demonstrated a total inability to convert GWB's weaknesses into an advantage for him. They have failed to grasp the reason for Bill Clinton's eight years of relative success - Bill Clinton was the quintessential regular guy, at least in the public mind, right down to his astroturf-lined truck bed. If he were running, I'd be much more nervous than I am, but instead the Democrats have chosen Thurston Howell as their candidate, and so I sleep a bit better at night these days;)
This rather curious liberal trope has a long and ignominious past. The political opponents of Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Reagan all said much the same thing in the past, and yet all three Republicans were elected to a second term of office. Although I can imagine that it must be difficult to labor under one's perceived intellectual inferiors so, perhaps a second Bush term will finally impress upon the political class that such criticisms mean virtually nothing to the electorate at large. In fact, such statements attempting to define him as an idiot probably make Bush that much more palatable to the large contingent of folks out there who prefer to see their president as a regular joe, and not some sort of ivory-tower egghead. Allow me to gently suggest that you continue to think of him as a retarded chimp all you wish, but be aware that it don't play in Peoria;)
The assumption seems to be that had Bush lept into action immediately, something would have gone differently that day. I breathlessly await a description of how.
Apparently we are supposed to believe that President Michael Moore or Al Gore or someone other than Bush would have followed the Hollywood script - immediately grabbing his six-guns and rushing out of the school, blazing away at the sky as he ran to Air Force One, which he would then have personally piloted directly into the path of a hijacked airliner, thus sacrificing himself for the good of the nation....
Oh, goody. The extremely partisan USCCR determined that the election had problems. Considering that the chair of the commission, Mary Frances Berry, illegally suppressed a dissenting report prepared by members of her own committee, and later illegally blocked new (conservative) commissioners from being seated, who on earth would rationally consider them an authoritative source?
They're not, of course - that report was a foregone conclusion, prepared by a partisan commission, operation in furtherance of a partisan political agenda. And that's a fact.
If you've never had the problem, I in turn suspect you haven't been installing a very wide range.
Not unreasonable for you to suspect, but in fact it's been a pretty wide range. Although I don't always install that way - just when it happens to be convenient for me. Given that, I don't deny that it may be a problem, but I expect that I would have observed it myself if it were an especially common problem...
Unix programs spawned from a prior program always inherit the user context of the spawning process. On Windows, this is simply not true.
Yes it is. I don't know why you're having the problems you're having - perhaps the runas account doesn't have the privileges you think it does? - but I can testify that I have been using runas on Win2k to run installers with administrative privs for *years* now, and I have never had the problem you report. Not "rarely" or "once in a while" - never. Not to discount your reports, but I strongly suspect the problem is more particular to you than you think.
Slashdot Mirror
There are an awful lot of right answers these days, Kodak being merely the latest ;)
Sure, the camera people. Their native market - chemicals, film, film cameras - is gradually dying due to advances in technology elsewhere, and so they plan to sue themselves right back into the game. Sound like a familiar plan?
Anyway, it may turn out that future satellites need to be hardened against such things more than they are now. Not too much of a problem if you can afford it....
There's a certain sort of Euro - and a certain sort of self-loathing American, for that matter - who deeply wishes to assume a position of moral superiority by casting American power as a result of American fear. The truth is, as a large country with diverse global interests, it's useful to be able to protect those interests despite the fact that they lie outside one's own borders. The Euros will eventually realize that very fact if they are serious about being a global counterbalance to the United States, and if they aren't serious, they'll pretty much have to settle for being an also-ran, a regional power rather than a global one. No fear needed, just foreign interests and the will to protect them as necessary. The moral superiority that is supposedly inherent in being weak and flaccid will evaporate in very short order should the Euros get serious about keeping up with the Joneses.
No mystical impossibility, although "can't do it" and "won't do it" wind up in the same place in the end - it doesn't get done ;)
No political will. Setting aside the problems of states like Ireland, Switzerland and Finland - states with a firm tradition of military neutrality - the will to expend the economic resources in order to achieve parity with the US simply isn't there, not when you're talking about nearly doubling European defense spending in order to match US spending as a percentage of GDP. Europe may find the will to build a credible self-defense force now that the US is gradually drawing down its European forces, but it is extremely unlikely that Europe will have the ability to project power on anything approachig the scale of the US any time soon.
It'll never happen. Sorry.
