text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Copyright 2004, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
NBC News
MEET THE PRESS Sunday, September 19, 2004
GUESTS: Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-SD;
Former Representative John Thune, R-SD, Republican challenger
MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert - NBC News
This is a rush transcript provided for the information and convenience of the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed. In case of doubt, please check with:
(202) 885-4598
(Sundays: (202) 885-4200)
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: the race for the White House; 44 days to go, as the candidates debate Iraq, the economy and more. And this morning, in our MEET THE PRESS Senate Debate series, we focus on those same issues in the most closely watched race in the country, South Dakota, where the Democratic leader of the U.S. Senate, Tom Daschle, is being challenged by the Republican former congressman, John Thune. Daschle vs. Thune; they debate right here on MEET THE PRESS.
And John Thune, the Republican, Tom Daschle, the Democrat, are both here. Welcome.
SEN. TOM DASCHLE, (D-SD): Thank you, Tim.
MR. JOHN THUNE: Thank you.
SEN. DASCHLE: Good to be here.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Daschle, let me start with you. John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for president, had this to say about Iraq a few weeks ago. "It's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." Do you agree?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, Tim, I think it's being run the wrong way. I was in Iraq not long ago, and I had a chance to talk to our troops. And I must say there's--a day doesn't go by when I don't think of those thousand who have died and those 7,000 who were wounded. I went to a funeral for one of our soldiers in South Dakota. I think that the real issue is how can we do it better? How can we make this work? This administration has not provided any aid or any real appreciation for the international coalition that we have to create if we're going to do this right. We're not providing the equipment and the support for our troops. I think it's amazing to me that we're using sandbags and plywood in our Humvees and we're doing bake sales for body armor. We're not getting the military--the equipment that they have to have to run this war.
We're also not listening to the military commanders, Tim. If you listen to the military commanders, if you had the kind of international cooperation, if we really supported the troops with body armor and the equipment that they have to have, and if you did those kinds of things, I think we could be doing a lot better job than we are today. We're not today and that's why I think it's being fought the wrong way.
MR. RUSSERT: In 2003, Senator, as you well know, you were very laudatory. You said that Bush deserved great credit for his leadership during the war, and you went on to say, Senator Daschle, in talking about weapons of mass destruction, "I think we've got to recognize that there was more than one goal here [in Iraq]. One of the other goals was to remove a threat to this country, to remove a threat to the region, to remove a person who" has "not only repressed and tortured his own people, but clearly posed some serious problems throughout the world. And that, too, is a laudable goal. ..." I then asked, "So the war was worthwhile and successful?" Daschle: "Yes, it was."
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, Tim, you know, it was good that we got rid of Saddam. There's no question about that. But the real question is how can we do a better job of fighting this war? We had an intelligence breakdown. As a veteran, I'm all the more sensitive to the tremendous challenges that we face in trying to wage this war. But we've got to supply the equipment and the support for our troops that they're not getting in some cases today. We've got to listen to our military commanders. We've got to make sure we involve the international community a lot more than we are right now. If we do those kinds of things, this could be a different war. We could have a lot more success than we are today. This administration is not doing that.
MR. RUSSERT: Having not found the weapons of mass destruction, and seeing the level of insurgency we're confronting, knowing what you know now, would you have still voted to authorize the president to go to war?
SEN. DASCHLE: Tim, I stand by my vote. We can't roll back the clock. We can't turn it back. We've got to go from here. We've got to look at how we can win this war. We've got to provide our troops more equipment. We've got to listen to our military commanders. We've got to have better intelligence. We've got to make sure we involve the international community in burden sharing a lot more than we are. That's the kind of way we're going to do better at this war in the future.
MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Thune, Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, a Republican, said this. "We're in a lot of trouble [in Iraq]. ... The worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we're winning. Right now, we are not winning. Things are getting worse."
Do you agree?
MR. THUNE: I don't agree with that, Tim. I think that Iraq is a part of the broader war on terror. It is a war that we have to win. And, you know, obviously the question before the House and I think the question Tom raised is: What will we do differently? And I don't think there's an answer to that question that's been offered up by Senator Kerry or by Senator Daschle or others. I think, clearly, we've got to--there's a strategy in place. Obviously, it's to, you know, create an interim government, move to free elections, ratify a constitution, train an Iraqi army. Those steps are being taken.
And, you know, this is going to be a tough job and nobody said otherwise. I think we knew going in that this was going to be a tough part of the world that we were going to have to fight, we're going to have to make sure that we create a democratic system there, that people in Iraq have freedom and we have to finish the job. This is not a time to cut and run. This is a time to show resolve and the international community is responding.
I mean, there is more support building, I believe, for what's happening there. And I think we have to continue and make sure that we support our troops. And we need to show support here in this country. Our political leadership needs to be behind the men and women who are wearing the uniform over there. Like Tom, I've talked to hundreds of Guard men and women and active duty personnel inside South Dakota. Everybody I talked to is totally supportive of what we're doing there. I mean, they believe that they believe in the mission, they believe we're making progress. This is important work that we're about.
MR. RUSSERT: And yet the intelligence agencies gave President Clinton the following report in July. "A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq ... The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that would lead to civil war ... The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms."
That's very bleak, and you advise to simply stay the course. Is that the policy of the Republicans?
MR. THUNE: Well, I think that the policy that's been laid out by the president is one of, you know, creating an interim government and Prime Minister Allawi is going to be here this next week. He's going to be meeting with the White House at the U.N., and I think the message he's going to deliver is that we are making progress. But this is tough work. This is not going to be easy. These are terrorists. These are people who think nothing of butchering and slaughtering their own people. The United States, I think as the leader of the Free World, has to stay strong. We have to stay resolute. We need to finish the job. If we don't, the terrorists are going to prevail and I think that spells disaster for the people of the United States and for our national security as we move forward from here.
MR. RUSSERT: What is finishing the job?
MR. THUNE: I think it means getting to where we have a democracy set up in Iraq, where we have free elections, where we have an Iraqi army that is trained and prepared to defend itself. General Petras is working on that on a daily basis and the Iraqis are stepping up, they are providing for more of their security, but there's more that needs to be done. And, you know, the Americans over there right now need to be the reinforcers, not the enforcers, and I think ultimately...
MR. RUSSERT: If it means sending more American troops, would you support that?
MR. THUNE: Well, I think we have to rely on our military leadership. I think General Abizaid, General Casey, the people who are going to be making those recommendations to the president, if they call for more troops, I believe that the president will step forward and I think we have to support that. I believe it's important right now for us as a nation to show resolve, to be decisive and to finish the job and win the war on terror.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Daschle, don't cut and run, stay the course.
SEN. DASCHLE: Tim, if I could just say, if South Dakota were a country, we'd be the seventh largest coalition partner today. And that explains I think the problem that we have with regard to this international support effort. We ought to have more involvement, more commitment from the international community than we're getting right now. It doesn't have to be troops.
MR. RUSSERT: How, Senator? Do you think the French, the Germans and the Russians would support troops?
SEN. DASCHLE: It doesn't have to be troops. We need a lot of people on the ground. When I was in Iraq, we actually had tank commanders going door to door to try to help build the infrastructure for sewer and water and electricity. We have a lot of needs there for law enforcement. We have a lot of things we ought to be doing that we're not doing just because this administration has failed to get the kind of international cooperation we need.
MR. RUSSERT: Such as? Do what specifically?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, specifically, I think we need a lot more engineers. We need a lot more peacekeepers. We need a lot more security advisers. We need a lot more help with regard to building the Iraqi police network in the country.
MR. RUSSERT: From where?
SEN. DASCHLE: From all countries, from Europe, from NATO, from the U.N., from Asia. We ought to be getting it in a lot more levels of help than we're getting right now.
MR. RUSSERT: Why would those countries send their people into the turmoil we're seeing now?
SEN. DASCHLE: Because I think just as we did 10 years or 12 years ago with President Bush's father, they indicated at that point they knew it was in their best interests because we persuaded them that it was. For some reason, we've not been able to do that this time. We need to persuade them that this is in their interest to be helpful, to be on the ground, to work with us to create the stability, to see that economic growth. That isn't happening.
MR. RUSSERT: Is that President Bush's fault?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I think it's--in large measure it's this administration's fault, no question about it.
MR. RUSSERT: What do you think?
MR. THUNE: Well, I just think that, you know, it's fine to say all that, but the same issue prevails and that is, you know, the answer is, we'll internationalize the war. You know, we need more support from Europe. We've got a lot of support from Europe, the U.K., Italy, Belgium, other countries are standing with us over there in the theater. And the French are starting to soften some of their opposition to this. But I think at the end of the day, just saying well, we need to get more support, I don't know how you go about doing that. I mean, that, to me, what if they say no? I mean, why would you want to send their--you know, why would they want to send their people?
MR. RUSSERT: What if they say no, Mr. Thune? The United States will be there experiencing 90 percent of the casualties and costs for years to come?
MR. THUNE: Well, I think we have to continue to try and build a broader coalition of support from those nations around the world who care about freedom, like this country does. But having said that, I think we have to understand that the United States is the leader in this. You know, the United Nations voted unanimously on several occasions to condemn what was happening in Iraq, you know, warned that there would be adverse consequences. We decided to move against Iraq, tried to involve the national community, got some support, trying to build a broader coalition as we move forward when it comes to stabilizing Iraq and providing a democracy and a freedom there that will provide stability in that region of the world.
But I think right now we are going to be on the point and hopefully over time we will build that broader coalition. But to suggest that that's the fault of this administration, I just don't know where the critics and people like Senator Daschle and Senator Kerry, who are attacking the policy, would do anything differently. And that's the problem right now is nobody has laid out--Senator Kerry certainly hasn't and I don't think Senator Daschle has either--how they would do anything differently. All they want to do is attack what's going on over there.
MR. RUSSERT: Has the president laid out a blueprint?
MR. THUNE: I think the president's made it very clear. Set up an interim government, ratify a constitution, hold free elections, train an Iraqi army. I mean, there are steps being taken. There is a strategy in place and we need to continue to pursue that strategy and make sure we are successful in prevailing.
MR. RUSSERT: And how long will U.S. troops be there?
MR. THUNE: Well, I don't think we know the answer to that. But I would hope over time as the Iraqi army gets trained and is better prepared to take care of its own defense needs and to protect its own people that the American commitment can, you know, ease out. But at this point in time, and we've got a lot of people, as Tom said, in South Dakota, who have been over there. And we are doing our fair share in our state. But I got to tell you, I talk to these kids, these men and women when they come home, and they believe profoundly in what they're doing, that they're making a difference for the future of freedom.
SEN. DASCHLE: Tim, when I was over there I talked to the 740th, one of our National Guard units, and one of the biggest concerns they had was that they were being asked to do things without the proper equipment. They didn't have the body armor in some cases. They weren't being given the GPS and the other kinds of equipment that they really needed to do their job. Regardless of what disagreements there may be on how we get this international coalition together, we've got to agree, and this administration needs to put a priority on ensuring that every single person over there who is putting their lives on the line have the equipment and the support that they need.
MR. THUNE: Didn't Senator Kerry vote against $87 million for aid to the troops?
SEN. DASCHLE: He did. I disagree with that. And when I was over there, that was one of the most important things we could do is to send the message, I think, that these members of the Guard and reserves, our active duty personnel, need the support need the equipment they've got to have. And I think that's something that this administration, frankly, has failed to do in addition to listening to their military commanders. If they'd have listened to the military commanders going in, we would have had a plan now. But to subject these people to the tremendous pressures they're feeling, to ask these thousand people to put their lives on the line as they did and lost, to see those 7,000 wounded, and then not to have a plan and not to listen to your military commanders is just a big mistake.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Kerry's complaining that we spend $200 billion in Iraq. You're suggesting we should be spending more.
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I don't know that we have to spend more. Again, it goes to what I said a moment ago. We've got to make sure that we have broader international involvement. Costa Rica, I'm told, just dropped out of the coalition this last week. That again goes to this need for burden-sharing. Ninety-five percent, virtually, of all the troops on the ground, the sacrifice, 90 percent of the resources that are being committed today are being committed by the U.S. taxpayer, and that's unfair. We have a broader responsibility than that worldwide, and that ought to be reflected.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that John Kerry is more capable of drawing in an international coalition in Iraq than George Bush?
SEN. DASCHLE: I do, absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Thune, let me talk to you about the lead-up to the war and this emphasis on the weapons of mass destruction and ask you something specifically that you said on October 8 of 2002. "There's a high probability that [Saddam Hussein] is able to add nuclear capability to extend missiles to the United States."
Where did that come from? I've read all the intelligence estimates. Where did you find that Saddam had the probability of nuclear missiles?
MR. THUNE: I think the intelligence was clear and that is that he had--he could build missiles. He had, you know, developing nuclear capability based on all the intelligence we had at the time. I think it was a threat to the United States. It was a more immediate threat to that region of the world. But, you know, when we made that vote, when we voted to authorize in the resolution of force back in 2002, most of us as members of Congress, I was in the House at the time, and of course Tom in the Senate, made that vote based upon information that we were provided, based on intelligence that had been furnished to us.
I think at the time--we now know that he still has the intention, he still has the capability as has been determined I think since that time. He doesn't have the stockpiles, or at least, we haven't found them yet, but I think that when the president very aptly described the axis of evil--Iran, North Korea and Iraq-- there there was a potentiality of nuclear weapons in each of those countries, and I believe that it was the correct move to vote for the resolution of force.
MR. RUSSERT: But when you say high probability that Saddam had nuclear missiles. The National Intelligence Estimates that you saw, were able to see--this is what the State Department said in response to that. "The activities we have detected do not...add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what the [State Department bureau of intelligence and research] would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons."
There was no hard evidence that Saddam had a "high probability of nuclear weapons." Was that a scare tactic?
MR. THUNE: I don't believe that's a scare tactic, Tim. And I think that there was a lot of anecdotal evidence that had been collected over time in the region. We certainly knew that there had been a past history of using Scud missiles and that sort of thing on neighbors in the region. There were--you know, there were--the capabilities, in my judgment, were such that we needed to be alert in this country. I think that he was a threat, not only to that region, but to the broader world and the United States. You know, clearly, with biological and chemical weapons, but I also think the nuclear threat existed. I don't believe that's a scare tactic. I think that we are dealing with a very dangerous man who had proven over time that he was willing to murder and butcher and slaughter, you know, hundreds of thousands of his own people.
MR. RUSSERT: But that's a lot different than--would you now acknowledge that there is no high probability that Saddam had nuclear missiles?
