On 20/02/07, Arthur Corliss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Ashley Pond V wrote:
> I didn't want to feed this so responded personally to a couple off list.
> Y'all couldn't resist sharing your politics and goofs though so… I apologize
> to the disinterested if this just feeds it.
>
> I find it difficult to believe, being a middling hacker compared to some of
> you guys, that I'm the only one on this list who has ever written code that
> ended up used by a military group; or the only one who regretted it.
I've not only written code used by the military, but I also served in the
military. Despite the idiots who like to portray us a baby killers I'm
proud of it. And you're so surprised that I find you an offensive jackass
(that's right -- I looked at your site).
> I expressed interest in such a license getting hammered out by some experts
> because I don't like being a party to mass murder. Between 200,000 and
> 750,000 (depending on whose figures you prefer) Iraqis have died at the hands
> of the US government since 1990. They can take my tax money to do it at the
> threat of prison but I would like to think it *might* be possible to stop
> them from taking my otherwise freely given work (the lack of Earth-moving
> nature of which is entirely irrelevant to any such debate) to do it. If such
> a license would be immaterial then so are all other petitions.
You're an idiot who thinks we're the blame for everything that's wrong in
the world. That's your right, of course, and its my right to call you for
the bogus numbers. Only a drooling, spoon-fed moron who's incapable of
research could come up with those kinds of errors. Where's the proof of those
numbers? At least sites like iraqbodycount.org actually give you access to
the database of incidents and reported body counts, and they're only up to
62k. With the exception of Desert Storm this has been the safest war for
both sides we've ever conducted.
Read iraq body counts FAQ:
"What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of
civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our
maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a
sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has
been reported."
In fact their criteria is that the death must be reported in at least
2 "credible" sources and given that "credible" journalists cannot
travel in Iraq this means the numbers are only somewhat related to
reality. So IBC's accurately counts something that just confuses the
issue.
The Lancet study on the other hand is the same methodology used in
Darfur, the Congo, the Balkans and a variety of other conflict zones.
Strangely the numbers have been accepted without argument for all
those other places but the Iraq studies are hotly disputed by all
kinds of people who know nothing about statistics and/or how to count
deaths in a war zone. They are generally not disputed by
statisticians.
F
This is the wrong kind of forum for this kind of stupidity. Just code, damn
it, and quite whining.
--Arthur Corliss
Bolverk's Lair -- http://arthur.corlissfamily.org/
Digital Mages -- http://www.digitalmages.com/
"Live Free or Die, the Only Way to Live" -- NH State Motto
