"I note that you have constructed a definition which excludes the USA from being defined as a terrorist, which it is not if you eliminate the word civilian (since the average dude in the US isn't the one terrorizing whole nations.)"
TERRORISM noun1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
The point is: terrorism is an attempt to intimidate or coerce, for a particular purpose, usually political. But the key concept there is violence in order to "intimidate" or "coerce". In other words: to try to get people to do something by threatening ("terrorizing") them. Simply killing people, even a lot of people, is not terrorism. It has to be intended to intimidate or coerce, for a particular purpose, before it becomes terrorism.
I realize I'm probably preaching to the choir here.
But there is something the dictionary left out, as you implied. Terrorism is usually defined as relatively small or radical groups engaging in that activity. Not whole or especially large governments.
And I don't think it's valid to make that distinction.
"If you are saying Democrats and Republicans are equally bad, I don't agree."
I didn't really expect you to agree.
I'm not necessarily saying they're equally bad. But in my opinion they are approximately equally bad, plus or minus a little in any given year.
As for the rest: I won't argue with you. I am well aware of the shortcomings of the Republican party. They are many. But you don't seem to be aware of the similarly serious (but different) shortcomings of the Democrat party. And I am not about to get into an argument about them here today.
So maybe not equally bad. But close enough that I do not favor one over the other. Instead I reject them both, approximately equally.
"No threats or demands are needed, mass murder does just fine as justification for labeling as a terrorist."
Actually, yes they are. Because that's what the definition of a terrorist is, as opposed to just a mass murderer or revenge killer. Seriously. Look it up in a dictionary.
Having said that, though, I just found out that there is evidence that he was a radical Islamist, so terrorism might actually have been his motive.
I just wanted some evidence for it, that's all. Gotta keep the record straight.
"Yes, but I would put it differently. Not fewer planks, instead make a very few "major" and have the rest be "minor". "
I'd buy that, as long as all the planks are based around the same set of core principles.
"The Justice Party sounds very leftist. Combines the Pirates, Greens, and Socialists into one big tent."
Yes, kind of sounds like it.
"The Democrats have shifted so far to the right that calling them the left is sad. "
Only in some ways. Many of the major "defining" characteristics of the modern Left have still been there: big government, Nanny State, tax and spend, gun control (I guess that falls under Nanny State), breeding of Copyright Trolls (though that one has been about as Right as Left lately).
"The Republicans have responded by shifting so far to the right, to stay to the right of the Democrats, that they're about to fall off the political spectrum"
Wow. I would sure disagree with that. For the most part, I would say they have been moving Left: they've largely embraced Big Government and taxation, and hell, some of them were even supporting gun control. As irrational as that is in today's America, with per-capita crime (including gun crime, school and mass shootings) down 50% from just 20 years ago, all while per-capita gun ownership was going up, and concealed carry actually skyrocketing in the same period.
"People who appreciate competence can't be too thrilled with the Republicans these days."
I would very definitely say that was true of BOTH of the "Big 2" parties.
"I don't think planks is the problem as much as eloquence."
I do. When party positions do not have a small, articulable core of principles that everything else revolves around, then they really don't stand for anything.
Having said that, I agree that if you can't articulate those core principles, you're wasting everybody's time.
"Perhaps the best chance is hope the Republicans really do collapse and implode."
Again, I would say that of BOTH of the Big 2 parties.
But aside from all that: this kind of reminds me of the Constitution Party. On the face of it, they are staunch Constitutionalists... except that they believe this is a Christian nation, and that our government was based on Christian principles, and that it is perfectly okay to willy-nilly inject Christianity into government, the Hell with any Constitutional restrictions on same. Which is a self-contradiction. Kind of what I was getting at. Sure, they basically have two core principles (religion and the Constitution), but those are necessarily mutually exclusive according to the same Constitution. That is to say: the government here is prohibited from running religion, and religion is prohibited from running government.
So then, you're saying that after 12 years of prior development, Sun should have fixed all possible Java vulnerabilities in the 3 years prior to Java being released as Open Source. Before most of the vulnerabilities we know about today were even discovered.
I think that's pretty funny. But you're entitled to your opinion.
"Yes, damn auto-correct. If you don't like having words put in your mouth, use spell-check instead."
I would tend to agree, but my system auto-correct pops up at the damnedest times, and I don't always notice. And I can't just turn it off for one thing and not another... it's system-wide.
I could just turn it off entirely, but it is useful now and then.
I should qualify a statement I made above. Certainly, the amount of money IN active circulation was closely tied to bank reserves. But again: I was referring to money available for circulation. Today the Fed tries to control the money being circulated, but it has very little control over the total amount of money available for circulation. It mostly adjusts how easy it is to get your hands on it, by manipulating the interest rate. But that's not the same thing.
And this is one of the major points I was getting at: under the gold standard, the amount of money available -- that is, the TOTAL money supply -- was relatively fixed, compared to today. I was not arguing about the money in active circulation, or the ease of borrowing. Those are different subjects.