MR. THUNE: Well, I think we've all concluded since, you know, the--we've gone into Iraq and a lot of the things that have been discovered since that time, that some of the intelligence was--the sourcing was weak and some of the information that we had was, perhaps, not as accurate as it should have been.
MR. RUSSERT: Was it hyped?
MR. THUNE: I don't believe it was hyped. I mean, I think that, you know, we were presented with information and the best intelligence that we had. You know, now you look back at it in retrospect and say, well maybe, you know, there was some short comings in our intelligence community and some of the information that was gathered that many of us made that decision based upon. But I think based upon the information that we had at the time that many of us, as members of Congress, made a decision that we thought was in the best interests of the national security of the United States and to a cause of, you know, making sure that there was stability in a region of the world on which we are very dependent.
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Daschle, was the intelligence hyped?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well we don't know for sure whether the intelligence was hyped. It was certainly wrong, Tim. We had an intelligence breakdown and that is really one of the saddest chapters in this whole saga so far. How can we get better intelligence? That's something that the Congress is working on right now. How do we make sure this never happens again? How do we, not only make sure we have the best intelligence, but make sure that that intelligence is never abused? In this case, were that to be the problem, it's all the more of a tragedy. So we've got to make absolutely certain we do a lot better job, especially with the whole concept of pre-emption. We've got to do a better job in the future.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you feel misled?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, certainly we were misled. The real question is whether it was advertent inadvertent. We don't know that. We do know that this intelligence was very erroneous. There were so many mistakes made with regard to what they had, what they didn't have, when they were going to-- you know, the information they had on the ground was just unacceptable.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you a television commercial that Senator Daschle is running in this race and it features George W. Bush. Let's watch.
(Videotape, Daschle '04 Senate ad):
SEN. DASCHLE: Tonight, the president has called us again to greatness. And tonight, we answer that call.
Announcer: In our country's hour of need, Tom Daschle made us proud. Senator Daschle helped forge a consensus to rebuild our military.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Thune, do you have any problem with that ad?
MR. THUNE: Well, you know, I mean, I think the ad--anybody who follows politics closely sees that as a very cynical and manipulative effort on Tom's part to connect himself to a popular president. You know, Tom is literally running out of the arms of Michael Moore into the arms of the president in South Dakota, and I think what it points out is this pattern that he has of saying one thing in South Dakota and another thing in Washington, D.C. In Washington, D.C., you know, he's attacking the president, you know, blocking the president's agenda, and in South Dakota, he's hugging the president.
And, you know, the amazing--the remarkable thing about it is how quickly he was willing to throw John Kerry overboard in order to help himself in South Dakota. I mean, I don't know very many party leaders that would do what he just did by running that ad. And I think most people see that for what it is, but it is an effort to connect himself and tie himself to a president who is popular in South Dakota at a time when he's running for re-election while the record is very clear that when he's in Washington, D.C., it-- the record is one of attack, criticize, block, obstruct, and I think the, you know, people should see that for what it is.
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Daschle, critics will point out to the comment you made back in June about--in 2002 about President Bush. He's "been a source of great disappointment. ... I think his record on the economy is a disaster." Then you told National Public Radio that "President Bush wanted to change the tone in Washington, and I think he has. I think it's gotten worse."
You've been extremely critical of the president, and then in your commercials, you're seen embracing him.
SEN. DASCHLE: That's right, Tim. You know, John's a follower and I think there's something to be said for following, but you've got to be more than a follower in the United States Senate. That moment was a very important moment for our country. I think our country needed to see its political leaders come together, and that's exactly what happened. We came together in spite of our many differences. Now, there are times when I will agree with the president, as I did with 9/11. There are times when we work together--the farm bill, the healthy forest bill. We worked on a number of things and we've done it constructively.
But, you know, there are times when I have to oppose this president. I opposed him when he was wrong on the drought for South Dakota. I opposed him on the highway bill that he opposes for South Dakota. I've opposed him on the Medicare drug benefit. Those are--and many other times when I think you have to stand up and you have to do what's right for South Dakota. You can't just follow this president without questioning whether or not it's good for South Dakota.
MR. RUSSERT: The day before the president went to war, Mr. Daschle, you said the president had failed miserably at diplomacy, and now we're now forced to war. Professor John Schaff of the Northern State University, according to the Argus Leader, said this is your difficulty. "So Daschle will have to explain why South Dakota should vote for President Bush and also vote for the person who has done the most to try to oppose President Bush in Washington. Those votes don't seem to go together."
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I think it's just the opposite. I disagree with him, because, clearly, if we're going to do what we have to do to represent the people of our state, we just can't follow this president or any president. I will support him when he's right. I will oppose him when he's wrong. That I think is what the people of South Dakota expect.
MR. RUSSERT: The Wall Street Journal described it as the Daschle dead zone. "All of these have been part of a deliberate political strategy by Minority Leader Tom Daschle. He has organized filibusters that have blocked votes ... stymied votes." They cite welfare reform, human cloning prohibition, medical malpractice, bankruptcy reform, flag burning and desecration, death tax repeal, Head Start reform, energy bill--all legislation that passed the House but died in the Senate graveyard because of you.
SEN. DASCHLE: Tim, that same editorial board came out against the farm bill, against the highway bill, against the ethanol bill, against the energy bill. They're in favor of privatization of Social Security; virtually everything that South Dakota opposes. So I would question anybody who would rely on that source.
That same Wall Street Journal, by the way, about two weeks ago said that it's really the Republicans' inability to get their act together, to agree among themselves on virtually every one of those issues that has caused the failure, the breakdown in the passage of this legislation. So whether you read their editorial page, which has come out virtually against South Dakota on everything that matters to them, or you read their news pages, which says it's the Republicans who can't get their act together, is up to you. But that's not a source I would quote.
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Thune.
MR. THUNE: Well, Tim, yeah, I mean, the ad that you just showed where Senator Daschle is hugging the president in South Dakota was a--yes, was a one moment of bipartisanship, and immediately after that was over, every time the president has extended his hand of friendship to Senator Daschle, he's bit it off. You know, we need people that can work constructively. And I don't think anybody expects Tom to be a rubber stamp for President Bush, but it would be nice once in a while if he were a rubber stamp for South Dakota.
I mean, all the things that you just talked about, whether it's judges, whether it's energy policy, whether it's tax relief for working families in South Dakota, you know, you can go right down the list--medical malpractice reform to lower health-care costs. Right down the list, things are dying in the United States Senate. The Wall Street Journal has called it the Daschle dead zone, but there have been a number of other people who have commented on it as well. Senator Grassley from Iowa, our neighbor, has said that Senator Daschle was serving the nation poorly and that the Senate's become a graveyard for good legislation reforms. Zell Miller, Democrat from Georgia, calls it the Daschle graveyard.
SEN. DASCHLE: A couple of objective sources for you, Tim.
MR. THUNE: Well, you know, but the truth of the matter is, these are colleagues of Tom in the United States Senate who have made the very same point, and that is that this is a guy who continually is the chief obstructionist who stands in the way of the agenda.
SEN. DASCHLE: Listen, you can't be a follower and you can't just rubber stamp what this administration is doing and that's exactly what John would like to do, but we can't--South Dakota expects more than that.
MR. THUNE: That's not true.
SEN. DASCHLE: It is true, John.
MR. THUNE: That's...
SEN. DASCHLE: You know, every one of those things is unfair and you know that. That's not accurate. Let's at least tell the people of South Dakota the truth on these things and on each one of these. And I hope we'll get a chance to go through them because that isn't how we ought to be running this campaign. Let's get the real facts out. Facts are stubborn things.
MR. THUNE: It is a fact, and facts are stubborn things...
SEN. DASCHLE: No, it isn't a fact.
MR. THUNE: ...and it is a fact that the rules in the Senate are being used in a way by Senator Daschle that are unprecedented in this country's history when it comes to judicial nominations and other legislation that needs to move through the United States Senate.
SEN. DASCHLE: Maybe we should talk about judicial nominations for a second, Tim, because John keeps coming back to this one. You know that we have now confirmed 201 judges. That is more than Ronald Reagan got confirmed in his first term. It's more than President Bush's father got confirmed in his first term. We have the lowest vacancy rate virtually of any time in history. We've confirmed 201 judges. We've not confirmed 10. That's a 95 percent ratio of success. There are not many things...
MR. THUNE: And why wouldn't...
SEN. DASCHLE: ...95 percent. Now, John would suggest that maybe we just rubber stamp them all, but the Constitution requires us to advise and consent and you know that, John, so...
MR. THUNE: Exactly. And you're not...
SEN. DASCHLE: But what's wrong with 95 percent?
MR. THUNE: ...following the Constitution.
SEN. DASCHLE: Would you say--does it have to be 100 percent?
MR. THUNE: Let's talk about the people that you're not giving a vote, Tom.
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, every one of these people gets a vote, John.
MR. THUNE: It's one thing if you want to talk about the Constitution, let's talk about the Constitution.
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I'm prepared to do that.
MR. THUNE: The president nominates...
SEN. DASCHLE: Ninety-five percent, just remember that.
MR. THUNE: ...the Senate confirms. You know, Janice Rogers Brown...
SEN. DASCHLE: It doesn't rubber stamp...
MR. THUNE: ...Priscilla Owen, Charles Pickering, Bill Pryor, Miguel Estrada, Bill Myers--you go right down the list. These people didn't get a vote. Now it's one thing to say that, you know, you're confirming a certain percentage, but these people deserve a vote. The filibuster has never been used in the history of this country to deny appellate court nominees an opportunity and an up-and-down vote in the United States Senate. Under Tom Daschle, that is the first time that has happened.
SEN. DASCHLE: That's not true.
MR. THUNE: These are good, qualified people...
SEN. DASCHLE: That is not true.
MR. THUNE: ...people who the American Bar Association says are highly qualified.
SEN. DASCHLE: That is not true.
MR. THUNE: Let them have a vote.
SEN. DASCHLE: That is not true either.
MR. THUNE: Let them have a vote.
SEN. DASCHLE: Ninety-five percent.
MR. THUNE: None of them are.
SEN. DASCHLE: That's the bottom line, Tim. I'd say 95 percent is the answer.
MR. THUNE: The bottom line is let's follow the Constitution...
SEN. DASCHLE: We do.
MR. RUSSERT: The issue...
MR. THUNE: ...give them a vote, Tom.
SEN. DASCHLE: We certainly do, John.
MR. THUNE: Give them a vote.
MR. RUSSERT: ...seems to be the Republicans are calling Mr. Daschle an obstructionist. Democrats are calling you a rubber stamp. Let me show you an ad that you're running talking about the president.
(Videotape, Thune '04 Senate ad):
MR. THUNE: I'll work with the president. If I disagree with the president, I'll let him know that.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: If you disagree with the president, you'll let him know that, and Democrats point to this. And this is from Mike Madden in the Argus Leader: "Bush's Tough Stand On Aid May Hurt Thune." And this is for 2002. "During his [visit to Mount Rushmore] ... Bush said he knows the pain South Dakotans are in. ... But he said the government simply cannot afford to bail ranchers out unless the money can be squeezed from the existing budget. ... [Thune] certainly did not criticize the president for not coming with money in hand. `We know that fires and drought are just God's way of reminding us who's in charge. ... We will weather this storm." And the Associated Press said that when the president denied drought aid to South Dakota, you said, "I think he"--Bush--"had a really strong speech." Is that standing up or disagreeing with the president?
MR. THUNE: Well, I think you have to put what the president said in that speech into context. Obviously, he said he would support drought relief. He just wanted to have it paid for. The only drought relief that South Dakota farmers and ranchers got in the year 2002 was the assistance that I worked with the administration to provide and it was about a billion dollars. And the ranchers in western South Dakota got direct assistance in the form of checks going out to the election.
Now, could we have done more? Yes. And frankly I think the president was wrong not to say that this ought to be emergency funded, but he had laid down the perimeters of a bill that he would sign. So what does Tom do? He goes to the Senate and tries to pass a bill and he never got it ultimately passed but tried to pass a bill that he knew the president wouldn't sign because they wanted an issue and not a solution. We need solutions. And you know what happened after the election? After, he was stripped of his leadership position. Drought relief passed. You've got leadership in the United States Senate that was willing to work with the president constructively and in January of the following year passed three-- what ended up being about $4 billion of a direct assistance to our farmers and ranchers.
MR. RUSSERT: When you said the president was wrong, did you tell the president he was wrong or did you praise him?
MR. THUNE: I told him that I thought that they ought to make this just like every other disaster.
MR. RUSSERT: You didn't say that publicly, though.
MR. THUNE: Well, those are conversations that were held on a regular basis, but the point is when it came time to get something through and to work and constructively with the administration with a bill that the president would ultimately sign into law, the Senate was nowhere to be found. I mean, Tom wanted this issue in the 2002 elections as an issue. And what you found in the 2002 elections are a lot of the issues that Tom tried to create and things that he tried to block, including homeland security legislation, cost them in the United States Senate. It cost them seats in Georgia. It cost them seats in Missouri. What we need is someone who's going to work constructively to solve problems, not somebody who wants to create political issues and play the block and blame game.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator, when the farm bill passed, you said, "OK, that would take care of drought aid," and suddenly you wanted more money for South Dakota. Was that just simply trying to get a boondoggle?
SEN. DASCHLE: Tim, let me just say, the best assessment the Department of Agriculture made is that we needed about $6 billion. That was their assessment, not ours. That's what we passed in the United States Senate. John Thune didn't pass one cent in the House of Representatives. And when he had the chance to stand up for South Dakota or side with his party, he chose his party. He did absolutely nothing. And people in South Dakota still remember that day. That was a moment. You saw it. You put it up. That was a moment when John could have gone and said, "Look, this is far more important than my party or this president. I'm going to support my state." He chose not to do that. Not one cent.
We passed a bill with an overwhelming bipartisan margin in the Senate, $6 billion. Not our figure. This is what the Department of Agriculture said we had to pass. And we passed it and they couldn't get it done in the House. John didn't even try.
MR. THUNE: That's not...
SEN. DASCHLE: We didn't have a vote in the House of Representatives on drought in that year.
MR. THUNE: Well, it's not accurate to say that they didn't get assistance. I worked with the administration and we put out a billion dollars and I've talked to a lot of ranchers in western South Dakota, Tom, who appreciated the fact that we worked...
SEN. DASCHLE: Oh, of course.
MR. THUNE: ...to get something out there. But the reality...
SEN. DASCHLE: They'll take anything they can get.
MR. THUNE: But the reality is, you knew going in you were working on a strategy that wasn't going to become law.
SEN. DASCHLE: John, you know that's not true.
MR. THUNE: It was an issue and not a solution...
SEN. DASCHLE: John, that is not true.
MR. THUNE: ...and you knew that.
SEN. DASCHLE: And I'm telling you--you go back and look at the record, Tim. What they told us in the Department of Agriculture is that if you're going to meet the need that is out there today, you need about $6 billion. So that's what we passed. But John couldn't even do that in the House of Representatives, and not only that, he wouldn't be--he wasn't willing to stand up and say to the president, "You're wrong."
MR. THUNE: Tim, Tom...
SEN. DASCHLE: Why can't you get help?
MR. THUNE: Tom actually agreed on this show with the president when he said that, you know, assistance is--you know, the farm bill is now in a fashion that we ought to figure out a way to handle disasters with it. I mean, those are your words, not mine. But the point is, when we got to a point where we needed to help our farmers and ranchers, this was a year in which the Senate had decided they wanted to block and obstruct and create political issues rather than real solutions.
SEN. DASCHLE: That's funny. You know, we got over 80 votes.
MR. THUNE: And it wasn't until he was stripped of his leadership position that drought relief was passed and signed into law by the president because you got some folks who were willing to work together under the parameters the president had laid out for a bill that he would ultimately sign into law.
SEN. DASCHLE: I just have to squeeze this in. I mean, if we were blocking and obstructing, why did so many Republicans support the bill? Why was there such an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote when we passed that $6 billion in the first place? How could they be part of the blocking and obstructing?
MR. THUNE: How could they not vote for it, Tom? I mean you got...
SEN. DASCHLE: Well...
