Mission accomplished

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

> What's that matter Howard? Can't keep up? The Prince was in '63 and the
> job offer was in '78. That bother you? I'm sure you can find a crying
> towel somewhere.

Since you didn't mention the year of the alleged job offer, how is that "not
keeping up?" And I haven't been brought to tears due to laughing yet, but we're
gaining on it...

> Does it bother you that I'm an electronics engineer and a firmware
> programmer and move from project to project instead of remaining in
> single company? If so I expect you really don't have a clue about his
> business. What is it you do again - data entry and a utility company?

I'm not sure if that's a step up from the last thing you said I was - "a janitor
or mechanic."

"I'm an engineer and a scientist..."

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> Does it bother you that I'm an electronics engineer and a firmware
> programmer

Hmm. Yes, this bothers me. I hope you aren't
programming the firmware of anything more mission-critical
than, say, a bike computer. That has nothing to do with your
politics, though, Brownie.

> and move from project to project instead of remaining in
> a single company?

I'm sure many people are not only not bothered, but
grateful for this.

 

[Bill C]

Robert Chung wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
>
> > What's your feeling on the studies reporting casualties that Howard is
> > citing?
>
> Um, there are too many posts in this thread. Which studies?

Sorry Robert
Let's make it casualty studies in Iraq in general.
My gut feeling is that right now it's impossible to get a good,
accurate handle on it.
I would guess that the numbers are very under reported in most
estimates, but the number of "civilians" killed are massively
over-estimated.
My reasoning being that, especially in the sectarian violence, they
have a decent idea who is actaully what when they are targeting each
other. Anyone who is involved with any of the militias, or supporting
them IMO should not be called a "civilian".
I think the conditions make it impossible to accurately portray the
roles of a huge percentage of the people killed.
I think the Lancet geusstimate may be close on actual nyumbers up till
then, but possibly a bit high. I'd guess a fair number of people
reported dead are either being held, have been kidnapped, or went
underground to fight or other reasons so that skews things.
No matter how you slice it the reality is that, call it anything you
want, they are in the middle of a brutal sectarian civil war. What else
can you call it when thousands a month are being killed?
Bill C

 

[Robert Chung]

William Asher wrote:
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/ent/video_dog/latenight/2006/05/09/cia/index.html
>
> Porter Goss will be remembered as the best director of the CIA in the
> history of the United States.
>
> An anagram of Porter Goss is Gross Perot.

He'll be remembered as the right man to lead the CIA at a critical moment
in our nation's history.

 

[Robert Chung]

Bill C wrote:
> Let's make it casualty studies in Iraq in general.
> My gut feeling is that right now it's impossible to get a good,
> accurate handle on it.

The last estimate that was defensible on statistical grounds was the
Lancet study, and that went only through September 2004. The sample size
was small by design because it was being funded privately and the primary
goal was just to get a good enough estimate to demonstrate that it was
feasible to do a study like that even under difficult circumstances. The
expectation was that someone else would step in and repeat the survey on a
larger scale in order to get a more precise estimate after it was shown
that it could be done.

I think the Lancet study was unfairly criticized by people who don't
understand the statistical issues: the consensus among demographers,
epidemiologists, and statisticians who do survey work is that the methods
used were quite standard. That's exactly what one would do if one were
trying to demonstrate that something was feasible and hoping that someone
else would repeat the study on a larger scale. You do conservative
butt-standard non-fancy out-of-the-box things and document it clearly so
that the study will be replicable with a larger sample size.

Things didn't work out that way. The Lancet authors got crucified by the
right, and the situation on the ground appears to have deteriorated since
September 2004. I don't think anyone would attempt anything similar right
now. Because of the specific design of that survey, I don't think anyone
will attempt to replicate it in the future, either: the window of
opportunity has closed on doing a before/after mortality comparison. This
is exactly the way the US wants it: they don't want to know; they don't
want you to know.

