Allegro.cc - Online Community
Post Reply

Allegro.cc Forums » Allegro.cc Comments » Thread locks too soon

rss feed Print
Thread locks too soon
Peter Hull
Member #1,136
March 2001

Chris said:

WMD's is NUKES.

False (https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/dictionary.pdf)

Chris said:

They did not have NUKES.

True

Chris said:

We went to Iraq because we thought they were going to NUKE US.

False.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a response to the September 11th attacks, but it has been criticized because Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11th. It was pretty much taking advantage of the ignorance of Americans to go to war, and the Bush Administration was apparently planning an invasion of Iraq as soon as Bush got into office. September 11th was just the excuse they needed to get away with it at the time.

I'm sure no images exist of dead Iraqi and Afghani civilians, women and children, laying dead all over the place at the hands of American forces. ::) HAHAHAHA. >:( Give me a break. It was not a good deed being done. It was politics. It was evil. And it was wrong.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

Quote:

The Niger uranium forgeries were forged documents initially released in 2001 by SISMI (Italian military intelligence), which seem to depict an attempt made by Saddam Hussein in Iraq to purchase yellowcake uranium powder from Niger during the Iraq disarmament crisis. On the basis of these documents and other indicators, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that Iraq violated United Nations sanctions against Iraq by attempting to procure nuclear material for the purpose of creating weapons of mass destruction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubes

Quote:

Aluminum tubes purchased by the nation of Iraq were intercepted in Jordan in 2001. In September 2002 they were publicly cited by the White House as evidence that Iraq was actively pursuing an atomic weapon. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many questioned the validity of the claim. After the invasion, the Iraq Survey Group determined that the best explanation for the tubes' use was to produce conventional 81-mm rockets; no evidence was found of a program to design or develop an 81-mm aluminum rotor uranium centrifuge.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

video

Fun side fact: Did you know the Obama Iran treaty (that Trump "broke") where he gave them two billion USD? Turns out it was a complete farce of a treaty because it intentionally had no requirement for UN inspectors to inspect military facilities and in the words of ex-CIA veteran Mike Baker "dis-armerment treaties are predicated on verification, and without that, they're meaningless."

video

and that's verified by (total #fakenews alt-right Russian shill) ... Harvard:

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/are-iranian-military-bases-limits-inspection

Quote:

Before the deal, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei insisted that “inspection of our military sites is out of the question and is one of our red lines.” Foreigners, he elaborated, “shouldn’t be allowed at all to penetrate into the country's security and defensive boundaries under the pretext of supervision, and the country's military officials are not permitted at all to allow the foreigners to cross these boundaries or stop the country's defensive development under the pretext of supervision and inspection.”

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Derezo
Member #1,666
April 2001
avatar

Being a digital nomad sounds appealing, but it also sounds like it would be costly.

Part of the idea is that you can go to places in the world where the cost of living is lower.

Here in Canada the cost of living is relatively high. The cost of living while I was in Colombia seemed to be about 40-50% lower. Decent apartments started at around 700,000 COP, or about $300 CAD, whereas an equivalent apartment would be about $700 here in my city. A lot of prices had that type of analog, where the cost difference was 1/2 the exchange rate.

While I was in Medellin I was using a coworking space which was 30,000 COP per day and it was a really nice place to work. Another guy there, whom like others there was a self proclaimed digital nomad, mentioned he had been working in Thailand and said the cost of living was even lower.

If I wasn't so attached here with my relationship, car, cats, and all the crap in my apartment, etc... I would probably have spent even more time abroad.

"He who controls the stuffing controls the Universe"

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002

bamccaig said:

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a response to the September 11th attacks

I have heard this for many years now, and it was a lie back then, and it is a lie now. The invasion at the time was due to Saddam violating restrictions put on him after the initial war which were intended to keep him away from Kuwait. He continuously violated the UN imposed sanctions and restrictions. THAT is why he was attacked. No other reason. It had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with Sept 11th.