MR. THUNE: ...you got people...
SEN. DASCHLE: You ask them.
MR. THUNE: Well, obviously...
SEN. DASCHLE: You're making the accusation.
MR. THUNE: Obviously, they knew and they wanted to help their farmers and ranchers in South Dakota, so if you throw something out there, you're the leader of the Senate. But you laid a bill out on the table you knew wouldn't be signed into law. That's...
SEN. DASCHLE: It goes back to the leader-follower, Tim.
MR. THUNE: That's not true.
SEN. DASCHLE: This is the leader-follower issue. You know, if you're going to follow, you do what John did two years ago. If you're going to lead, you've got to do what I just did.
MR. RUSSERT: We have to take...
MR. THUNE: All right.
MR. RUSSERT: We have to take a brief break. A lot more of our debate, Tom Daschle, the Democrat; John Thune, the Republican. They're from South Dakota. They want to represent that state in the U.S. Senate.
MR. RUSSERT: Democrat Daschle, Republican Thune--all eyes on South Dakota. The debate continues after this station break.
MR. RUSSERT: And we are back, joined by Republican John Thune, Democrat Tom Daschle. They are candidates for the United States Senate from South Dakota.
There is an ad, Senator Daschle, that you are running criticizing an ad that you say is by John Thune. Let's watch.
Announcer: John Thune is running another negative misleading ad. Tom Daschle does not support any increase in gas taxes. Daschle's fought to lower energy prices.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: The ad is actually run and paid for by the National Republican Senate Campaign Committee, so it's not a John Thune ad, and yet you say it is.
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I do, Tim, because John has the ability to pull those ads. I've demonstrated that in South Dakota. Some time ago, we made an offer to John and his campaign that none of the outside groups would be involved in the ads in South Dakota, would be involved in negative advertising or any part of our campaign. Every single group that I asked to stay out has stayed out. Three groups that said they were going to go in have announced that as a result of my request, they're not going in. So John has a personal responsibility for those negative attacks and he is accountable for them.
MR. RUSSERT: You did, in fact, vote for an increase in the gasoline tax in 1990 and 1993.
SEN. DASCHLE: I did and so did John. John voted against the repeal...
MR. THUNE: I wasn't there.
SEN. DASCHLE: ...of that very gas tax. No, but he's voted against the repeal of that very gas tax.
MR. THUNE: No.
SEN. DASCHLE: Yes, you have, John. It's on the record, in 1998. You may have forgotten. But the issue--this is four cents, Tim. And, you know, we get double what we send to Washington back every single year. We get $2 back for every dollar that we commit. That's $187 million. So either John has to decide whether he supports that tax that brings that revenue or supports the repeal of $187 million for highway construction in South Dakota every year.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me...
SEN. DASCHLE: That's the choice.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you, Mr. Thune, what the Argus Leader says about this ad and this debate. "Since October 1st, 1995, the 4.3-cent tax per gallon has gone to the U.S. Highway Trust Fund, which finances road projects. South Dakota is a donee state and receives about $2 in project money for every dollar paid in gas taxes. In the past, Thune also has expressed concern about a gas tax repeal questioning the loss to state roadways."
And yet you're on the air now with a commercial and you question Senator Daschle's judgment. You say, "When he got a chance to lower gas taxes, he voted against that, too." Are you saying that you would vote to repeal the gasoline tax, even though it would mean highway money for South Dakota?
MR. THUNE: Well, I don't think that's the point here at all. The point is, first off, Tom's ad is false on two counts. One is it isn't my ad. I mean, that's just flatly dishonest and not true. Secondly, what he came out and said is that he hadn't voted for it. In the Argus Leader also earlier this week, Tom said, "I've never voted for a gas tax increase." I mean, that's completely false and dishonest.
MR. RUSSERT: He just said he did.
MR. THUNE: He just said he did. I'm just correcting that.
MR. RUSSERT: But I'm asking you, when you say he got a chance to lower gas taxes, he voted against that, too. Will you introduce legislation to repeal the gasoline tax or lower it, even though it means less highway money for South Dakota? Will you, John Thune, do that as a senator?
MR. THUNE: Not if it means less highway money for South Dakota.
MR. RUSSERT: So then why are you criticizing for him...
MR. THUNE: I am criticizing Tom's record not on energy generally but on taxes as well. And the energy tax is one component part of it. The broader issue here is every time that Tom has an opportunity to vote to lower taxes, he votes against it. Every time he has an opportunity to increase taxes, he votes for it. He's got over 350 votes to raise taxes. The votes he made, I would not have made the vote in 1993 because it wasn't dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund. It was dedicated to something else.
And, frankly, I think the whole issue of what Tom's record on energy is, is a critical part of this debate. And the reason is, because he hasn't done anything to lower energy prices. He's opposed drilling in Alaska that would lessen our dependence upon foreign sources of energy and produce another, you know, million barrels of oil in the pipeline of America today. On the energy bill last November in the United States Senate, a bill that had passed the House with an overwhelming margin and the president said, "If you put it on my desk, I will sign it into law," it gets to the United States Senate, Tom's folks filibuster it.
So instead of needing 51 votes to pass, it needs 60. It gets 58, two votes short; 36 Democrats either didn't show up or voted against it. All he had to do was get two more votes and you've got ethanol, a renewable fuel standard, that guarantees a market for ethanol. You've got production tax incentives for ethanol. This was a colossal failure of leadership. When he talks about leadership, that isn't leading. That is listening to the people in his caucus, the special interest groups, rather than the people of South Dakota. The ad is accurate. Senator Daschle has not led on energy. He has not worked to lower energy prices for South Dakota.
MR. RUSSERT: But you would not repeal the gas tax?
MR. THUNE: No, I wouldn't repeal it entirely.
MR. RUSSERT: And you wouldn't either. But on the energy bill, Senator Daschle, if you're the leader, why couldn't you have gotten two more Democrats to join with you and pass that energy bill?
SEN. DASCHLE: Tim, I remember the old days when that grocer would sell produce and he'd put his thumb on the scale. That was dishonest. Well, you just heard John Thune say something very dishonest. Most of what he said is wrong. It's untrue. And most people in South Dakota know that. I stand up--I will stand up for my record and the things that I've done on energy and ethanol for the last 25 years more than anybody else in the Senate. I feel very strongly about what we've been able to do. We've created an ethanol industry with nine plants in South Dakota. We...
MR. RUSSERT: But specifically on the energy bill, why couldn't you persuade two fellow Democrats to join with you?
SEN. DASCHLE: Listen, we persuaded. We had 88 votes for a bipartisan plan on energy--88 votes, Republicans and Democrats working together. But they made it impossible to pass, Tim. They made it impossible to pass and their only option was to fail when they put special interest provisions in that bill that they knew would not get done. We warned them against it. We tried to do everything we could to keep that from happening. But they made it impossible to pass.
MR. THUNE: Tim...
SEN. DASCHLE: And that's what happened. We got 88 votes, and we got an overwhelmingly bipartisan Republican and Democratic vote, but John's putting his thumb on the scale here. He's distorting the truth, and he knows it, and he ought to recognize that.
MR. THUNE: There isn't anything about that ad that's not true. What's not true is the ad Tom ran saying that that was my ad which it was not and then his ad, you know, talking about his record on energy. My ad says that he voted to raise energy taxes. That's true. My ad says that he voted against repealing energy taxes. Those are true statements. When he goes...
SEN. DASCHLE: That is not true, John.
MR. THUNE: ...when he says in the Argus Leader...
SEN. DASCHLE: That is not true, John, and you know it.
MR. THUNE: No, it's absolutely true.
SEN. DASCHLE: No, no, it isn't.
MR. RUSSERT: All right.
MR. THUNE: What's dishonest about this is to say that they had an overwhelming bipartisan...
SEN. DASCHLE: We...
MR. THUNE: ...support for an energy bill in the United States Senate...
SEN. DASCHLE: That's in the record. It's in the record. There is no doubt about it. You know...
MR. THUNE: No. But the point is when it came time to pass it, this is an energy bill that had been built over years, months of negotiation. It passed overwhelmingly in the House. The president had said "I will sign it into law." It had everything that the South Dakota ethanol industry wanted.
SEN. DASCHLE: Yeah. But you know why it did?
MR. THUNE: Renewable fuel standard, production tax incentives, everything. Listen, it was...
SEN. DASCHLE: Tim, you know why it did? John, let's look at this...
MR. THUNE: Can I finish this? Can I finish this? You had your time.
SEN. DASCHLE: Yes.
MR. THUNE: This was the Holy Grail for the ethanol industry. Everything that they wanted was in that energy bill, and Tom decided to listen to his members of his liberal Democrat caucus and the special interest groups who didn't want an energy bill and failed to produce two votes out of 36 Democrats. He can block any judicial nominee he wants to block, but when it comes to something that's that important to South Dakota, he doesn't provide leadership.
MR. RUSSERT: I'll give you a chance to respond.
SEN. DASCHLE: You've had your shot and I'll give you mine, John. We passed an energy bill in the Senate, Tim, with 88 votes. And by the way, it had the renewable fuel standard in here which would double the amount of ethanol all the way through. We have put the ethanol legislation into the Senate version. John couldn't get that done in the House. All he got was a study. We don't need another study in South Dakota. We already have studied this enough. We've got nine plants. He got a study. But the bottom line here is that they inserted legislation. And it's in the record. They inserted legislation that made this impossible to pass. It's special interest provisions that bailed out some oil companies and special interests, chemical manufacturers that even the Republicans--you look at The Wall Street Journal, The Wall Street Journal said the other day that some of the Republican senators had a commitment from Bill Frist that they would not even bring up the energy bill as long as those special interest provisions were in the bill. These guys control the House, the Senate and the White House, and yet they want to make it my fault.
MR. THUNE: Tim, look, I've got to respond to this. I'm got to respond to this.
SEN. DASCHLE: You can respond.
MR. THUNE: I've got to respond.
SEN. DASCHLE: But let me just finish.
MR. RUSSERT: I just want to move on from the energy bill because there's a couple other issues in the campaign that I think are important. One is the tone. Now, Mr. Thune, you wrote a letter to your fund-raisers saying this. "Tom Daschle has to go. He's an embarrassment to South Dakota and to the nation." The Republican chairman of the Republican Party in South Dakota wrote this. "Daschle's three years as Complainer-In-Chief have brought shame to the honor of his office, concern to our men and women in uniform, and comfort to America's enemies." Do you believe that Tom Daschle is an embarrassment to your state and, two, do you believe he's given comfort to America's enemies?
MR. THUNE: Well, look, I'm not going to--the chairman of the South Dakota Republican Party can defend himself and his comments.
MR. RUSSERT: But do you denounce those words?
MR. THUNE: Well, listen, let's think about something here. Tom stood on the stage last May when his junior senator got up and called members of the South Dakota Republican Party the Taliban. And not only that, Tom applauded at that statement. You know, so there's rhetoric on both sides. But let me address what I said about the embarrassment situation because I do believe what I am doing is echoing what I hear people in South Dakota say and people around the country say. The people of South Dakota are tired of, you know, being branded as a state where their senator is the guy who obstructs everything that they believe in. I mean, you said it. The Wall Street Journal called it the Daschle dead zone. Chuck Grassley has called it the graveyard for good legislation reform. Zell...
MR. RUSSERT: So you believe that Senator Daschle is an embarrassment?
MR. THUNE: I believe that I am echoing what I hear people say in South Dakota about their senator and as they travel around the country having to deal with the chief obstructionist label. And I believe that is embarrassing to South Dakota. It's hard to explain to people around the country that you've got a United States senator who is literally the person who is obstructing judicial nominations, who's obstructing energy policy, and I'd love to come back to energy policy because Tom had a chance...
MR. RUSSERT: But you have no problem with the head of your party saying he gives comfort to America's enemies?
MR. THUNE: I would not have chosen those words but let me say this. I have talked to a lot of soldiers in South Dakota. I talked to a soldier recently who said that Tom's comments going into the war on the eve of war when we had South Dakota men and women in the Persian Gulf that he could never vote for him again. And what it does is emboldens our enemies and undermines the morale of our troops and I...
MR. RUSSERT: His words embolden the enemy?
MR. THUNE: His words embolden the enemy. I think they do. I think when you've got political leaders in your country, Tim, in a time of war, when you've got young men and women on the ground, South Dakota men and women, Guard men and women, active duty personnel, who are putting their lives at risk for the United States of America and you've got a leader from your state who is getting up and attacking in a way that completely undermines the morale of our troops, that's wrong.
MR. RUSSERT: This is a very serious charge. Your words: embolden the enemy.
SEN. DASCHLE: That's disappointing. That is very disappointing, Tim. John's attacks on me, where I come from, would earn a trip to the woodshed. He knows that's wrong. His effort to demonize me won't work in South Dakota. It's not only an attack on me--I take this personally. It's not only an attack on me, it's an attack on where I'm from. I got my values from my mother and dad to tell the truth, to play by the golden rule, to play by the golden rule, to do unto others as you would do unto yourself. Love of country, flag, work and dream but work harder than you dream--that's South Dakota. To do it the right way, to do the right thing, those values are as important to me as my arm. And I think that John ought to reflect on that before he makes a charge like that again.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you regret the day before the war saying that the president had failed miserably?
SEN. DASCHLE: I could have found a different time to say it. But you know what? I'm the veteran. There's only one veteran running here. I've been to funerals. I've been to Iraq. As I said, there isn't a day that goes by that I don't think of those thousand people who died and those 7,000 people who have given up something of their body for this country. I was concerned about them then. When you've been a veteran, those things matter, Tim. Those things matter a lot.
MR. THUNE: Let me say that...
SEN. DASCHLE: And I don't know that John understands that but I will tell you this, these matters are very, very critical and we ought to take great care. This administration has made a lot of mistakes. They didn't have a plan. We know that now. We aren't giving our troops the body armor they need. We're not listening to the military commanders. We're not providing the kind of help internationally that we should be providing. Those are the things I was talking about then.
MR. RUSSERT: I do want to get to you both on the record on something. Mr. Thune, you said in 1996 you would not vote for any other tax cuts until the budget is balanced. Is that your position still?
MR. THUNE: I don't believe that we're in an environment today, because of the war, because of 9/11, because of the stock market collapse, the recession, that we're going to be in a position to get the budget balanced overnight. It's going to take some time. At that point in time, we did and when I got to Congress I voted for legislation that would balance the budget and cut taxes at the same time.
MR. RUSSERT: But you will vote to extend the president's tax cuts, at a cost of about a trillion dollars even though we have a $422 billion budget deficit.
MR. THUNE: The record of history is very plain. When you reduce taxes, it happened under Coolidge, it happened under Kennedy, it happened under Reagan, and I believe it will happen in this, that when you reduce taxes on people in this country, they spend, they invest, they grow the economy, they create jobs and that's what's going to happen with this. We are going to generate additional revenue as this economy continues to grow. We have set out a path for growth. We are on that path and we need to continue on that path.
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Daschle, you want to roll back the top bracket of the tax cut. Will you apply that to reduce the deficit 100 percent, or will you use it for spending?
SEN. DASCHLE: I would--we're going to take up tax cuts this week, Tim. We could pass middle-class tax cuts for those with families with children, ending the marriage penalty. But, yes, you know, the difference between John and I is he is continually prepared to support more tax breaks for billionaires. Well, billionaires don't need more tax breaks.
MR. RUSSERT: But every cent of rolling back the tax break will go to the deficit, not spending?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I think that we ought to roll back the deficit. You're absolutely right.
MR. RUSSERT: Tax cuts.
SEN. DASCHLE: $422 billion deficit this year, $600 billion...
MR. RUSSERT: But will it go to the deficit or spending?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I'd roll it back on the deficit. Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: That has to be the last word. To be continued: Tom Daschle the Democrat, John Thune the Republican. Good luck to both of you. We'll be watching.
MR. THUNE: Thanks, Tom.
SEN. DASCHLE: You betcha.
MR. RUSSERT: We'll be right back with the very latest in our presidential polls in some battleground states, right after this.
MR. RUSSERT: Before we go, MSNBC and Mason-Dixon have been tracking the presidential race in battleground states across the country. Here are the results of the polls in six battleground states, all that George Bush won in 2000. He's currently ahead in all of them in 2004. Arizona, Bush over Kerry 50 to 39; Missouri, Bush ahead 48 to 41; Nevada, Bush 5-point lead over Kerry, 50 to 45; New Hampshire, Bush leads by 9 points, 49 to 40; Ohio, Bush is up 49 to 42; and look at West Virginia, Bush 45, Kerry 45. If Al Gore had won West Virginia in 2000, he would have been president.
We'll have the results in our polls in the blue battleground states, the ones Al Gore won in 2000, tomorrow night on "NBC Nightly News" with Tom Brokaw.
That's all for today. We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS, a South Dakota branding iron.
© 2013 NBCNews.com Reprints