 

[Bill C]

Robert Chung wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Let's make it casualty studies in Iraq in general.
> > My gut feeling is that right now it's impossible to get a good,
> > accurate handle on it.
>
> The last estimate that was defensible on statistical grounds was the
> Lancet study, and that went only through September 2004. The sample size
> was small by design because it was being funded privately and the primary
> goal was just to get a good enough estimate to demonstrate that it was
> feasible to do a study like that even under difficult circumstances. The
> expectation was that someone else would step in and repeat the survey on a
> larger scale in order to get a more precise estimate after it was shown
> that it could be done.
>
> I think the Lancet study was unfairly criticized by people who don't
> understand the statistical issues: the consensus among demographers,
> epidemiologists, and statisticians who do survey work is that the methods
> used were quite standard. That's exactly what one would do if one were
> trying to demonstrate that something was feasible and hoping that someone
> else would repeat the study on a larger scale. You do conservative
> butt-standard non-fancy out-of-the-box things and document it clearly so
> that the study will be replicable with a larger sample size.
>
> Things didn't work out that way. The Lancet authors got crucified by the
> right, and the situation on the ground appears to have deteriorated since
> September 2004. I don't think anyone would attempt anything similar right
> now. Because of the specific design of that survey, I don't think anyone
> will attempt to replicate it in the future, either: the window of
> opportunity has closed on doing a before/after mortality comparison. This
> is exactly the way the US wants it: they don't want to know; they don't
> want you to know.

Thanks
Glad to know I'm at least in the right area with my thinking on this.
Bill C

 

[Tom Kunich]

" Make up your mind, Tom."

So you can't answer the questions Howard? Instead you resort of
avoiding the issue? You didn't question the numbers for a split second.
Because they depicted this country the way you wish to see it.

You know Howard, I didn't hear a peep from you when Clinton was raining
bombs down on Serbian civilians. The term hypocrit certainly springs to
mind.

 

[Robert Chung]

Bill C wrote:
> Glad to know I'm at least in the right area with my thinking on this.

Well, let's not go overboard here.

>> You do
>> conservative butt-standard non-fancy out-of-the-box things

I don't tell my students this but I think of this kind of approach as the
missionary position.

 

[Pudd'nhead Wilson]

> Glad to know I'm at least in the right area with my thinking on this.

The first data point is the most important one and is undisputed:
governments kill more effectively and in higher numbers than anything
or anyone else.

Now what?

 

[William Asher]

Pudd'nhead Wilson wrote:

>
>> Glad to know I'm at least in the right area with my thinking on this.
>
> The first data point is the most important one and is undisputed:
> governments kill more effectively and in higher numbers than anything
> or anyone else.
>
> Now what?
>
>

Actually, microbes are better than governments at that. Malaria alone
kills around 1.25 million people per year. Cholera and rotavirus add
another 1.5 million or so (mostly children). HIV takes out another 3
million. Deaths due to direct human causes rarely approach these kinds of
numbers. If you want to bet on what will end western civilization, pick a
virus, not a conflict.

Turn your head and cough.

--
Bill Asher

 

[Robert Chung]

William Asher wrote:
> Pudd'nhead Wilson wrote:
>
>> The first data point is the most important one and is undisputed:
>> governments kill more effectively and in higher numbers than anything
>> or anyone else.
>
> Actually, microbes are better than governments at that. Malaria alone
> kills around 1.25 million people per year. Cholera and rotavirus add
> another 1.5 million or so (mostly children). HIV takes out another 3
> million. Deaths due to direct human causes rarely approach these kinds
> of numbers. If you want to bet on what will end western civilization,
> pick a virus, not a conflict.
>
> Turn your head and cough.

Dude, those things are part of a government plot. Black death? Typhus?
Cholera? 1918 influenza? Governments.