--
Deluxe Pacman 1 & 2 (free) with source code available
https://nitehackr.github.io/games_index.html

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Lovely weather today. >:( -30 Celsius. -40 Celsius with the windchill. Neither of my cars would start, and we drove both yesterday to ensure the batteries were charged up. I suspect the oil is just so stiff that the batteries can't do it.. I'm probably overdue on my oil changes unfortunately. Alas, my wife had to get a ride to work. My battery booster was dead too. I left it out in the cold. It's charged up now so later I'll be trying to get my cars running (I don't expect trouble as it's going to warm up to -23 Celsius by noon). I have to pick my wife up after work. Fortunately, I get to work from the comfort of home today.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

BuMP

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

So I'm going to add telemetry data to my game.

Since it's had over 200 downloads but only a few people have commented on it. I need feedback of some kind. Especially when I approach publishers...

I already built the endpoint (it's a RESTful Flask app), working on the C++/Lua analytic request API.

My TODO list for the next couple weeks has no content in it. :(

---
ItsyRealm, a quirky 2D/3D RPG where you fight, skill, and explore in a medieval world with horrors unimaginable.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Yesterday I brought a can of beer to work to put in my mini-fridge on my desk. I figured it would be a nice treat to have during lunch one of these days. I mentioned it to my wife today and she blew a gasket. It's so foreign to her. She figured I did it because I'm an alcoholic. :P But ever since I started vaping marijuana I drink less. I'm usually in bed by 10 PM because Indica puts you to sleep, and I intentionally use it to put me in the mood to sleep. In any case, of course in her field drinking a beer during lunch would be unheard of. But in software development it seems pretty common. Thoughts?

MiquelFire
Member #3,110
January 2003
avatar

I can't even stand the smell of alcohol, so I don't even drink beer.

---
Febreze (and other air fresheners actually) is just below perfumes/colognes, and that's just below dead skunks in terms of smells that offend my nose.
MiquelFire.red | +Me
Windows 8 is a toned, stylish, polished professional athlete. But it’s wearing clown makeup, and that creates a serious image problem. ~PCWorld Article

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

{"name":"Build+the+dang+wall+already+leeeeeeeeeeeeeeefffffff_c826b4_6927204.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/3\/9370fe5ff1eb7ff669fb35ef37bb082c.jpg","w":1200,"h":1433,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/3\/9370fe5ff1eb7ff669fb35ef37bb082c"}Build+the+dang+wall+already+leeeeeeeeeeeeeeefffffff_c826b4_6927204.jpg

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

LMFAO. You see, this is what I don't get about people these days.

You can joke about political things without ARGUING POLITICS and escalating everything into "literally resisting hitler." Just like how you can JOKE about the differences between our races (Omg, spanish and indian people like spicy food? WHAT? NO!) without being RACIST. There's a difference between racial and racist and our adult-children who own the social landscape these days are too simple-minded to process it.

That is some prime juicy comedy.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Keep your dang polar vortexes on the other side of the border please and no thank you very much -15F this morning...

EDIT
Last time I heard about a polar vortex was in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, where the next ice age swooped in over the period of a few days.

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

What do you guys think about unconventional housing? I've been thinking about buying some land and living in a fifth-wheel trailer to seriously cut down on housing expenses. It sounds silly, but hear me out... The cheapest one-room apartment in my area costs $700 per month. That's $8,400 per year. Not bad, but I dislike the idea of spending that much on a space whose primary purpose is storage and sleep. I spend the overwhelming majority of my time away from home, so aside from my off days, home is really only used for sleeping. I could just as easily sleep in my car for free (sans furniture, all of my possessions could just about fit). So while it would be more costly in the short-term, I figure buying a small lot and getting a fifth-wheel would be cheaper in the long-run compared to renting a cheap apartment. What do you guys think?

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Rent is for keeping poor people poor. (And I still rent currently.)

If you know you're living in an area for a long time, buy a plot of land, buy a house, buy anything. Money you put it stays in. As opposed to renting which just magically disappears every month.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002

What do you guys think about unconventional housing?