text:
After research on the Directx and opengl(really just APIs in general), I came across some blog post by wolfire. And it was sort of a tipping point for me. So now I want to learn about(and be able to use) opengl. Now I am looking around for information on the opengl on http://www.opengl.org. While I am fine reading official documentation and man pages, a tutorial would be great. As far as background, I am a computer engineering college student. While I am most comfortable with C, I can pick up the basics of other languages with retaliative ease. And from what I read C should work fine. So any information or insight on opengl would be greatly appreciated.
Edit: words and things
I did manage to find a good answer on stock overflow for anyone else who is interested.
http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questi ... 0-or-later
Also stumbled on a interesting project on github called craft. https://github.com/fogleman/Craft
Rcommendation for material for learning opengl
Anything else
Post Reply
1 post • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:26 pm
Post Reply
1 post • Page 1 of 1

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Hello JavaProgrammingForums users!
I come to you with this problem: I am attempting to create an ArrayList of ArrayLists for an assignment, but I'm hitting a roadblock when it comes to figuring out how to populate this construction. So far it seems like I'm able to make an arraylist and get it to print out a sample where all of the values are null, but I cannot figure out how to go further to changing those data values, add another row of data to the arraylist, etc.
Here's what I've gotten so far:
package test; import java.util.ArrayList; class SampleTableClass<Type> { private Type type; ArrayList<ArrayList<Type>> array; public void initializeArray() { array = new ArrayList<ArrayList<Type>>(); } public void fillArray( int rows, int columns) { for (int r=0; r<rows; r++){ array.add(r, new ArrayList<Type>()); for (int c=0; c<columns; c++) array.get(r).add(c, type); } } public void print5x5Array(int rows, int columns) { fillArray(rows, columns); Object[] arrayObjects = array.toArray(); for (int r=0; r<rows; r++){ for (int c=0; c<columns; c++){ System.out.println(arrayObjects[r]); } } } } public class Main { public static void main(String[] args){ SampleTableClass array = new SampleTableClass(); array.initializeArray(); array.print5x5Array(1,5); } }
I feel like I've probably made a simple mistake or failed to grasp one of the main concepts entirely, so feel free to tell me I've done everything wrong if I have, if that's what's necessary to fix it.