"Just as the amount of physical currency is a small factor in the money supply, the money supply is a (usually) small factor in the amount of money "in circulation". (I say "usually" because it will still dominate at the extremes, something the Fed seems blind to right now.)"
But that's TODAY. And I repeat again: I was talking about the economy under a gold standard. It did not work the same as today. For example, under the gold standard the amount of physical currency was NOT a small factor in the money supply. Essentially it WAS the money supply. Except for some variance due to fractional reserve, but the reserves were far higher, so that variance was FAR smaller than today.
Security was important then. But not as important. Nobody considered security to be such a big issue then. Hell, even Microsoft didn't... which is why IE was so full of holes.
But it wasn't as much of an issue because a lot fewer people were actively hunting for vulnerabilities, and a lot fewer vulnerabilities had been found. As you say: "there weren't mainstream exploits being found in Java". Yes there were, just not nearly as many. Nor were there nearly as many people trying to find them.
"Sun should have realized this a long time ago and fixed these security issues before they got into the news."
Now, that's just plain a dumb thing to say. First, as I say, it wasn't as important at the time. As you tacitly acknowledged in that quote I gave above. Second, how are they supposed to fix issues before they are found? Do you think the writers of early Java anticipated the extensive use it would get on the Web? Of course they didn't... there wasn't even a Web then.
So, first you are making sarcastic remarks to me about how long ago Oracle should have fixed exploits that weren't even known then... then you try to tell me that Sun should have fixed exploits that THEY didn't know existed? WTF?
Man, if you're a manufacturer of dune buggies, you aren't going to anticipate "bugs" that show up if people start using them in mud pit rallies. That just isn't what it was originally designed for, and a lot of problems will crop up that you could not have foreseen. Same with Java and the Web.
"To the best of my knowledge, the practice of fractional reserve banking is as older than representational (as opposed to specie) currency, at least in Western culture."
I already addressed fractional reserve. Repeat: it still existed, but it was restricted a lot more then than now. That was pretty much the sole major exception to a fixed amount of dollars.
"Regardless of the physical currency, the reserve requirement for fractional reserve banking dominated the money supply in modern times."
What do you mean by "modern times"? If you're talking about after 1934, then sure. But we didn't have a gold standard after 1934, did we?
If you're talking about prior to 1913, you're just plain wrong. See the chart I linked to way back further up in this thread.
"I don't think there was ever a time when all "gold standard" US dollars--both in circulation and in all bank accounts--were matched by equivalent physical gold in bank vaults."
Jesus Christ. You haven't paid attention to anything I actually wrote, did you? I already wrote that this was the case. So who are you arguing with? The gold standard required a certain percentage reserve. But it wasn't 100%. DUH. If it was 100%, then fractional reserve banking would not have been possible, would it? Do you think you're lecturing a 3rd grader? Not only do I know these things, I wrote as much myself yesterday. Try reading some time.
"You're missing my other point: the money "in circulation" (and its effect on inflation, which is the point of all this) depends as much on people's willingness to spend or loan money as it does the overall size of the pool of money."
I didn't miss that point. It simply has nothing to do with what I was talking about. You are using "in circulation" different from the way I was using it. You are using it to mean "actively circulating". I was using it to mean "dollars available for circulation". There's quite a difference.
"Hell, even just serving adult beverages and snacks would be awesome."
Well, snacks are already pretty common, but you have my vote on the "adult beverages".
If they can have dinner theaters and serve drinks, why not cocktails in the movie houses? It would probably be a lot healthier for you than the syrupy coke they currently serve. Unless you're mixing with coke I suppose.
You're comparing apples and oranges. First, security was less of an issue back when Sun was the "legal guardian" of Java. Second, it was also more of a community project then. It was far more open than Oracle has allowed it to be.
I would far rather see a platform based on a small number of solid principles (e.g. the Golden Rule, non-coercion, etc.) than one based on a shitload of tiny little specific planks.
Nonsense. Take a look at patent regulations. 2 major rules are: (A) it must not be obvious to someone "knowledgeable of the industry", and (B) it cannot be just putting existing inventions together. It must be something unique; more than just the melding of previously known things (e.g., my example of can opener + pliers).
Google made a search engine based on new measurement ideas. That was an invention with a big impact. They also put similar technology behind their translator. A nice improvement, but again translators were around before Google that were already pretty good.
But for most of their OTHER stuff, they've been pretty good at (A) but not so hot at (B), which is the actual "impact on technology" part.
Even Google Translate was not "new", in the sense that others had multi-language translation sites long before them (Prompt for example). But Google DID put new technology behind their translator, and they should get credit for that.
"... immeasurable impact on issues surrounding technology..."
What "immeasurable impact"? Google made a better search engine. Nice, but big deal. What ELSE have they done to "impact technology"? Google+? No. Gmail? No new technology there. Google Docs? They bought it, they didn't invent it. Google Apps? Others did similar things, they just weren't as big. Google Earth? Microsoft beat them to it by quite a few years. Google Maps? An incremental improvement in existing technology. (Google Earth + GIS.) Adsense? An extension of existing technology.
