|
|
they have. . I wonder if Bush has said "fuck the french" at all. I bet he has. you know he has. |
the absurdity builds. Like. OH MA GAWD what a freakin coincidence. this really getting to be like a comedy or something. they, in the whitehouse, just dont give a shit anymore do they. they got their war. they have their Congressional majority, they just don't give a rats ass how transparent they are anymore. |
what's next? you working in a gay publisher as a KGB double agent cum CIA? |
its all right there man. no interpretation required. i havent smoked in weeks btw. |
oh c'mon. and then have the fucking french saying "well, while you're bombing them back to the stone, OF WHICH WE OPPOSE, please let us lick some of bones when your done" not that i ever regarded the french in high esteem anyway, but man did their motives shine through. if you going to wage ware and reward your oil buddies along the way, at least be discreet about it. There are hookers with more shame. |
|
Should Haliburton no longer receive federal contracts because Cheney is now VP? |
he was CEO and quit to run with Bush. Its still fresh. its not like he was a low-level fuckwit. He wasnt "involved", he was the CEO for fuckssake! the risks for corruption and conflict of interest are way too great. sorry. maybe cheney shouldnt have ran with the Shrub then they could get that contract. oh wait, they did anyway. see? they just dont care. |
the fence seperating mega corps and politicians is shakey enough as it is man...you wanna just tear it down? and don't spout that free enterprise shit that you have little to no understanding mister spunk. this is less about free enterprise than clear corruption and conflict of interest. |
You are the one with little to no understanding, little patrick. You obviously have no idea about the federal contracting process do you? The law requires no less then 3 bids. All three bids are reviewed by a selection comittee then their review is reviewed by another committee. Again, stuff your condecending attitude. Stop with the belittling remarks and come back to reality. I work for the federal government. I know the process. I also know a hell a lot more about the military then you would ever even want to know. I am sick of your self assured know-it-all bull crap. I helped with the fucking targets that were hit last week. I transmit all that fucking data from the AFIWC (Air Force Information Warfare Center), wich is part of the CPSG (crypto). Where the fuck do you think I have been this week? And goddamit, I know a fuck of a lot more about federal contracts then evidently you do. |
|
q- how many dead soldiers does it take to land a halliburton contract. a- who fucking cares! we're rich! |
Um, you can't do much better then that. The norm is 2.5 times the cost, or cost plus 150%. |
|
|
Still, don't politicians have to get rid of their stock options before taking on high level govt positions to make the appearance of avoiding conflict of interest? Apparently that's no longer the case. |
|
If anything, it's pretty bad taste. First Halliburton gets that insane open-ended Guantanamo contract and now this? Almost makes me wish I was a stockholder, except that I have this damn moral conscience that wouldn't allow me to sleep if I held stock in a corporation like that. |
|
looks like the iraqis will have to settle for freedom fries with their Coke a Cola, instead of french fries. |
And, you love being a tool, don't you? |
I used to sell computers and hardware to the federal, state and local government agencies. so. suck it bitch. second. in case you didnt read the story, Halliburton was offered the bid with no competition, details of the bidding process were not made public. give me a fucking break. moreover, the story seems to have largely disapeared today. from the USA Today Business section: "Dallas-based Halliburton and San Francisco-based Bechtel are likely to be prominent in U.S.-financed rebuilding efforts based on their big-job experience and strong political ties. Bechtel and Halliburton's construction and engineering subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root, are among USAID's invited bidders for the emergency reconstruction contract. Others include Fluor, a California-based construction behemoth, and Washington Group International of Boise. The Center for Responsive Politics says the invited bidders made nearly $3 million in political contributions since the 1998 election, most of it to Republicans." Gee whiz trace, you think there's ANY connection between the 3 mil and the invite to bid? Hmmmmm. but back to the point...of whether corporations whose CEO's quit being CEOs to run for the second highest office in the land should be left out of major federal contract awards....yes, the risk of fraud and corruption is just too tempting. any idiot can see that. corporations have the right to limit a high ranking officer where he works should he leave the company in non-competition clauses, the federal gov't does, and should reinforce such measures to ensure a fair bidding processes when some its most senior members are former leaders of said corps. its no surprise dave, its just getting to the point of such over the top absurdity, as I maintained yesterday. |
now, silence cog! back to the salt mines! |
OK buddy, so you are telling me that when a contract (labor involved, not just equipment) is awarded, they do not a. pay it out in quartley installments. b. require all laborers to have a sheet of paper on them at all times authorizing them to bill the contract. c. require an expenditure report on a monthly basis. d. make the contractor submit a "request for funds" for items not included in the contract e. drop in for suprise visits at either the contractor's office, or the clients office? When you accept gov't money, whether it is for services rendered or a grant or a loan, you must be willing to give up certain amount of privacy. they will and do crawl all over you with a fine tooth comb. Hell, I had to sit in front of a security group explaining why I was 30 days late on a electric bill 5 years ago. We have to submit for bids for pens and paper for christ sakes. and no, does not matter if we are talking about a contract for $5 or five billion dollars. does not matter if it is for labour or for material, the process is exactly the same. Handing any company any contract for that much money is not what it appears to be, and the wording and the treatment of any mega-corporation in the media as of late is VERY biased. It is a continuance on the destruction of the american idea of success. |