text:
In one of the more dramatic exchanges on Thursday during the confirmation hearings of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, the former Senator was peppered with questions from Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) about the 2007 Iraq surge.
In Iraq at that time, the insurgency had reached deadly new heights as violence swelled throughout the country. President Bush then surged an additional 20,000 U.S. troops with a strategy of "protecting the population" under the leadership of General David Petraeus.
In McCain's opening question, he grilled Hagel — who opposed the surge — asking him about his statement at the time, in which he said the surge "represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."
As Hagel tried to explain why he said that, McCain interrupted, saying, "I want to know if you were right or wrong. That's a direct question. I expect a direct answer."
McCain, an adamant supporter of the surge strategy, wanted to hear that the surge was the reason behind the turnaround in Iraq with a simple yes or no answer.
"The beginning of the surge also factored in what General Allen had put into place in Anbar province, the Sunni Awakening," said Hagel in an attempt to answer. "We put over, as you know, a hundred thousand young," before McCain interrupted.
"Senator Hagel, I'm very aware of the history of the surge and the Anbar Awakening, and I also am aware that any casual observer will know that the surge was the fundamental factor, led by two great leaders, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker."
But a casual observation is very different from what actually happened on the ground.
In an extremely well-researched report from Army Lt. Col Daniel Davis, he writes, "When the full facts are examined, however, it becomes very clear that the surge of troops in 2007 was instrumental at best and according to one senior ground commander who led much of our fight in the Anbar province, '75% to 80% of the credit' for the surge's success lies elsewhere."
In the forward to another official historical account from Marine Corps University Press, Maj. General John F. Kelly writes, "at a certain point, al-Qaeda's agenda became too much for the average Anbari to bear. It was increasingly directed at the sheikhs themselves, and just as importantly, it began to have an impact on the business interests of tribal leaders."
Simply put, the brutality of elements of al Qaeda in Iraq against the Sunni populace hit a breaking point, and led to the Anbar Awakening, where Iraqis finally fought back with the help of U.S. forces. "The surge of troops in 2007 did play a role, so there is no attempt to suggest it had no place," Davis writes. "But in case some may charge that the Iraqi view downplays the US role and overemphasizes its own, I'll explain."
Davis interviews both Iraqis and American ground commanders in his report, and concludes that the surge did help, but the shift of the populace against al Qaeda — their awakening — is the biggest reason for the deescalation in violence.
In an interview with the commander of the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division, Col. Sean MacFarland said:
"I give huge credit to the Iraqis who stood up to al-Qaeda. Maybe 75-80% of the credit for the success in the counterinsurgency fight in Ramadi goes to the Iraqi people who stood up to al-Qaeda and joined us in common cause. But, make no mistake, there would have been no Anbar Awakening without the US Forces. It's like asking, 'Which element is the most important component in making an engine run: the spark, oxygen, or fuel?' The answer is 'all three.' You can debate all day long over which is the most crucial, but without all three nothing happens. It was like that in Anbar. Al-Qaeda threats and atrocities were the spark, we provided the air (or environment) to make it happen, but without the fuel provided by the various Awakening groups, we would not have achieved anything lasting or widespread."
Sen. McCain may have wanted a yes or no answer to whether the surge worked, but it's not that simple, and Chuck Hagel knows it.
"No single personality was the key in Anbar, no shiny new field manual the reason why, and no 'surge' or single unit made it happen," writes Maj. Gen. Kelly. "It was a combination of many factors, not the least of which — perhaps the most important — was the consistent command philosophy that drove operations in Anbar from March 2004 forward. "
You can see the full exchange between Sens. Hagel and McCain here:
SEE ALSO: Lieutenant Colonel Davis Says Afghan Mission Is Failing Because 'Success' Of Iraq Surge Was Luck
SEE ALSO: The Military & Defense Facebook page for updates >


