I agree with everything you just said. Most of my countrymen are too stupid to realize why 9/11 happened and what our operations there mean. And terrorism can never be completely defeated. Its not a vaccine that we can just administer to everyone. Nevertheless, I still support the fight because I honestly believe that them shooting at me while I'm overseas will distract them from plotting the next big attack against my friends and family living at home.
Do you even know what you're talking about? He wasn't just some innocent foreign national. He had an Interpol arrest warrant out for him in 1998. He was convicted of numerous murder charges by a United States grand jury prior to the September 11th attacks. Besides all that, the BOTH the FBI and your government had classified evidence linking him to the September 11th attacks. In fact, we were seeking extradition of him from the Taliban since 1998. Know your facts please.
If 8 English guys did the attack, I wouldn't care because they'd be dead. But if Osama was in Britain and was continuing to plan further attacks against our nation and your nation would refuse to turn him over, I sure as hell would want us to invade your nation too. What else would you expect us to do? Stand by and say please stop him while he continues to kill our people? Lets be realistic here. Your country would do the same damn thing.
As for Iraq, I NEVER said I supported the war in Iraq. I didn't enlist until after we said we would pull out of Iraq and we go full force into Afghanistan. In fact, my very first post said that I absolutely abhor the war in Iraq.
I never said I woudln't listen to other people's opinions. In fact, quite the contrary. I'm engaging in a discussion with you now aren't I? I was telling you to stop with the flaming and unnecessarily cussing me out.
As for supporting terrorism, I don't support the terrorism of the IRA against your country. I never said I did. I just doesn't affect me so I'm not going to go off getting all worked up over it. Otherwise, they're you're allies. Your country supports Israel which regularly terrorizes the people of Palestine. They're only terrorists when they're committing violent acts against you. If they're for you, then they're your allies. So lets not be so hypocritical here. Britain has supported terrorists of their own.
Just because your argument about Bush's actions in Iraq are possibly correct does not invalidate my argument for the invasion of Afghanistan. Nice straw man.
How many civilians died by Bush's order? I'd like to in fact see an order from Bush that directs us to attack civilians. I'm fairly certain that your claim is farce. Al-Qaida, on the other hand, has launched numerous attacks against civilians.
Yes, invading Afghanistan will cause more loss of life, but how in the world would your plan have helped? The Taliban wasn't going to turn over Osama. Osama didn't need Pakistan's help. Did you think Osama was just going to stop trying to attack us because Pakistan didn't want to be their friends anymore? He sure as hell has stopped attacking us now though.
I don't know anything about the IRA using our backyard as a training ground and fund raising arena so I can't really comment on it much. But if it was attacks on Britain, then why didn't the British government bring it up to our government? And if they did, then why didn't we do anything about it? And stop being so pissy and trying to turn this around and cussing me out for it. I don't know much about the IRA. And yes, I really do only care about terrorism when it affects my country... that's why I said "my friends, family, and brethren". And if we support them, then they're our allies.
Afghanistan was so full of shit. They didn't even arrest Osama but had access to him. They were harboring him and allowing him to run Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan. We had every right to go in and take out the Taliban. Even though we've got Osama, there is still plenty of fighting to do in Afghanistan. I'd be ok with us pulling out now, but I don't at all believe that the terrorist threat posed by Al-Qaeda is over. Would you?
As for the track record... are you suggesting that those are good reasons why we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan and allow Al-Qaeda to continue its operations against us?
Afghanistan wasn't just a hideout, it was a center of operation for Osama. Plus, they knew his whereabouts and refused to turn Osama over to us. All they had to do was turn him over. What was so difficult about that? But they refused and let him continue to run Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. They didn't even arrest him! So tell me, if a country's government allows some entity to launch attacks against us, why should we let that government stay in power?
and what made you think that the taliban wouldn't have said that what he did was justified because it was jihad? the taliban had ultra religious views not too dissimilar from osama bin laden
you got it twisted son. the war against 9/11 was not iraq. its afghanistan. as a current service member, i absolutely abhor what happened iraq. that was not our fight to begin with and never was. but afghanistan absolutely was the fight for 9/11 and continues to be. as long as those in the middle east continue to wish death against those of us in ANY western nation, then i will continue to fight, till death does me part. for it is not only the sovereignty for our nations, but the right for us to leave in peace without fearing a terrorist attack that i will continue to fight against those that wish harm upon my friends, family, and brethren.