you apparently dont understand what im saying. |
eri, do you have a special dialect with him, because im gonna loose my mind trying to convey this to him. |
Haliburton is a successful energy company. haliburton made a contribution to the republicans in the amount of $3 million dollars within the last 5 years. Haliburton was once run by Dick Cheney who has since then sold all interest in the company but retains a fixed retirement of one million dollars. Haliburton was accused of accounting fraud, but was later cleared of such accusations. A request for bid was sent to 4 companies, and Haliburton's subsidary won. You accuse the administration of benifiting by awarding the contract to Hailiburton. I think that sums it up, right? Never mind they are experts in the field, and have an extremely low bid. |
you dont get it. you dance around the idea, but its obvious you dont understand the core issue of ethics, integrity and the idea of conflict of interest. the swimming coach for the US team in the Olympics is qualified, and more than knowledgeable in the field swimming but you can't have him on the board of judges during the competition. do you understand why? my opinion has nothing to do with Halliburton's qualifications or success trace. |
|
a. pay it out in quartley installments. b. require all laborers to have a sheet of paper on them at all times authorizing them to bill the contract. c. require an expenditure report on a monthly basis. d. make the contractor submit a "request for funds" for items not included in the contract e. drop in for suprise visits at either the contractor's office, or the clients office?" a. and b.: not in any of my experience. c. pretty standard across the board. d. haven't had to do this yet with the Feds. e. nope, they always let us know they are coming. Of course, we are a small architecture/cultural resources management firm, and amount to "decimal dust" in any Federal [roject, so the above level of oversight is probably not applied to us. |
Consider this: Any US company that gets the contracts will contribute to: a. income tax revenue b. gdp c. improvement in US Economy. Eh, what can you do? |
Those are potentially huge |
He has a fixed retirement, not tied into the company's performance. |
|
|
not an old concept. no surprises here. just the blunt transparency is so fucking absurd. |
|
Its just really hard to swallow, the brazen-ness of the admission, 'yes they helped us no they get theirs back'. I mean is it really that hard to see through the BS. even at the best of times? |
Same ol' same ol'. |
No different then clinton, bush1, or carter. Reagan's problems were his cabinet. |
|
stupid fucking southern hicks. STUPID FUCKING SOUTHERN HICKS. |
|
|
looks like the Taliban is alive and well... "need for fasting and prayer" ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This picture was taken in the Iraqi military HQ in Nasiriyah. Nice mural, eh? |
|
In addition to intelligence reports that the "Fedayeen Saddam" are taking children from their homes in order to make their parents fight against coalition troops, proof of other, bullet-based Iraqi coercion was evident in the case of an injured Iraqi private. The dying Iraqi had been shot in the head during the firefight Tuesday night with American troops, reported the New York Times, and his wound to the back of his head was from a small-caliber bullet, most likely from a pistol fired at close range. Iraqi prisoners taken after the battle said their officers had been firing at them, forcing them to go into battle they dud not want to fight. "The officers threatened to shoot us unless we fought," a wounded Iraqi told the Times from his bed in the American field hospital here. "They took out their guns and pointed them and told us to fight." "We think he was shot by his own," Dr. Wade Wilde a Navy surgeon assigned to the Marines, told the Times. "If he had been hit by an M-16, it would have taken his whole head off. It seems like it was an Iraqi gun." As Dr. Wilde spoke, his eyes drifted to the Iraqi soldier, still clinging to life, on the stretcher. "We've tried to make him as comfortable as possible," he said, "and let the wound run its course." American marines guarding Iraqi prisoners told the Times the Iraqis complained that their own officers had shot at them during the battle. Proof of "Fedayeen" kidnappings came from another of the injured Iraqis, whom we are now treating: "I have four children at home, and they threatened to hurt them if I did not fight. I had no choice." |
its not driving your point home. its not like you are changing anyone's minds. so unless you have some sort of point or angle other than just repeating the news, spare mark the server space punk. |
you see, you don't seek data from a harddrive in single bytes, but rather in bursts of bytes. on the harddrive, these groupings of bytes are called sectors, and are generally in the realm of 512 bytes. this makes everything faster. At the filesystem (OS) level you choose a number of bytes that you want to be the smallest granularity of information for stored files. This is called block size, and represents the smallest size a file can have. modern filesystems allow for block sizes of 512 bytes to 64KB. if I had to guess, the server sorabji is running on would have a block size of at least 4KB. that is, 4096 characters of data. so if this file is less than 4096 characters, it is one block. if it is 4097 characters, it is two blocks, or 8K. i hope this helps, patty. good luck! |