That treaty doesn't say any such thing. You are apparently referring to Article IV without having bothered to read it. Allow me to post it in its entirety:
Kindly note that there is no prohibition on non-nuclear, non-WMD anti-satellite weapons being used in orbit. Further note that "orbit" is not a "celestial body", and therefore not covered by the second paragraph.
But hey, you got to take an obligatory swipe at the current administration, and you got modded all to hell by a bunch of people who didn't read your link either, so it's all good, right?
I'm really going to enjoy November 2'nd, I think. ;)
"The aftermath" is, rightly, not the purview of the military. The job of the military is to break shit and kill people - "the aftermath" is someone else's domain, reserved for "after" the fighting is all over. Reducing space junk and eliminating enemy satellites are mutually exclusive propositions, so you might as well choose which you want more, because you can't have both.
Any wind? Not unless it's frictionless and massless, my friend - overcoming inertia is not a free lunch.
When did you get back from Iraq, and how long were you there?
Very much so - the 10'th made up a significant portion of US forces in Afghanistan. And Fort Drum may not be International Falls, but it still gets quite cold up there in the winter ;)
Of course, but we're really not talking about Ramsey Clark and Paul Wolfowitz - we know quite well what they think of each other, obviously - but rather about what that vast, mushy middle group thinks and perceives to be the case. There is a certain sort of very clever person who is hopelessly incapable of anything resembling empathy towards his fellow humans, and that combination (or the perception thereof) is absolute death for politicians - c.f. Michael Dukakis, for example.
It's not as if the entire might of the U.S. hinges on whatever the president is doing at that exact moment; there are millions of people involved in something like the invasion of Iraq. Plenty of people can be acting while others are thinking.
True enough, but then again, the context here is the presidency, and who's going to sit at that desk come January. There is a time for a politician to think, and a time for him to act, and heaven help the political man who gets stuck thinking when the consensus is that it's time to act. It is, of course, bad to be caught acting without thinking, but being seen as indecisive is a graver sin than being seen as rash, for whatever reason. Don't ask me why, but that's how it appears.
Well sure, it's just like whenever anyone hears doubt expressed about anything they fervently believe in.
Or it sounds Martian because it is Martian - don't discount the simple explanation out of hand ;)
As far as I know, most of the left is of the opinion that negative attitudes toward the U.S. are the result of foreign policy decisions over the years, which, frankly, is a simpler, much more obvious explanation than the idea that "Al Qaeda terrorists hate our freedoms." It has better evidence, too.
You're probably right. As someone meeting in the middle of the river here, however temporarily, allow me to report that the caricature that they hate us because we're free is probably less widely held on the right than the left might wish to think. Of course there are those, but there is also a strong contingent for whom the proper answer to the question "Why do they hate us so?" is "Who gives a fuck?" They hate you because you're strong and they're weak. They hate you because you're rich and they're poor. They hate you because you're secular/atheistic and modern, and they long for the glory days of the 13'th century. They hate you because you can impose your will on them, which we do from time to time, rather than them being able to impose their will on you, which they desperately desire to do but cannot. In short, there's a large group of people out there who will not have their hatred of you cured by anything you can do, unless you're willing to become someone else's vassal, or better yet, simply cease to exist. I understand perfectly why they hate us - I simply don't care.
To kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able, in any country, until their armies, shattered and broken-winged, depart from all the lands of Islam." As far as I know, he's never said that he's angry or upset about the fact that we have freedoms here at home in the U.S.; the whole thing has to do with the U.S. (and our allies) having military forces in Muslim countries.
Action, reaction. Why are we there? Why do we have military forces there? Would we be there at all if Islamic "civil" society wasn't constantly teetering on the brink of complete dysfunction, wholly incapable of restraining its own homegrown monsters? Rather than embracing them in the name of some absurd pan-Arab fantasy?
I think not. If people elsewhere want to shit in their own dinner plates, so be it, but I elect a government to pursue my interests and the inte
I was unaware that "the OSS crew" had shrunk to "Red Hat", so there you go...
In other words, even if the people ostensibly harmed by Microsoft don't think they've actually been harmed, we should go ahead and punish MS anyway. Rather than remedy some harm done to someone, we can go ahead and do it simply because we like the idea of punching MS in the nose.
Now, now - don't be snarky ;)
Let's just say that there's a certain distrust of politicians - people in general, really - who appear to be overanalytical. Sometimes that distrust is a healthy, rational thing - see, for example, Robert McNamara's prosecution of the Vietnam War, or Ted Sorenson's career in general. Or if you prefer a view from the left, perhaps Henry Kissinger or Paul Wolfowitz could be regarded in that manner.