text:
While running a simulated annealing program, lowering the simulated temperature too slowly will make the CPU temperature rise too much. That's thermodynamics.
The other lesson in here, particularly for systems engineers, is: "The system always kicks back". (Paraphrased from John Gall's satirical takedown of systems-thinking in his three Systemantics books, which are a little over the top but nevertheless recommended).


text:
Welcome to a nurturing environment
where opportunities are endless and success is a natural consequence.
Our experience at Kiddie Country has been exceptional. We have had several children who have gone through the school and we couldn't be more pleased. We just attended the annual Spring Program and it was fantastic. We are still amazed every time we see the preschoolers get up and perform on stage. It was a fun event and the music director included the entire audience. Nice school, degreed teachers, and very organized.
View all testimonials
for 2-6 year olds with extended daycare available
for Kindergarten-6th graders at Cherry Run, White Oaks, Orange Hunt, Terra Centre, Hunt Valley, Fairview, and Sangster Elementary Schools
for rising 1st-7th graders
with bachelor's or advanced degrees and highly trained assistants
recognized community-wide for outstanding excellence
with outdoor swimming pools & spacious, shaded playgrounds
Accredited by the National Accreditation Commission for Early Care and Education Programs
Licensed by the Virginia Department of Social Services
We are a Virginia Quality Rated school
Kiddie Country is a state licensed, accredited school designed to provide a complete, happy, and safe learning environment in harmony with the needs of the families we serve. Our facility is based in Burke, Virginia and won a prestigious design award.
Research shows that a child's environment has an enormous impact on his or her development. Be a discerning parent: explore and evaluate your options and accept nothing but the best for your child. Preview Kiddie Country's exceptional programs, and you will be introduced to an inviting, innovative learning atmosphere that personifies Quality, Commitment, and Caring.
Quality in our programs, facility, and faculty. Commitment from our staff to the children, families, and community we serve. Caring by loving professionals who offer warmth, nurturing, and expertise.


text:
All Vacuum Cleaners
The vivid range of Euroclean and Forbes vacuum cleaners with deep cleaning technology add a new look and feel to your living space. The vacuum cleaners clean both wet and dry surfaces of your indoor, outdoor and car and are priced between MRP ₹2499.00 -MRP ₹23990.00.
Best Seller
Euroclean WD X2 Vacuum CleanerMRP ₹15,290.00


text: Jim Jordan Fine Art ArtistJim has been painting for forty years. He has had six one-man shows and has exhibited in numerous juried shows. An oil painter first, Jim also paints with acrylics.Wildlife, Landscapes, Floral and Seascapes are the main topics for Jim's paintings. He especially loves working in the impressionistic style, creating subtle shadows and highlights by contrasting lights with darks.Most of my paintings can be viewed at Can be viewed at 203 Gallery.203 W. Second St.Casa Grande firstname.lastname@example.com://gallery203.weebly.com/


text:
Ta-da! It's Tuesday. Every Tuesday, I reveal a new area or room in our home. Since we've just moved in, for now I'm just experimenting with what I'd like to do to improve it or decorate it. Eventually, I'll show off before and afters. (Can't wait!) But for now, it's just the "before" and an explanation of what I'd like to see happen in the near future.
Today's tour is of one of my favorite rooms in the house. I love, love, love the paint color. Our bedroom has a high ceiling, gray-blue walls, and white accents. I'm working on adding artwork, prints, and pictures on the walls, but for now I've just been trying to get it organized. I think I'm almost there!