OTOH, the USDA has been doing a good job in the global war on terror:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700898.html

 

[William Asher]

Robert Chung wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>> Pudd'nhead Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> The first data point is the most important one and is undisputed:
>>> governments kill more effectively and in higher numbers than
>>> anything or anyone else.
>>
>> Actually, microbes are better than governments at that. Malaria
>> alone kills around 1.25 million people per year. Cholera and
>> rotavirus add another 1.5 million or so (mostly children). HIV takes
>> out another 3 million. Deaths due to direct human causes rarely
>> approach these kinds of numbers. If you want to bet on what will end
>> western civilization, pick a virus, not a conflict.
>>
>> Turn your head and cough.
>
> Dude, those things are part of a government plot. Black death? Typhus?
> Cholera? 1918 influenza? Governments.
>
> OTOH, the USDA has been doing a good job in the global war on terror:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR20060
> 50700898.html

What have you got against freedom, truth, justice, and low-rise jeans on
women that really ought not to be wearing them?

--
Bill Asher

 

[Robert Chung]

William Asher wrote:

> What have you got against freedom, truth, justice, and low-rise jeans on
> women that really ought not to be wearing them?

I understand there's a term for that: muffin top.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB114727449814548996-lMyQjAxMDE2NDE3MTIxNzE0Wj.html

 

[William Asher]

Robert Chung wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>
>> What have you got against freedom, truth, justice, and low-rise jeans
>> on women that really ought not to be wearing them?
>
> I understand there's a term for that: muffin top.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB114727449814548996-lMyQjAxMDE2NDE
> 3MTIxNzE0Wj.html
>

Thank you. I knew there was but spaced out on it and didn't feel like
googling it. Muffin top. Dan Savage calls them Girl Love Handles, or GLH.

<shudder>

--
Bill Asher

 

[Pudd'nhead Wilson]

Robert Chung wrote:
> William Asher wrote:
>
>> What have you got against freedom, truth, justice,...

It rules out crime.

> http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB114727449814548996-lMyQjAxMDE2NDE3MTIxNzE0Wj.html

"These people say he has been disillusioned by the encroachment of
politics on the judiciary -- and the view that judges are on 'our team'
or 'their team.'"

It only took him 51 years and time on the bench to figure that out.

 

[Donald Munro]

William Asher wrote:
> Porter Goss will be remembered as the best director of the CIA in the
> history of the United States.

And hein will be remembered as the best president in the history of the
UCI.

 

[Bill C]

Robert Chung wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Glad to know I'm at least in the right area with my thinking on this.
>
> Well, let's not go overboard here.
>
> >> You do
> >> conservative butt-standard non-fancy out-of-the-box things
>
> I don't tell my students this but I think of this kind of approach as the
> missionary position.

As you point out you've got to establish some sort of baseline starting
point or you have nothing at all to even begin to work with.
Missionary's pretty basic, but still seems to work, no?
Bill C

 

[Bill C]

Pudd'nhead Wilson wrote:
> > Glad to know I'm at least in the right area with my thinking on this.
>
> The first data point is the most important one and is undisputed:
> governments kill more effectively and in higher numbers than anything
> or anyone else.
>
> Now what?

If you change that from governments, to organised groups of human
beings, I'll meet you part way. Mother nature can still make anything
we have done, so far, look like a joke, and that's a good thing.
Organised groups are also the only thing that provides protection from
violence by other individuals and groups. Watching Canada battle the
criminal biker gangs, and the gangs here make it real clear to me that
organisation for common defence is the only chance to deter at least
some of it from happening to you. Unfortunately sometimes it's your
group/gang that decides to do violence to some other.
Double edged sword, but historically those banished from their
society/group had a pretty damned short and ugly life before someone
killed them or enslaved them.
Bill C

 

[Stu Fleming]

Robert Chung wrote:

> He'll be remembered as the right man to lead the CIA at a critical moment
> in our nation's history.

Until, that is, General Hayden became the right man to lead the CIA at a
critical moment...

 

[Tim Lines]

Stu Fleming wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
>> He'll be remembered as the right man to lead the CIA at a critical moment
>> in our nation's history.
>
> Until, that is, General Hayden became the right man to lead the CIA at a
> critical moment...
>

No, they're both true. It's just a different right man for a different
critical moment.

The war on terror is all about planning for the next big crises, the
next bad thing that's going to happen. That's what we should all focus
on, just as Bush and all good Americans are.

Embrace the fact that life is just one crises after another: Vote
Republican!