It's not that they distrust the educated or the intelligent per se, I think. Rather, there's this sort of impatience with those who insist on contemplation when the consensus is that action is the proper next step. This is why a (slight) majority of people can believe that Iraq is headed in the wrong direction, and simultaneously also believe that Bush is a more credible commander-in-chief than John Kerry. Kerry is nuanced and contemplative, and in a lot of ways, we're past all that now. To take a more extreme example, I don't think that the far, far left is aware just how badly that Katha Pollitt post-9/11 navel-gazing kind of thing ("Why do they hate us so?") played for much of flyover country - whether she knows it or not, that sort of thing came across as positively Martian to many, many people.
Basically, a large portion of the electorate is in the mood for Action Man to be president right now, not Multilateral Discussion Man, and they will continue to be so inclined until Action Man's actions either blow up in his face, which so far they haven't, or they reduce/eliminate the perceived problem in the minds of the electorate. Multilateral Discussion Man may have better luck in 2008, but this year, he's got a hard row to hoe. And John Kerry has his mission already laid out for the debate tomorrow night - I'm not Thurston Howell, I'm a regular guy, and I'm Smart Action Man, unlike this other guy. Kerry's not dead yet, but he will be if he can't fully carry out those two tasks.
Because then you might stop doing it, and as you may have guessed, I have something of a vested interest in seeing that sort of thing perpetuated, to a degree ;)
Shhhhh. It's a secret, one that the Boston Brahmin is not conditioned to understand, I think. The secret is that the American electorate doesn't really want intellectuals running the show. Putting intellectuals in the White House gets you a Woodrow Wilson, and who wants that? Consider TR for a moment - a man of bold talk, bold action, and firm convictions. (Sound familiar?) And Teddy is generally fondly remembered these days, despite the fact that he was not into the whole nuance thing.
Successful candidates in this day and age, whether John Kennedy or Bill Clinton or GWB, are those who are best able to position themselves as regular guys, the kind of regular guy who you'd feel comfortable about giving your house keys to, so he could keep an eye on things when you left on vacation for a couple of weeks. Bush's numbers are remarkably soft, and he is in fact a fairly weak candidate - the Democrats have, as is their wont from time to time, managed to find someone who is even weaker in John Kerry, having thus far demonstrated a total inability to convert GWB's weaknesses into an advantage for him. They have failed to grasp the reason for Bill Clinton's eight years of relative success - Bill Clinton was the quintessential regular guy, at least in the public mind, right down to his astroturf-lined truck bed. If he were running, I'd be much more nervous than I am, but instead the Democrats have chosen Thurston Howell as their candidate, and so I sleep a bit better at night these days ;)
This rather curious liberal trope has a long and ignominious past. The political opponents of Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Reagan all said much the same thing in the past, and yet all three Republicans were elected to a second term of office. Although I can imagine that it must be difficult to labor under one's perceived intellectual inferiors so, perhaps a second Bush term will finally impress upon the political class that such criticisms mean virtually nothing to the electorate at large. In fact, such statements attempting to define him as an idiot probably make Bush that much more palatable to the large contingent of folks out there who prefer to see their president as a regular joe, and not some sort of ivory-tower egghead. Allow me to gently suggest that you continue to think of him as a retarded chimp all you wish, but be aware that it don't play in Peoria ;)
Apparently we are supposed to believe that President Michael Moore or Al Gore or someone other than Bush would have followed the Hollywood script - immediately grabbing his six-guns and rushing out of the school, blazing away at the sky as he ran to Air Force One, which he would then have personally piloted directly into the path of a hijacked airliner, thus sacrificing himself for the good of the nation....
They're not, of course - that report was a foregone conclusion, prepared by a partisan commission, operation in furtherance of a partisan political agenda. And that's a fact.
Not unreasonable for you to suspect, but in fact it's been a pretty wide range. Although I don't always install that way - just when it happens to be convenient for me. Given that, I don't deny that it may be a problem, but I expect that I would have observed it myself if it were an especially common problem...
Yes it is. I don't know why you're having the problems you're having - perhaps the runas account doesn't have the privileges you think it does? - but I can testify that I have been using runas on Win2k to run installers with administrative privs for *years* now, and I have never had the problem you report. Not "rarely" or "once in a while" - never. Not to discount your reports, but I strongly suspect the problem is more particular to you than you think.
The Department of Justice begs to differ...