and the upper side for block sizes is probably not 64KB. i think XFS will go to 1MB. |
You seem to beleive that George W Bush is worse then Saddam Hussien, and I am trying to provide you with evidence to the contrary. |
no. this is what you interpret and im tired of trying to spelling things out for you. i've never said anything remotely like this, that is one is worse than the other. thats kindergarten level interpretation on your part. if thats all you have been able to derive from my sentiments..whatever. i can't help you. but im pretty sure that A) you could barely convince me the is sky blue muchless our president is a better man and B) that im not the only one annoyed with your constant news postings. |
Good for you! |
The mere fact that you appear to view the two as being the same is sickening and repulsive |
my sentence structure implies no correlation between the color of the sky and Bush trace. maybe tigster can drop some grammatical science on you, but there is no reason why you should interpret as such. would you say i view apples and oranges the same if i said the following: *I wouldnt eat an apple, muchless an orange.* the only commonality is that fact that i wont eat both. |
If that is not what you meant, I take it back and appoligize. |
The two opinions have little to do with each other. |
Patrick, if theoretically you had to choose between having Bush as a leader or Hussein as a leader, which would it be? Personally, for me it would be Bush of course, because he's not a maniac, just horrendously unqualified for his position (although he'd probably be an ok vice-president) (man, am I feeling charitible today) |
|
|
http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/ I cant get the link, but click on Cheney's fat head. |
oh well, im sure Stephen's report is somewhere in there. |
click on "Bill of Might" |
|
|
|
see, the sky isn't really blue. "The sky" is actually a colourless mass of gasses that make up the protecting layer of atmosphere around the earth. The light from the sun is known as 'white light', but it's actually a mix of all colours. That's why you can see a rainbow in a prism, because a prism divides this light. When light from the sun passes through these gasses, all the other colurs get absorbed by the gasses, except for the blue spectrum, which is reflected off the atmosphere, into our eyes, and is registered as blue. (this is the same for all objects. It's why we can't see in the dark.) |
|
i know all this as its a must with color photography. also, certain light has a certain temperature |
|
And mirrors reflect everything, so what would their actual colour be? actual colour is more of a philosophical question. |
wait. thats a really weird statement i just made. philosophical indeed. |
|
i think i posted that question years ago. still don't have a good answer besides "that's the way it is". |
it may have something to do with how our eyes actually see everying upside down, and then our brain flips it back for us. Thank you, brain! |
Neat, huh? |
|
severing that particular nerve sounds like a real kick. |
What that is in a nutshell is a minefield that, w3hen a mine is blown up, the mine field reacts to replace it. The objective is to confound attempts to clear the field. Notably lacking in this is any discussion of how this will affect civilian mine clearing efforts after a conflict ends. I suppose that if they are smart enough to come up with this, they are smart enough to relocate and disable these things? Oh, wait, maybe they didn't think of that. |
also, i'm somewhat colorblind. or am i? ok, back to the spreadsheets. |
not at all. I'm just pointing out that everyone learns this at one point in school, and then forgets it. Just like i did. I wish i could get that textbook back, it had very clear diagrams and everything. Not just for mirrors, but for concave, convex, and one-way mirrors too. And i forgot it all. "i didnt know that...about seeing everything upside down." i think cameras do it too. Like those big pro ones where you look onto a big plastic sheet with a grid on it, and it's upside down? that's how we really see things. You can see it for yourself if you want. It used to be a cool trick back before they had cameras. This one scientist (or was he an early photographer?) would set up a big lightproof shed out in a field, with just a little tiny hole in the middle of one wall. the daylight would go through the hole and make a crude sort-of projection onto the back wall, but upside down. That's how our eyes work, with the shed as our eyeball, the hole as our retina, and the back wall like the back of our eye. But behind that is the nerves that send the image to our brain, and somewhere in between is the thingy that flips it over. I could say why it's all upside down, but i fear i've said too much already. yes, indeed. |
Should "shock and awe" you. This was written in 1999. Here is the script that goes with the slides on the PDF. Nutshell: in 1999 we had the capability of using FLIES and COCKROACHES to gather information on biological and chemical material and transmit it. |
|
It was written September 10, 2001. An interesting thing you will note from this: George W Bush was reniging on a campaing promise of spending more money on the Department of Defense. Rummy wanted an increase of at leaste $36b and got only $18b. That flies in the face of those whom accuse bush of being rummy's lapdog. Or warmonger. His pre-9/11 plans did not include beefing up defense to expand the empire, as some of you have accused. His actions are a direct result of what happened since he got in office, not ambitions he had prior to it. Which is exactly what he has said over and over again. He did not choose this path, it was chosen for him by fate and history. |
|
YES wisper large format camera viewfinders are upside down. i didnt put two and two together. |