I don't know the actual numbers when it comes to sales of servers vs. sales of consumer pc's but the profit margin on server chips is definitely way higher than it is on consumer chips.
I PRAY that Anonymous picks this up. Searching through Jeffrey Asher's friends list, you find a Michael Sedergren that is his friend. Here's Sedergren's profile. Unfortunately, his page doesn't show much of anything besides a grinch (how fitting) and his wife's profile. But looking at his wife's profile, she does like a couple of groups related to police officers so I'm going to guess that this is the right Michael Sedergren.
people critical of our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq
Woah woah woah. Slow your roll there buddy. I joined the military so I could go to Afghanistan, but only after we pulled out of Iraq. Don't lump those two together. Afghanistan was not a war that we went out looking for and its not a war that provides us any kind of economic incentive or glory.
i used to use my pc to heat my room in college. i stayed in my room mostly and my roommates were hardly ever home so heating the whole house (5 bedroom 2 story house) was a real waste. besides, i was constantly downloading... entertainment... so it was a win-win
I'm not going to disagree with you on that point. But again, my initial argument with you is that you are incorrectly citing an Intel based benchmark to invalidate AMD's claim that their processors will realize a significant performance gain from increased memory bandwidth.
Except that AMD's Fusion relies heavily on system memory since the on-die GPU doesn't have its own dedicated GDDR5 memory like traditional video cards provide. So although you're right that an increase in memory bandwidth for a traditional CPU doesn't do much, my point is that AMD's Fusion isn't a traditional CPU. You can't reference an Intel benchmark or even a non-APU AMD benchmark to compare.
Uhh.... you're going to quote an Intel benchmark to invalidate AMD's claim? I understand where you're going. A 20% increase in clock speed is probably a negligible performance increase but with AMD's new core, who knows how it'll perform? Come back when you have a benchmark for AMD's new chip.
But wouldn't it seem likely that AMD still owns some equity in GlobalFoundaries? It seems like AMD's move was to better utilize its facilities. Given that the company isn't public, this kind of information is hard to find but I can't imagine AMD would just spin it off if they would take a loss.
This thing isn't meant to be go on solo missions, especially since its only carrying half a ton. You definitely can't resupply an OP with just 1000 pounds of equipment. In fact, the article even says
Besides the obvious benefit of reducing the load carried by an infantryman (giving him more mobility and energy) the little trucks could be the first step toward reducing the number of humans needed to ressuply bases.
The benefit is reducing the load. Its primary mission is not at all to resupply bases.
Are you kidding me? I would jump at the opportunity for an internship that is going to give me time in space!
Re:Yet just to clarify (and speculate)
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
i have no idea what you're talking about. do you? why would major investors pay 4.8 billion? its whoever the investor purchased the swap from that's paying out the 4.8 billion. ordinary people definitely aren't paying for the credit default swap.
Re:Well of course it will be downgraded...
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
The companies don't need to move overseas, they just need to take in revenue through an offshore shell. How do you think multinational companies like GE pay negative taxes?
Re:Yet just to clarify (and speculate)
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
4.8 billion is a drop in a pond compared to the billions or trillions that major investors stand to lose if the market crashes
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
Why on Earth are we still implementing tax cuts and deficit spending?!
The theory is that the amount of money saved by companies from tax cuts will increase their ability to grow thereby bringing in more money to generate more taxes. Republicans believe that the increase in revenue will offset the amount lost due to decreased tax rates. There are numerous companies that are incorporated off shore and revenue goes in through those countries because they have lower tax rates. Republicans want to bring those tax revenues back to our shores.
