] The general and his government have been lying for years
] about the illegal traffic. Now that their cover has been
] blown by evidence supplied to the United Nations by Libya
] and Iran, they are attempting to pin all the blame on a
] single scientist while stonewalling any international
] investigation. On Wednesday Abdul Qadeer Khan, the chief
] designer of Pakistan's atomic weapons, confessed on
] television to selling his work through an international
] black market and claimed he acted alone -- contradicting
] his previous implication of Mr. Musharraf and other top
] generals.

] What's hard to believe is the Bush
] administration's reaction to it. Rather than moving to
] impose sanctions on Pakistan -- action that might be
] expected for a government that has been caught providing
] the technology for nuclear weapons to such countries as
] Iran, Libya and North Korea -- it has swallowed his
] coverup and even congratulated him on it. "We value the
] commitments Mr. Musharraf has made to prevent the
] expertise in Pakistan from reaching other places," State
] Department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday. "We
] think that Pakistan is taking serious efforts to end the
] activities of a dangerous network." As for the pardon of
] Mr. Khan -- who by Pakistan's account is probably the
] worst criminal in the history of nuclear weapons
] proliferation -- "I don't think it's a matter for the
] United States to sit in judgment on," Mr. Boucher said.

Anyone still want to argue that Iraq was/is our biggest threat?

Giving Pakistan a Pass (washingtonpost.com)

] There is one very important difference between what can
] be built as an experiment and the commercial Segway: The
] commercial one has a lot of safety features, redundancy
] and fool-proofing. Mine has none whatsoever (Well, it
] does have a kill switch so it doesn't go zooming away if
] I fall off, and it does shut down if it finds itself
] tipped more than 45 degrees.) This is pretty darn
] important, and you should think about it very carefully
] before considering building such a thing yourself. With a
] scooter like this, if it stops working for any reason
] (software crash, hardware failure, low battery) you will
] fall, hard, and probably on your face. Imagine zipping
] along at 10 MPH, and suddenly the platform you're
] standing on stops dead. Oh, and there's a T-bar in front
] of you to trip you up if you start to run. So you really
] shouldn't try to replicate this experiment, and I can't
] be responsible for what happens if you read this and try
] to build something.

... damn. Thats neat

Building your own Segway

] A strong America must also value the institution of
] marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we
] take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental,
] enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has
] already taken a stand on this issue by passing the
] Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President
] Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law
] as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one
] state may not redefine marriage for other states.
]
] Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage
] by court order, without regard for the will of the people
] and their elected representatives. On an issue of such
] great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If
] judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the
] people, the only alternative left to the people would be
] the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the
] sanctity of marriage. (Applause.)
]
] The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the
] way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines
] marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity
] and value in God's sight. (Applause.)

How can people keep a straight face when talking about denying gays the right to use the word marriage because we have to preseve the "sanctity" or "moral tradition" of the word, while we live in a country where over half of all of these "moral traditions" end in divorce?

Civil Unions: Your alternate union

] "The facts are becoming clearer," Bush said. "As the
] chief weapons inspector said, we have not yet found the
] stockpiles of weapons that we thought were there. Yet,
] the survey group has uncovered some of what the dictator
] was up to."
]
] Hussein, he said, had "the capability to produce weapons
] of mass destruction," "the scientists and technology in
] place to make those weapons," "the necessary
] infrastructure to produce weapons of mass destruction"
] and "the intent to arm his regime with weapons of mass
] destruction."

And the dented cans under my sink have the potential to produce botchulism, a WMD. Good lord I can almost heard him running backwards on this issue.

] "And Saddam Hussein had something else," Bush said. "He
] had a record of using weapons of mass destruction against
] his enemies and against innocent Iraqi citizens."]

oh yeah, those those WMD's we gave him I forgot about those

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

When you give someone chemical and biological weapons, they don't come in a tupperware jar. We gave him this infrastructure to support them as well. So of course he has "capabilities"

Bush Stands Firmly Behind His Decision to Invade Iraq (washingtonpost.com)

PRESIDENT BUSH: — because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction, invaded Kuwait. ... But the fact that he is not there is, means America's a more secure country.

[Sigh]... Look how he backpedals and changes the justification for the war.

ABCNEWS.com : Transcript: President Bush Interview, Part 2

] President Vladimir Putin blamed the explosion on Chechen
] rebels and said it was aimed at sowing chaos before next
] month's presidential election.
]
] "Russia doesn't conduct negotiations with terrorists --
] it destroys them," Putin said.

Is this what is in the US's future?

The US's future? Terrorism in Russia

] This book teaches how the machine itself operates, rather
] than just the language. I've found that the key
] difference between mediocre and excellent programmers is
] whether or not they know assembly language. Those that do
] tend to understand computers themselves at a much deeper
] level.

Preaching to the choir

Learning Computer Science via Assembly Language

Soon America may find
Its young men in the sand
Where there casualty
Is just a number
In Iran

The President said let it ride
Islam be damned
Make your last stand
In Baghdad

] - The world's demand for the last many years, including in
] early 2003, was for Iraq to comply with U.N. demands to
] disarm.

I believe Israel is still holding land the UN told it to give up more than 25 years ago. I'm not saying Israel is wrong, I'm just saying this is a bullshit reason and you know it is.

] - Iraq was clearly not complying with those demands.

Ditto

] - Something had to be done, and most countries didn't have
] the balls to do it.

Most countries respect the diplomatic process, and understand, unlike Mister Bush, that you can't have what you want right now

] - We did.

Violating 230 years of Policy, and severly, if not mortally hurting NATO in the process.

Taking power into your own hands, while effective, hurts you in the long run.

] - The war was justified.

Really? Because minus the immediate threat of WMD I see no reason for a preemptive invading of another country. I have discussed this in my memestream before. All reasons given are things we either do ourselves, or ignore when our allies do because it suits us best.

] - And the world is a better place without Saddam.

The fact that you, or even the entire human population feels "the world is a better place" because something occured is never proof that what occured was fair or just or right to do.

RE: Blair Defends War Decision

] Briefly, users make connection attempts to sequences of
] closed ports. The failed connections are logged by the
] server-side packet filtering firewall and detected by a
] dæmon that monitors the firewall log file. When a
] properly formatted knock sequence, playing the role of
] the secret used in the authentication, is received,
] firewall rules are manipulated based on the information
] content of the sequence. This user-based authentication
] system is both robust, being mediated by the kernel
] firewall, and stealthy--it's not possible to detect
] whether a networked machine is listening for port knocks.
] Port knocking does not require any open ports, and it can
] be extended to transmit any type of information encoded
] in a port sequence.

This is so very very cool

Port Knocking