BlueEyedMonster

Hmmm. I don't think of anything. I just pull some of my little tricks to make it last. Whether he wants to wait or not.

Yeah well there is a reason these guys don't know shit. I posted this more as a joke. I more than anyone understand the "quality" of the people this company hires.

Heck... If you have half a brain in your head and want to save me from these FU**ING IDIOTS they these guys hire... Any USA members in the New York area can do this and gab with me on the phone while you wire my stores.

When you get down to it, NEW macs are good machines. BUT they cost more (Its a monopoly--of course they cost more) Have less current software available, and that software is much much more expensive. And, they are much less upgradable/customizable. There are just not nearly as many manufacturers making parts/drivers for Macs as there are with PCs. You are right, currently there are no OSX viruses. But its a completely new platform. Just wait, they will be there. As for stability, ease of use and soforth, XP is as stable as mac OS. I am both MAC and PC fluent. I have supported macs. I know they are far from the perfect that many mac users claim they are.

What?? Is there another one of us out there? I missed that thread!

The reporters are no longer "embeded." They are no longer being facilitated by the military. They ARE just wandering around in a war zone. I am not saying he diserved to be shot. I am saying in the situation the soldier was facing, the soldier had to shoot to defend himself. Yes it was a tragic incident as I said earlier. And like I said earlier and agree with you, it needs to be investigated.

And the network traffic it generates constantly searching for new computers is not destructive? Its a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Bill There is a big difference between confusing a camera with a rifle with a protest.... and confusing a camera with a shoulder fired rocket launcher in an area where it is know that people hop out of their cars and fire shoulder launched missiles at you. Com'on man, I know you can make a better argument than that. I do agree civilian journalists belong in the war zone. But they must accept the risk and take proper precautionary measures. They should not assume they are easily identifed as press when they are wearing regular clothes. After all, the guerillas wear regular clothes too.

Great... the newest thing in Jr High hair fashion... hot sex hair. That would go over well with the conservatives.

Geesh, Chuck...at least quote the state motto correctly... "This ain't no damn democracy" Am I the only one that sees the double negative in that? Meaning that this IS a democracy? I think Chuck had it right.

Hmmmm Guess I just don't comprehend what that looks like on a gal. Oh well

I can loan you my doggy clippers. That's how I permanently solved my bad hair day issues.

Thats what you said about the Louisiana Cop one too. You are such a party pooper.

Sorry I was sleeping, but nigel99, this is grasping for straws here. I pineapple does not fit in the hand of a child. The are much much larger. Any man woman or child holding a device that could be a weapon is probably OK. However, if they hold a device that looks like a weapon, AND make actions that suggest they may use the device as a weapon, then, YES, Shoot them. That's where you draw the line. Plain and simple.

Ok, put it this way.....if I get pregnant, there's gonna be a doctor in Florida who's going to be sued! And if the baby comes out blue... I SWEAR it wasn't me!

However, a person in civilian clothing with a weapon in time of war is not a civilian. The soldier thought the reporter had a weapon. Therefore the reporter was NOT a civilian in his eyes at that moment. The soldier took appropriate action. Now lets look at it this way. The soldiers are still wearing all their flack jackets and protective gear that identifies them as American Soldiers. During the beginning of the war, most members of the press were wearing protective gear with big bold "PRESS" written across the chest and back. Why did they stop? Maybe if this camera man had been wearing something like that, the mistake would not have been made? The reporters incorrectly assumed the American soldiers knew they were reporters. Communication is a 2 way street. IN the end, nothing can be changed. It happened. They just need to learn from it. Members of the press, need to communicate clearly that they are press. And, however unintentional it was, the camerman did provoked the response that cost him his life.

Ha ha ha Let me educate you. They never get reported because... A.) Macs are not capable of handling large scale corporate networks... So why write a virus for a mac if you can't hurt some big company? B.) Mac? Who uses those? Other than the people that fall for fancy marketing and a pretty box. Oh and those people that don't mind using software that is 1 to 2 versions behind... and like paying twice what a PC user would for their stuff. C.) And mac viruses do exist... here is a list of them. Mac addicts deny they exist. Reporters don't report them because no one cares about macs.

The words of the reporter that survived explain it all. In the beginning he stated that they knew we were reporters, they were there for a half an hour.... but later he stated: That statement shows that the Tank just arrived. Meaning the soldiers in the tank were not aware of the reporters. It also proves the actions of the cameraman mirrored that of previous guerrilla attacks. Where a man in civilian clothes jumps out of a vehicle and fires a us troops. According to the reporters words, I believe the soldier was watching a chain of events that unfolded as he arrived. That chain of events unfortunately was one that could have easily been that of a guerrilla attack.

Dude? You agree that the cameraman might be confused for a man with a weapon.... Some guy just hopped out of a car and pointed at you. Do you really think there is time to "read and think twice" about it? NO. If they guy is really aiming a weapon, he is only a trigger squeeze away from firing. If the soldier mistook the camera as a weapon (or if it was a weapon) he had no other choice but to IMMEDIATELY return fire. There are no "BUTS" about it. These reporters are in a damn war zone, doing their jobs in front of guns. If one gets killed they need to investigate it, learn, and cope. Its not much different than what happens when a skydiver goes in. Its a fatality in a situation where the risk of death is quite clear. So quit the finger pointing, second guessing, bitching... and learn what can be done better next time to prevent it from happening again.

Do you know what sucks? Even with a comment like this... and curiosity that has killed this cat 999 times, I see way to many words in the original post for my tired little ADHD brain do read. Anyone got Cliff Notes?

That is pretty disturbing stuff. Unless there have been some bizarre innovations in video technology, it is pretty far off to mistake a TV camera for a RPG launcher.. Actually it is a quite feasible mistake... if you are looking down the front of a television camera, it could very easily resemble an shoulder mounted weapon. In addition to the square object with the protruding round front end, the position of the body, head and hands of the user would be the same as a person sighting an anti-tank weapon. I've attached 2 pictures.... If you have to make a quick decision... and you do not have the luxury of these side views (to see the length of the tube) the cameraman is virtually indistinguishable from a soldier firing an anti-tank weapon. In fact the camera man in this photo was killed by an Israeli solder who mistook him also.

No but I've jumped in front of closing doors... assuming that the sensor will open them back up.. and let me on.

Well, If you are lucky, HH will give you a special seat on the special monkey short bus .

That sucks... oh well, I walk to work