text:
Bow Wow Hangs Up The Mic: Wants To Pursue Acting & His Clothing Line: "I Want To Close A Chapter In The Bow Wow Legacy. Everybody Is Flopping. Stop Worrying About Sales. Its All About Being Big On The Internet"
Bow Wow lets it be known his first album only sold 30K in the first week
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.


text:
WOLSTAT: Raptors could sure use a Siakam bounce-back to win NBA title
OAKLAND — The Toronto Raptors don't necessarily need Pascal Siakam to return to form to win the NBA title as soon as tonight, but it sure wouldn't hurt their cause if the big man does.
Siakam has missed 12 straight three-point attempts since hitting 2-of-3 in Toronto's surprising series-opening victory against Golden State. Siakam went an eye-opening 14-of-17 from the field that night for a post-season best 32 points.
He doesn't need to be nearly that good, but he has to be a threat, someone the Warriors must at least consider getting out with some urgency to guard.
Siakam has shot 50.4% from the field and 33.3% from beyond the arc in Toronto's 15 playoff wins this season, vs. only 40.1 and 15.8 in the eight losses.
With the Raptors potentially on the cusp of history, Siakam, who will surely be named the NBA's most improved player later this month, is aware of what he has to do.
"I think I'm getting decent looks. I'm getting open looks," Siakam told the Toronto Sun on Wednesday. "I haven't been able to make them, but I think I'm getting the shots that I want to most of the time. I've just got to be able to knock them down and continue being aggressive and finding ways to be effective," he said.
Earlier in his scrum, Siakam had been asked how he was doing, given this is his first time going through all of this.
"I'm feeling great. I'm feeling like I'm on the highest stage and a lot of people dream to be at this level," Siakam said. "To be able to play still, it's an amazing feeling just being here and having the chance to compete for a championship."
Siakam ran wild over both Orlando in Milwaukee in series-clinching games and in Game 7 against Milwaukee was quiet offensively but hauled in crucial rebounds.
The struggling forward was yanked three minutes into the fourth quarter of Game 5. Expect to see a lot more of him come Thursday.
Even into the second quarter of Game 5 it looked like former all-NBA centre DeMarcus Cousins might not even get into the game.
Kevin Durant's return had allowed the Warriors to reconstitute the 'Death Lineup' for the first time since he got hurt, which meant starting Draymond Green at centre.
With Kevon Looney, Andrew Bogut and Jordan Bell also available, Cousins appeared to be out of the picture because of his defensive limitations.
But when Durant got hurt again early in the second quarter, Cousins got the nod and made a huge impact. The big man scored nine points and collected five rebounds in six minutes and also had a steal and a block on a Kawhi Leonard attempt.
Cousins said he used "a lot of (unspecified) things that transpired over the past couple of days" as motivation to make a huge impact.
Cousins also said Durant's injury and the brotherhood on the team was "bigger than basketball."
Cousins has had an up-and-down series, starring at times, getting played off of the floor at others.
Just like Siakam for Toronto, Cousins will be needed in Game 6 by the Warriors.
Regardless of who wins the game, Thursday's pivotal contest will be the final NBA game held at Oracle Arena.
For 30 years following its 1966 opening, the building was known as the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum. The Warriors started playing there in the 1971-72 season, won an NBA title behind Rick Barry in 1975 (though at the Cow Palace, because the Coliseum had been unavailable), were bad for a long time, had Run-TMC (Tim Hardaway, Mitch Richmond and Chris Mullion) and Latrell Sprewell star there, housed the We Believe Warriors and now, one of the league's great dynasties.
But all good things come to an end, as they say, and the Warriors will be playing in the state-of-the-art Chase Center in San Francisco starting next season.
So, Thursday will be one to remember, whatever happens.
"It will be an emotional night," Cousins said. "Last game in Oracle, so I'm sure the fans will be fully engaged and there's going to be a lot of emotions and a lot of passion in the building, so it's going to be an epic night for sure," he said.
Klay Thompson and Stephen Curry took the podium together and weighed in on the historic moment.
"We're just thinking about enjoying this last show at Oracle we're about to give our fans. And I expect our fans to be the loudest they have ever been, especially in the name of Kevin and bringing his type of spirit he would bring to the fight and the competitiveness," Thompson said.
"I know our fans will do that because we deserve it, but more importantly Kevin does for what he gave this team, this organization. There wouldn't be banners (other than the one won before he was on this team or the 1975 team) if it wasn't for his presence. So we expect our crowd to be loud for him."
One thing that has been quite odd in this series is the fact the road team has won every game except the opener.
"It's been pretty weird. It's usually tougher to win on the road, but usually you kind of play better at home," Cousins said. "But that's not really been the case for either team. So hopefully we change that tomorrow."
According to multiple reports, New Orleans is talking with the Los Angeles Lakers and Boston Celtics about separate offers for superstar big man Anthony Davis.
ESPN reported that the Lakers and Pelicans are canvassing other teams to find one that would send New Orleans a good player in exchange for the fourth pick of this year's draft, which the Lakers own.
That report had the Lakers willing to include former No. 2 picks Brandon Ingram and Lonzo Ball, but not forward Kyle Kuzma. Los Angeles is believed to be the preferred destination for Davis.
Boston hopes all-star point guard Kyrie Irving would re-consider leaving Boston if it could acquire Davis.
Portland's Damian Lillard has won the J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award for outstanding service and dedication to the community. The finalists were chosen by a committee of 25 Pro Basketball Writer's Association members from a list of 27 nominees submitted by NBA teams. Ex-Raptor Bismack Biyombo was one of the five finalists … Cleveland is making history by hiring Lindsay Gottlieb away from University of California, Berkley to join John Belein's staff with the Cavaliers. Gottlieb is the first women's collegiate head coach recruited to an NBA staff. ESPN reported Gottlieb signed a four-year deal … Raptors head coach Nick Nurse on the situation Toronto finds itself in and whether he regrets what happened in Game 5: "I expect this one to be a long series. I'm not sitting here trying to think we should be this, be that, but if you would have probably told me at the start of this thing if we could fast-forward to a 3-2 lead, you want to take it? I would probably say yes," Nurse said.
It was quite a moving moment when Andre Iguodala and Stephen Curry went with Kevin Durant back to Golden State's locker room after Durant's Game 5 injury.
Iguodala helped stabilize his long-time teammate, while Curry hung back in support.
"Sometimes the spirit tells you what to do," Curry said when asked why he left the game to do that. Iguodala tried to go in a philosophical direction.
"I've always said how I feel about my teammates. It's more than basketball. But no one wants to understand that part. They only care about the game. It's hard for me to express because nobody respects it," Iguodala said.
"It's just like being a human being. It goes so much further than basketball. I always say that. It might sound cliché or sound so simple, but it's so much deeper than playing basketball for money and all that goes into the machine. We're really in a fantasy world and it takes away from you having feelings or expressing yourself as far as being a human being. It's simple to me."
Iguodala said it was tough to see anyone go down, not just a player as great as Durant, because of the brotherhood the Warriors have built-in getting closer because of all of the hate directed toward the superteam.
How do they rally around Durant the way they want to?
"I don't know. I mean, it's going to be a rough go in terms of just trying to recalibrate," Curry said. "We have been, up until this point, it's been about our hope that he could play and our hope to stay alive in this series, the emotional roller-coaster what (Game 5) was … We're going to have to will ourselves for another 48 minutes to stay alive. And whatever it's going to take from every single guy in our jersey."
It's pretty hard to win an NBA game, let alone an NBA Finals game, if you are outscored 60-24 from three-point range the way Toronto was on Tuesday by Golden State.
The Warriors splashed in 20 treys on torrid 47.6% shooting, while the Raptors went 8-for-32 (25%) but a spectacularly awful 3-for-23 when Fred VanVleet and Marc Gasol's work is taken out of the equation.
The Warriors started off with five three-point makes in a row (after only getting to five made three-pointers in the previous game in the third quarter) and the team nailed five more in the final quarter, including memorable ones from Stephen Curry and Klay Thompson, perhaps the two best shooters of all time.
"We've got to do a better job of staying on their body and do a better job of pressuring the ball," Marc Gasol said.
"We've got to do a better job of communicating defensively at the end. Both guys came out pretty open on those two plays."
Kyle Lowry added: "We just missed some shots and they did what they were supposed to do."
There will likely be some regression both ways in Game 6. Toronto had never allowed that many three-pointers in a playoff game before and had only twice surrendered that many in the regular season and the team had been shooting closer to 40% from beyond the arc in the series before the letdown.
Golden State has made 12 more three-pointers than Toronto, which is the second-biggest difference in NBA Finals history. But now the team will have to figure out how to keep filling up the nets without Kevin Durant, who made all three of his attempts before getting injured.
Still, the Warriors remain a threat.
"Those guys are so dangerous that once you slip up and make mistakes they will make you pay," Fred VanVleet said on Wednesday.
"So just got to stay locked into the game plan and really perform at a high level. And takes a lot to beat them and you got to play really well to get the job done and we know that going forward."


text:
MARCOM – Rigging Safety
Course Description:
MARCOM's Rigging Safety course is designed to remind employees that more than 90% of crane-related accidents are caused by human error—and that they are the key to preventing these incidents.
Course Duration: 30 minutes
Why "MARCOM – Rigging Safety" Matters:
We know keeping your workers safe and your organization in compliance are your top priorities. MARCOM's all-new safety training libraries can help!
Key Points:
Using a powerful combination of audio, full-motion video, text, and colorful graphics, this course provides the most cost-effective safety and regulatory compliance training available today. It's divided into a number of logical sections so information is easily understood and retained.