Arguing effectiveness is all hypothetical. You don't think what's going on has thwarted their efforts to attack us but I do. You can't prove it either way nor can I. And now that I think of it, I don't even see whats wrong with being a tribalist. I have a strong affinity to our nation. Whats wrong with that? And I'll retract my last statement about watching the terrorist die. I misspoke there. I should have said "The fact that you would rather watch your countrymen die at the hands of a terrorist than to watch the countrymen of the terrorist die is extremely bothersome"
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with everything you just said. Most of my countrymen are too stupid to realize why 9/11 happened and what our operations there mean. And terrorism can never be completely defeated. Its not a vaccine that we can just administer to everyone. Nevertheless, I still support the fight because I honestly believe that them shooting at me while I'm overseas will distract them from plotting the next big attack against my friends and family living at home.
Do you even know what you're talking about? He wasn't just some innocent foreign national. He had an Interpol arrest warrant out for him in 1998. He was convicted of numerous murder charges by a United States grand jury prior to the September 11th attacks. Besides all that, the BOTH the FBI and your government had classified evidence linking him to the September 11th attacks. In fact, we were seeking extradition of him from the Taliban since 1998. Know your facts please.
If 8 English guys did the attack, I wouldn't care because they'd be dead. But if Osama was in Britain and was continuing to plan further attacks against our nation and your nation would refuse to turn him over, I sure as hell would want us to invade your nation too. What else would you expect us to do? Stand by and say please stop him while he continues to kill our people? Lets be realistic here. Your country would do the same damn thing.
As for Iraq, I NEVER said I supported the war in Iraq. I didn't enlist until after we said we would pull out of Iraq and we go full force into Afghanistan. In fact, my very first post said that I absolutely abhor the war in Iraq.
I never said I woudln't listen to other people's opinions. In fact, quite the contrary. I'm engaging in a discussion with you now aren't I? I was telling you to stop with the flaming and unnecessarily cussing me out.
As for supporting terrorism, I don't support the terrorism of the IRA against your country. I never said I did. I just doesn't affect me so I'm not going to go off getting all worked up over it. Otherwise, they're you're allies. Your country supports Israel which regularly terrorizes the people of Palestine. They're only terrorists when they're committing violent acts against you. If they're for you, then they're your allies. So lets not be so hypocritical here. Britain has supported terrorists of their own.
Just because your argument about Bush's actions in Iraq are possibly correct does not invalidate my argument for the invasion of Afghanistan. Nice straw man.
How many civilians died by Bush's order? I'd like to in fact see an order from Bush that directs us to attack civilians. I'm fairly certain that your claim is farce. Al-Qaida, on the other hand, has launched numerous attacks against civilians.
Yes, invading Afghanistan will cause more loss of life, but how in the world would your plan have helped? The Taliban wasn't going to turn over Osama. Osama didn't need Pakistan's help. Did you think Osama was just going to stop trying to attack us because Pakistan didn't want to be their friends anymore? He sure as hell has stopped attacking us now though.
I don't know anything about the IRA using our backyard as a training ground and fund raising arena so I can't really comment on it much. But if it was attacks on Britain, then why didn't the British government bring it up to our government? And if they did, then why didn't we do anything about it? And stop being so pissy and trying to turn this around and cussing me out for it. I don't know much about the IRA. And yes, I really do only care about terrorism when it affects my country... that's why I said "my friends, family, and brethren". And if we support them, then they're our allies.
Afghanistan was so full of shit. They didn't even arrest Osama but had access to him. They were harboring him and allowing him to run Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan. We had every right to go in and take out the Taliban. Even though we've got Osama, there is still plenty of fighting to do in Afghanistan. I'd be ok with us pulling out now, but I don't at all believe that the terrorist threat posed by Al-Qaeda is over. Would you?
As for the track record... are you suggesting that those are good reasons why we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan and allow Al-Qaeda to continue its operations against us?
Afghanistan wasn't just a hideout, it was a center of operation for Osama. Plus, they knew his whereabouts and refused to turn Osama over to us. All they had to do was turn him over. What was so difficult about that? But they refused and let him continue to run Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. They didn't even arrest him! So tell me, if a country's government allows some entity to launch attacks against us, why should we let that government stay in power?
and what made you think that the taliban wouldn't have said that what he did was justified because it was jihad? the taliban had ultra religious views not too dissimilar from osama bin laden
you got it twisted son. the war against 9/11 was not iraq. its afghanistan. as a current service member, i absolutely abhor what happened iraq. that was not our fight to begin with and never was. but afghanistan absolutely was the fight for 9/11 and continues to be. as long as those in the middle east continue to wish death against those of us in ANY western nation, then i will continue to fight, till death does me part. for it is not only the sovereignty for our nations, but the right for us to leave in peace without fearing a terrorist attack that i will continue to fight against those that wish harm upon my friends, family, and brethren.
I don't know the actual numbers when it comes to sales of servers vs. sales of consumer pc's but the profit margin on server chips is definitely way higher than it is on consumer chips.
I PRAY that Anonymous picks this up. Searching through Jeffrey Asher's friends list, you find a Michael Sedergren that is his friend. Here's Sedergren's profile. Unfortunately, his page doesn't show much of anything besides a grinch (how fitting) and his wife's profile. But looking at his wife's profile, she does like a couple of groups related to police officers so I'm going to guess that this is the right Michael Sedergren.
people critical of our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq
Woah woah woah. Slow your roll there buddy. I joined the military so I could go to Afghanistan, but only after we pulled out of Iraq. Don't lump those two together. Afghanistan was not a war that we went out looking for and its not a war that provides us any kind of economic incentive or glory.
i used to use my pc to heat my room in college. i stayed in my room mostly and my roommates were hardly ever home so heating the whole house (5 bedroom 2 story house) was a real waste. besides, i was constantly downloading... entertainment... so it was a win-win
I'm not going to disagree with you on that point. But again, my initial argument with you is that you are incorrectly citing an Intel based benchmark to invalidate AMD's claim that their processors will realize a significant performance gain from increased memory bandwidth.
Except that AMD's Fusion relies heavily on system memory since the on-die GPU doesn't have its own dedicated GDDR5 memory like traditional video cards provide. So although you're right that an increase in memory bandwidth for a traditional CPU doesn't do much, my point is that AMD's Fusion isn't a traditional CPU. You can't reference an Intel benchmark or even a non-APU AMD benchmark to compare.
Uhh.... you're going to quote an Intel benchmark to invalidate AMD's claim? I understand where you're going. A 20% increase in clock speed is probably a negligible performance increase but with AMD's new core, who knows how it'll perform? Come back when you have a benchmark for AMD's new chip.
But wouldn't it seem likely that AMD still owns some equity in GlobalFoundaries? It seems like AMD's move was to better utilize its facilities. Given that the company isn't public, this kind of information is hard to find but I can't imagine AMD would just spin it off if they would take a loss.
Besides the obvious benefit of reducing the load carried by an infantryman (giving him more mobility and energy) the little trucks could be the first step toward reducing the number of humans needed to ressuply bases.
The benefit is reducing the load. Its primary mission is not at all to resupply bases.
Are you kidding me? I would jump at the opportunity for an internship that is going to give me time in space!
i have no idea what you're talking about. do you? why would major investors pay 4.8 billion? its whoever the investor purchased the swap from that's paying out the 4.8 billion. ordinary people definitely aren't paying for the credit default swap.
The companies don't need to move overseas, they just need to take in revenue through an offshore shell. How do you think multinational companies like GE pay negative taxes?
4.8 billion is a drop in a pond compared to the billions or trillions that major investors stand to lose if the market crashes
Why on Earth are we still implementing tax cuts and deficit spending?!
The theory is that the amount of money saved by companies from tax cuts will increase their ability to grow thereby bringing in more money to generate more taxes. Republicans believe that the increase in revenue will offset the amount lost due to decreased tax rates. There are numerous companies that are incorporated off shore and revenue goes in through those countries because they have lower tax rates. Republicans want to bring those tax revenues back to our shores.
Stephen Colbert and Chuck Norris
Arguing effectiveness is all hypothetical. You don't think what's going on has thwarted their efforts to attack us but I do. You can't prove it either way nor can I. And now that I think of it, I don't even see whats wrong with being a tribalist. I have a strong affinity to our nation. Whats wrong with that? And I'll retract my last statement about watching the terrorist die. I misspoke there. I should have said "The fact that you would rather watch your countrymen die at the hands of a terrorist than to watch the countrymen of the terrorist die is extremely bothersome"