I'm happy with renting. I only pay just over $681/month, mainly because I've been in the same apartment for 27 years now! There are other expenses to consider, like taxes. I don't understand what you plan to live in, but I hope you don't live in an area that gets cold in the winter.

If you buy a home, there's fuel and electricity costs as well as maintenance costs. I'm not so certain it is all that cheaper, but if you own a home, you can do what you like with it which would be nice I suppose, but again, that would be more expense. Then there's the matter of what if you want to move, than you have to sell etc... I don't know. I am in the same apartment, but the location is excellent where I am, someone else fixes everything that breaks, my heat is included and my electricity is dirt cheap. I told my wife that I am dying in this apartment. Can't afford to move anyhow as the cheapest apartments in this city are over $800, close to $1000 or more now, it's insanity. And if we get more liberal governments, expect taxes to rise up quite a bit as home owners pay for everything.

8-)
{"name":"611895","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/9\/892116eb2e3c2e00c9a6d18c4d86ddc3.jpg","w":1080,"h":1072,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/9\/892116eb2e3c2e00c9a6d18c4d86ddc3"}611895

--
Deluxe Pacman 1 & 2 (free) with source code available
https://nitehackr.github.io/games_index.html

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Since most immigrants come by air, what we really need is a ceiling. ;)

Heard that one on FB.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

The Democrats' implication that a wall wouldn't stop 100% of illegal immigration so it shouldn't be pursued is plain dumb. Enforcing visa expirations is much harder (and likely more expensive) to accomplish, so why not start with the low hanging fruit of the overall problem like building a barrier? Finding, catching and deporting somebody after they're already in the country is harder than stopping them before they enter.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

I'll take my side with Democrats. :P

video

Quote:

Mr. Obama in 2005 saying, “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked.”

Mrs. Clinton in 2015 saying, “I voted, when I was a Senator, to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.”

;D;D;D;D;D;D

I don't even know if a wall matters. It's such a B.S. argument with emotions and the focus of tribalism. Would it actually help anything? Objectively? I don't know. Because we've had a pretty clear lack of actual experts weighing in. All that matters is each party's tribe getting a "moral victory." Democrats "Defeat the wall and ride it all the way to the 2020 election" (their actual political strategy--it has nothing to do with kids or immigrants.) Or Republicans get the wall and do the equivalent. It's the exact same thing with gun control. No one cares about actual lives being saved and will omit any objective facts that prevent them from getting a "moral" (political) victory that basically accomplishes nothing either way except strengthen that party's political power. Again, nothing to do with helping people. "Ban assault weapons" (*) while 99% of gun crime is with pistols, lulullulul.

(*) a made up term for guns with magical death features like... a barrel shroud... which is simply a cover around the barrel so you don't burn your hand. lulululullulullu

video

{"name":"meftV0q.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/d\/3df126efb81602c9501026cd4cb42f7c.gif","w":800,"h":411,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/d\/3df126efb81602c9501026cd4cb42f7c"}meftV0q.gif

Think about the insanity of putting ACTUAL FEDERAL LEGISLATION with a group of legal aids and political minds, and passing it through the government, representing millions of dollars of salaries yielding a piece of paper that will be enforced by tens-of-thousands of officers... that accomplishes the following: "No piece of metal over a barrel so you can burn your hands." Does anyone in the entire chain of authority have a brain?

And I'm not saying Democrats are only the ones doing this but HOLY GOD IN HEAVEN do you need any more datapoints to realize politicians represent average Americans in that they're borderline retarded? These are the people that choose how we're supposed to live. People who don't even know what's in their legislation, or if they do, have no logical basis for it. I'm honestly having trouble coming up for an example in the way of "this would be like if they banned X for Y" because the original, actual effect, is so batsh-t absurd I cannot even make a more impactful hypothetical analogy.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

I've been thinking about buying some land and living in a fifth-wheel trailer

That's often against local code, as it tends to be an eyesore. There are simpler ways to save money on rent. (e.g., Rent out somebody's spare room.)

raynebc said:

The Democrats' implication that a wall wouldn't stop 100% of illegal immigration so it shouldn't be pursued is plain dumb.