text:
Whenever three or more contrarians are gathered together, one will inevitably claim that water vapour is being unjustly neglected by 'IPCC' scientists. "Why isn't water vapour acknowledged as a greenhouse gas?", "Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases since water vapour is 98% of the effect?", "Why isn't water vapour included in climate models?", "Why isn't included on the forcings bar charts?" etc. Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing. From personal experience, I am aware that these distinctions are not clear to many, and so here is a more in-depth response (see also this other attempt).
First some basics. Long-wave (or thermal) radiation is emitted from the surface of the planet and is largely absorbed in the atmosphere. Water vapour is the principle absorber of this radiation (and acknowledged as such by everybody). But exactly how important is it? In terms of mass, water vapour is much more prevalent (about 0.3% of atmospheric mass, compared to about 0.06% for CO2), and so is ~80% of all greenhouse gases by mass (~90% by volume). However, the radiative importance is less (since all molecules are not created equal). One way to quantify this is to take a radiation model and remove each long-wave absorber (principally the greenhouse gases, but also clouds and aerosols) and see what difference it makes to the amount of long-wave absorbed. This gives the minimum effect from each component. The complementary calculation, using only each particular absorber in turn, gives the maximum effect. Generally these will not be equal because of overlaps in the absorbing spectra (i.e. radiation at a particular frequency can either be absorbed by water vapour or CO2).
|Removed absorbers
|Fraction LW
|Rad. Forcing
|Tropo. (W/m2)
|Other GHG
|All except H2O+Clouds
|All except H2O
|All except CO2
|All except O3
|All except Other GHG
|Instant calculation, global mean, Jan. 1, 1979
|RC78=Ramanathan and Coakley (1978)
|'All' includes aerosols, O3 and other minor gases as additional absorbers.
The table shows the instantaneous change in long-wave aborption when each component or combination of components is removed using the radiation code from the GISS GCM. (The source code is available for those who have the patience to get it to work). This isn't a perfect calculation but it's quick and easy and is close enough to the right answer for our purposes. (N.B. This is very similar to what was done by Ramanathan and Coakley (1978) using a single column model – their numbers are in the table for reference). [Update Oct 2010:The numbers in this post have been somewhat updated and published in Schmidt et al (2010). ]. Because of the overlaps, the combined changes are larger than the changes due to each individual component. Another calculation is the instantaneous radiative forcing at the tropopause, but that is complicated for clouds, O3 and Aerosols which have impacts on solar radiation as well as the long wave, so I only give that value for the 'pure' greenhouse gases.
The overlaps complicate things, but it's clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively. The remainders and uncertainties are associated with the overlaps which could be attributed in various ways that I'm not going to bother with here. Making some allowance (+/-5%) for the crudeness of my calculation, the maximum supportable number for the importance of water vapour alone is about 60-70% and for water plus clouds 80-90% of the present day greenhouse effect. (Of course, using the same approach, the maximum supportable number for CO2 is 20-30%, and since that adds up to more than 100%, there is a slight problem with such estimates!).
Since we are looking at the whole of the present-day greenhouse effect (around 33 C), it is not surprising that the radiative forcings are very large compared to those calculated for the changes in the forcing. The factor of ~2 greater importance for water vapour compared to CO2 is consistent with the first calculation.
So where does the oft quoted "98%" number come from? This proves to be a little difficult to track down. Richard Lindzen quoted it from the IPCC (1990) report in a 1991 QJRMS review* as being the effect of water vapour and stratiform clouds alone, with CO2 being less than 2%. However, after some fruitless searching I cannot find anything in the report to justify that (anyone?). The calculations here (and from other investigators) do not support such a large number and I find it particularly odd that Lindzen's estimate does not appear to allow for any overlap.
While water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas, the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days). To demonstrate how quickly water reacts, I did a GCM experiment where I removed all the water in the atmosphere and waited to see how quickly it would fill up again (through evaporation from the ocean) . The result is shown in the figure. It's not a very exciting graph because the atmosphere fills up very quickly. At Day 0 there is zero water, but after only 14 days, the water is back to 90% of its normal value, and after 50 days it's back to within 1%. That's less than 3 months. Compared to the residence time for perturbations to CO2 (decades to centuries) or CH4 (a decade), this is a really short time.
Only the stratosphere is dry enough and with a long enough residence time (a few years) for the small anthropogenic inputs to be important. In this case (and in this case only) those additions can be considered a forcing. Oxidation of anthropogenic methane (which is a major source of stratospheric water) and, conceviably, direct deposition of water from increases in aircraft in the lower stratosphere, can increase stratospheric water and since that gives a radiative forcing effect, they do appear on the forcings bar chart (under "H2O from CH4"). Some scientists have argued that changes to irrigation and other land use changes (which effect evaporation) are also direct forcings to water vapour amounts, but I think it's cleaner to think of that as an indirect water vapour response to the change.
When surface temperatures change (whether from CO2 or solar forcing or volcanos etc.), you can therefore expect water vapour to adjust quickly to reflect that. To first approximation, the water vapour adjusts to maintain constant relative humidity. It's important to point out that this is a result of the models, not a built-in assumption. Since approximately constant relative humidity implies an increase in specific humidity for an increase in air temperatures, the total amount of water vapour will increase adding to the greenhouse trapping of long-wave radiation. This is the famed 'water vapour feedback'. A closer look reveals that for a warming (in the GISS model at least) relative humidity increases slightly in the tropics, and decreases at mid latitudes.
How do we know that the magnitude of this feedback is correctly simulated? A good test case is the response to the Pinatubo eruption. This caused cooling for up to 3 years after the eruption – plenty of time for water vapour to equilibriate to the cooler sea surface temperatures. Thus if models can simulate the observed decrease of water vapour at this time, it would be a good sign that they are basically correct. A good paper that demonstrated this was Soden et al (2002) (and the accompanying comment by Tony DelGenio). They found that using the observed volcanic aerosols as forcing the model produced very similar cooling to that observed. Moreover, the water vapour in the total column and in the upper troposphere decreased in line with satellite observations, and helped to increase the cooling by about 60% – in line with projections for increasing greenhouse gases.
To be sure there are still some lingering uncertainties. Some recent data indicates that tropical upper tropopsheric water vapour does not quite keep up with constant relative humidity (Minschwaner and Dessler, 2004) (though they still found that the feedback was positive). Moist convection schemes in models are constantly being refined, and it's possible that newer schemes will change things . However, given the Pinatubo results, the models are probably getting the broader picture reasonably correct.
*R.S. Lindzen, 1991. Quart. J. Roy. Met. Soc., 117, pp. 651-652


text:
|laziness, impatience, and hubris
Re^3: Fork Results in thousands of processesby sundialsvc4 (Abbot)
|on Nov 30, 2011 at 03:38 UTC ( #940762=note: print w/replies, xml )
|Need Help??
The two comments are obviously not intended to be so closely related, mine unintended enemy, as anyone who is not "mine unintended enemy" would very plainly understand. (Do you downvote my posts both as yourself and using some sock-puppet account? Just curious.)
There are two very-valid points contained in the aforementioned reply:
What, then, is "the point?" Easy. At first, you approach this language with the notion that "I have to write this." Then, you discover that, thanks to CPAN, you don't "have to write this." You do not have to stumble-around with code that is literally a take-off of Unix fork() when there is, perhaps unbeknownst to you, a package like Parallel::ForkManager at your beck and call. That's huge. But not obvious.
Quite frankly, good sir, your ongoing determination to conduct a vendetta against me clouds your own vision. I think that even "newbies" are likely to be professional computer programmers who are very able indeed to know when a particular package, cited only as a "for instance," is or is not appropriate to their particular project. Yeah, I'll just betcha that they do know that "threads and processes play by different rules in most operating systems," without either you or I having any moral obligation to educate them concerning this point. So perhaps we should all simply trust the newbies on that score, as peculiar as that thought may initially seem. I will wager that neither you nor I are, in fact, "the smartest kids in this school." And, yeah, I am perfectly aware that you have earned many times more experience-points than have I, so I am not presuming that this discussion is "among equals."
In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom


text:
5 's
Check out now. Fast, Easy, Secure Checkout.
Color: Purple
Thank you for checking out my shop!
If you have any questions please email me directly or contact me via the blue contact seller link!
After 2 weeks your items will automatically renewed for another 60 days and $0.23 per item will be added to your billing ledger.
While you were away our TOU was updated,
read the terms of use here.
*No action is required on your part.


text:
We operate in more than 50 countries around the world. If your country is not on the list, please refer to our global contacts.
ISS is a leading global provider of facility services, offering services on an international scale with leveraged knowledge and experience.
Read our latest press releases and visit our image library for downloads.
See a world of opportunities or learn what it's like being a part of ISS
Founded in 1901, ISS has grown significantly with presence worldwide and remarkable revenues and margins.
We put great effort into understanding our customers' needs. We believe that facilities operational plans, objectives and targets have to be directly driven by customer needs.
Amanda Pistor
Communications Director- ISS North America
1019 Central Parkway North, Suite 100
San Antonio, Texas 78232
phone: 210.627.5868
email: firstname.lastname@example.com
ISS Facility Services, Inc.
1017 Central Parkway North, Suite 100
San Antonio, Texas 78232
Phone: 210.495.6021