Why so little parallelism?
|
From: Bill Todd on 7 Nov 2006 22:43 Del Cecchi wrote: > "Bill Todd" <billtodd(a)metrocast.net> wrote in message > news:f_-dnW0eXbLiu8zYnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d(a)metrocastcablevision.com... >> Del Cecchi wrote: >> >> ... >> >>> I think Nick might be one of the folks who like to make snarky little >>> remarks about the folks who are trying to protect us from other folks >>> who would like to kill as many of us as possible. >> I suspect it's more likely that he's inclined to make snarky little >> remarks about the people who concentrate on lining their own pockets >> and entrenching their power while doing their best to convince us that >> they're protecting us from other folks who are just plain nasty rather >> than expressing entirely legitimate grievances in the few remaining >> ways they have available that haven't already proved completely >> fruitless. >> >> But that's just a guess... >> >> - bill > So the folks that blow up subways and fly airplanes into office buildings > are the poor victims, eh? Thanks for clearing up where you stand. No problem. Just in case there should be any remaining possible hint of doubt, until we clean up our act, I'm all for that: if we won't keep ourselves under control, it's high time someone else did. - bill
From: BDH on 8 Nov 2006 00:57 > > So the folks that blow up subways and fly airplanes into office buildings > > are the poor victims, eh? Thanks for clearing up where you stand. > > No problem. Just in case there should be any remaining possible hint of > doubt, until we clean up our act, I'm all for that: if we won't keep > ourselves under control, it's high time someone else did. I for one think it's awesome how even computer architecture theory can be about US federal politics. Next year can we do existentialism?
From: Bill Todd on 8 Nov 2006 02:51 BDH wrote: >>> So the folks that blow up subways and fly airplanes into office buildings >>> are the poor victims, eh? Thanks for clearing up where you stand. >> No problem. Just in case there should be any remaining possible hint of >> doubt, until we clean up our act, I'm all for that: if we won't keep >> ourselves under control, it's high time someone else did. > > I for one think it's awesome how even computer architecture theory can > be about US federal politics. While the discussion here can get fairly eclectic at times, you appear to be a bit confused about its exact nature in this instance. Politics wasn't mentioned at all: rather, these are questions about national behavior, its motivation, and its consequences, both internal and external. Of course, there are plenty of people who would like to try to make the discussion about politics, because that confuses any debate on the actual merits of the situation with issues of personal political identity and allegiance. Or, to put it another way, as is all too often the case politics obfuscates rather than clarifies matters - and many politicians of both major U.S. political parties (and probably elsewhere in the world as well) like it that way. - bill
From: Nick Maclaren on 8 Nov 2006 04:27 In article <4550dc5e$1(a)darkstar>, eugene(a)cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes: |> |> Well tell us every thing you know about your MI organizations and GCHQ? Sorry. I am too far from the Library of Congress, which is the best place to look up that sort of thing. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Andy Freeman on 8 Nov 2006 11:27
Nick Maclaren wrote: > In article <4550dc5e$1(a)darkstar>, eugene(a)cse.ucsc.edu (Eugene Miya) writes: > |> Well tell us every thing you know about your MI organizations and GCHQ? > > Sorry. I am too far from the Library of Congress, which is the best > place to look up that sort of thing. Why would the US be the best place to research the UK's security and intelligence agencies? |