It's called a cost benefit analysis. How much will it prevent vs how much will it cost. As an extreme example, saving 1 human life by spending 10 trillion on a wall is unfortunately not worth it. How inhumane! But really, it comes down to spending 10 trillion on other things would save more lives.

Of course Republicans (mostly Trump) and almost all Democrats have made a wall a symbolic issue that they are dug into. There probably are sections that could use additional walls (barriers, fencing, these are all the same things...). The issue is that Trump has made such ridiculous claims from early on, including quite plainly stating that Mexico would make a "one time payment" to directly pay for the wall that would literally span from coast to coast, and often insinuated without any proof that there is a disproportionate amount of evil people flooding into our borders. Now if a politician supports any construction of new walls, it has become a symbol of supporting all of that nonsense.

I read a little news article the other day about a young child falling from the (already existing) wall when illegally entering the US with her family. What great tools did the smugglers use when assisting the family? A ladder.

The goal of a wall should be to prevent easy mass transit of drugs and or people across the border. It is not to prevent single individuals from crossing over. Instead, we should encourage them to cross at legal ports. Treat people who are seeking asylum with respect. Give people who are looking for seasonal work a simple way to go back and forth and pay their taxes, etc.

The reality is that the existing wall is already extremely effective. Most ground trafficking comes over the road in legal ports by drug mules, etc. But are there areas that could use additional fencing? Probably. But the ideas that a) there is a huge "crisis" and b) a great wall from sea to shining sea would significantly improve our security is ludicrous.

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

That's often against local code, as it tends to be an eyesore. There are simpler ways to save money on rent. (e.g., Rent out somebody's spare room.)

It's perfectly legal and not uncommon where I live in Louisiana. But maybe just getting a roommate would be more convenient for now.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

It's called a cost benefit analysis.

Your analysis isn't particularly accurate. The wall is expected to be in the ballpark of $25 billion. Democrats muse about pushing big spending plans that actually are measured in tens of billions of dollars (Medicare for all, "green new deal", etc). Border patrol agents, the people who actually do have to prevent illegal immigration, don't believe the wall to be worthless. Many Democrats don't actually believe it's worthless either, they are just being partisan. And since it seems you aren't fully aware about what has actually been proposed, the wall is meant to be used in combination with people and tech. The tech improves detection, the barrier slows entry and the people apprehend illegal border crossers. Missing or lacking in any of those elements severely limits the ability to secure the border.

When caravans of hundreds/thousands of people are advancing towards the border, it's disingenuous to say the wall is only meant to stop one person at a time. The wall would effectively funnel people towards the parts of the border that didn't have a barrier, where other means can be used to provide security.

Economic migrants are not actually asylum seekers, nor are most of requests for asylum valid (according to DoJ). You admit that the existing portion of wall is effective, but seem to claim more wall would not add increased effectiveness. That doesn't follow.

As has been my long time stance, green cards and visas should be dispensed generously, to people who are able to support themselves and not become a public burden. And when the temporary status is ended, they should return to their home countries.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

A $25 government-billion is a minimum of $100 actual-billion. And it's not a one time fee. Once a section of wall is built, then it must be maintained forever or else it becomes useless.

Once the wall is built coast-to-coast, what's next? Build it higher and deeper? That would be more effective, right? Build a second or third one? When do you stop? Again, it comes back to doing an actual cost benefit analysis, which our President has not sincerely done. He just spouts off numbers about how much "illegal immigration" costs us and pretends that a $25 billion wall eliminates 100% of that.

The President had Republican majorities for the past two years and couldn't get anything done. They lost a lot of seats in the House and barely held on to a very Republican favorable Senate election season. There is seemingly no large desire from the American public to see Trump's plan happen.

My argument is simply that now is not the time to spend money on a physical wall. Trump has ruined any chance to do it in a responsible way with his rhetoric. Spend the money on other types of infrastructure and see where the votes fall in two years.

Post Reply


Go to: