Cuz We Said So

Did Russia Gave Saddam War Intel?

Little Green Footballs:  “Here’s some new information from those recently released Iraqi documents that’s not exactly surprising—but it will be interesting to watch the diplomatic fallout now that it seems to be confirmed: Pentagon: Russia Gave Saddam War Intel.” 

It’s true that Putin has made it increasingly plain that he’s not America's friend (any more than he's a friend of his own people).  It doesn't shock me to hear that he's acted accordingly.  Russia denies the charge, of course.

Anarchists for Job Security

Drudge:  French Anarchists Riot Again for Job Security...  Because looting and burning your neighborhood down is great for employment.  Well, I suppose firefighters are assured full employment.  Meanwhile, in “a conciliatory move”:

Aides said [Prime Minister Dominique de] Villepin* would meet senior trade union officials on Friday to try to defuse a crisis that has triggered a national strike threat and drawn hundreds of thousands of protesters on to French streets.

Rewarding violence with negotiation.  Is appeasement the silver bullet in the French arsenal?

—————

* who is a man

What You Make Of It

The news, I mean.   Power Line: “In truth, this was one of the less newsworthy exchanges in yesterday's press conference. But, because it suited most journalists' yearning for a quagmire, it became the lead in newspapers all across America.”

Thought for the Day

Muhammad Ali:

"There are more pleasant things to do than beat up people."

Though I suppose that might depend on the people.

Google Finance Lives!

I see the rumors that Google Finance was in development were confirmed yesterday with the site's official "beta" release.  My first impression, admittedly after about 20 seconds looking at it, is favorable.  I like the look and the layout.   I'll have to use it for a while to see how it stacks up against Yahoo! Finance, the site I normally favor for this sort of information.  Anders Bylund at  Ars Technica has put a little more more time into it, and says early reviews are mixed.

Smoke 'Em If Ya Got 'Em

Russell on Just Punishment:

[I] if you're a zealot who believes that dying at the hands of the infidel ensures your place in Heaven, doesn't it make sense that life imprisonment would be a worse punishment and a better deterrent? And if that's true, does the value of making the community feel better (at least that portion of the community who support capital punishment in the first place) outweigh the possible upside of foregoing capital punishment?

Just thinking out loud.

It's an interesting thought.  Unfortunately, because I am inexpert in lunatic theology, I'm unclear on the finer points of what constitutes martyrdom.  It seems I've hear that taking infidels out when you go wins you brownie points in Islamo-fascist paradise, whereas being slaughtered like an animal by the infidels does not.  But I could be wrong.

Either way, speaking as a death penalty enthusiast, I believe the just consequence of you targeting or conspiring to target civilians is that you are yourself killed.  Aesthetically, I'd prefer you be opposed to the idea--and, indeed, that the means of execution be horrific enough that you would seek to avoid it no matter how desperately you wanted  to die.  But I'm not the boss of that.  I don't think the expressed desire to die, be it in the pursuit of martyrdom, because of late-found remorse, as we see in the occasional death row inmate, or in a bid to escape execution using the very argument that Russell presents—that the executee wants to die, and therefore shouldn't—changes the appropriate consequence.

Instead, I like to look at this as an opportunity to reach out to our antagonists and find common ground.  Islamist terrorists want to travel to paradise.  I want to speed them on their way... to wherever they are actually headed.   If only we could agree so sincerely on everything.

As for incentives, it seems to me that Russell's argument actually cuts the other way.  If, as he says, execution qualifies as martyrdom, and the terrorist's objective is to die a martyr, reducing the likelihood that he (or she) will achieve that objective following capture provides a greater incentive to avoid capture and die in an attack.  Our goal should actually be to ensure that capture equals certain death for the aspiring young Talib.  I propose we put the offer out there:  "Attention: terrorists.  Come on down and turn yourself in.  In exchange, we promise to kill you immediately."  It's a win-win.

"Sacrifice, Fear and Hope"

Mohammed of Iraq the Model, reflects on the first three years of the new Iraq:

Before the liberation we were suffering and we had no hope, now we are also suffering but we have hope and I see this hope even in the words of those that are cynical about the outcome of the political process; who say they hope things will be better in four years or eight years…  When Saddam was here we didn't have any hope and we could expect nothing good from a dead regime that cared only about its absolute existence.

…The green bud looks weak and is buried in the dirt and surrounded by a tough shell but it will break through this covering, pierce the dirt and stand on its feet to announce a new era.  We will not be defeated and orphans of the dark past will get what they deserve and our sacrifices and the sacrifices of those who stand with us shall not go in vain, our sacrifices will pave an easier road for those want to follow us when they decide it's time for them to change.

Protocol

Hey, if it's not too much to ask, could the writers of "24" please come up with a different meaningless buzzword to use in... well, pretty much all circumstances?  Please? They've tortured everything they're going to get out of this one.   "I'll need to download new protocols, so I'll need your key card."  "I know you don't want to interfere with ongoing protocols, so let's play nice."  "Jack, we need to implement a protocol to interfere with their protocols, and if you don't, you can bend over and kiss your great big protocol good-bye!!"

New Features for MS Project

Microsoft is hard at work on Project 2007, due to roll out later this year alongside the next version of MS Office. Here are two features that ought to be popular with anyone who's spent any time at all working with Project:

"Multiple Levels of Undo: There was a post from Dieter’s Project blog about this feature. As he explained, it was an incredibly hard to implement feature but amazingly rewarding to see customers reaction! Project “12” will support multiple level of undo but we have gone beyond that and also support custom batching of VB code. What that means is that you can wrap any VB code with new functions that will become an undoable action. This is great if you have custom Add Ins or have extended applications running with Project.

"Task Drivers: Many of our customers had some problems finding out what happened to the schedule, so Project “12” has this new feature called Task Drives. A common question you may have when looking at your project schedule would be “why has a task moved to a certain date?” Now, you are able to select that task and see what is driving that task to be at the state it’s currently in."

Sounds like initial user response has been positive, to say the least:

I thought that this was a funny story about the Project Conference.

During Tuesday's keynote by our GM, Mike showed off multi-level undo in Project. Our VP was sitting in the audience and heard the person next to him gasp and say "Oh My God ..." The audience burst into applause after seeing Mike undo a bunch of actions.

I admit I never asked myself why this hadn't been implemented yet; I was simply content to be annoyed it hadn't been.. Apparently it was quite a technical challenge to make happen.

Drudge: "Israel to Destroy Thousands of Turkeys"

Air strikes against Hamas?  Nope, it's the Bird Flu