I will grant that Google Translate was something new. But most of Google's "technology" is about as much invention as somebody who welds a can opener to a pair of pliers: it might not be an obvious thing to do but it's hardly "new technology".
Slashdot Mirror
"I note that you have constructed a definition which excludes the USA from being defined as a terrorist, which it is not if you eliminate the word civilian (since the average dude in the US isn't the one terrorizing whole nations.)"
I looked it up on dictionary.com:
TERRORISM noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
The point is: terrorism is an attempt to intimidate or coerce, for a particular purpose, usually political. But the key concept there is violence in order to "intimidate" or "coerce". In other words: to try to get people to do something by threatening ("terrorizing") them. Simply killing people, even a lot of people, is not terrorism. It has to be intended to intimidate or coerce, for a particular purpose, before it becomes terrorism.
I realize I'm probably preaching to the choir here.
But there is something the dictionary left out, as you implied. Terrorism is usually defined as relatively small or radical groups engaging in that activity. Not whole or especially large governments.
And I don't think it's valid to make that distinction.
"If you are saying Democrats and Republicans are equally bad, I don't agree."
I didn't really expect you to agree.
I'm not necessarily saying they're equally bad. But in my opinion they are approximately equally bad, plus or minus a little in any given year.
As for the rest: I won't argue with you. I am well aware of the shortcomings of the Republican party. They are many. But you don't seem to be aware of the similarly serious (but different) shortcomings of the Democrat party. And I am not about to get into an argument about them here today.
So maybe not equally bad. But close enough that I do not favor one over the other. Instead I reject them both, approximately equally.
"No threats or demands are needed, mass murder does just fine as justification for labeling as a terrorist."
Actually, yes they are. Because that's what the definition of a terrorist is, as opposed to just a mass murderer or revenge killer. Seriously. Look it up in a dictionary.
Having said that, though, I just found out that there is evidence that he was a radical Islamist, so terrorism might actually have been his motive.
I just wanted some evidence for it, that's all. Gotta keep the record straight.
Once again: I did not claim that security was not an issue. What I wrote was that it was not as much of an issue.
"Yes, but I would put it differently. Not fewer planks, instead make a very few "major" and have the rest be "minor". "
I'd buy that, as long as all the planks are based around the same set of core principles.
"The Justice Party sounds very leftist. Combines the Pirates, Greens, and Socialists into one big tent."
Yes, kind of sounds like it.
"The Democrats have shifted so far to the right that calling them the left is sad. "
Only in some ways. Many of the major "defining" characteristics of the modern Left have still been there: big government, Nanny State, tax and spend, gun control (I guess that falls under Nanny State), breeding of Copyright Trolls (though that one has been about as Right as Left lately).
"The Republicans have responded by shifting so far to the right, to stay to the right of the Democrats, that they're about to fall off the political spectrum"
Wow. I would sure disagree with that. For the most part, I would say they have been moving Left: they've largely embraced Big Government and taxation, and hell, some of them were even supporting gun control. As irrational as that is in today's America, with per-capita crime (including gun crime, school and mass shootings) down 50% from just 20 years ago, all while per-capita gun ownership was going up, and concealed carry actually skyrocketing in the same period.
"People who appreciate competence can't be too thrilled with the Republicans these days."
I would very definitely say that was true of BOTH of the "Big 2" parties.
"I don't think planks is the problem as much as eloquence."
I do. When party positions do not have a small, articulable core of principles that everything else revolves around, then they really don't stand for anything.
Having said that, I agree that if you can't articulate those core principles, you're wasting everybody's time.
"Perhaps the best chance is hope the Republicans really do collapse and implode."
Again, I would say that of BOTH of the Big 2 parties.
But aside from all that: this kind of reminds me of the Constitution Party. On the face of it, they are staunch Constitutionalists... except that they believe this is a Christian nation, and that our government was based on Christian principles, and that it is perfectly okay to willy-nilly inject Christianity into government, the Hell with any Constitutional restrictions on same. Which is a self-contradiction. Kind of what I was getting at. Sure, they basically have two core principles (religion and the Constitution), but those are necessarily mutually exclusive according to the same Constitution. That is to say: the government here is prohibited from running religion, and religion is prohibited from running government.
So then, you're saying that after 12 years of prior development, Sun should have fixed all possible Java vulnerabilities in the 3 years prior to Java being released as Open Source. Before most of the vulnerabilities we know about today were even discovered.
I think that's pretty funny. But you're entitled to your opinion.
"Most terrorist trials have been in NY's southern district."
First you would have to establish that he was a actually a "terrorist".
I didn't hear about any threats or demands. So it looks so far like he's a mass murderer, but not a terrorist.
"That actually sounds interesting..."
No, no no. It's "Nieu Moore". Michael's having a fat little baby.
"Yes, damn auto-correct. If you don't like having words put in your mouth, use spell-check instead."
I would tend to agree, but my system auto-correct pops up at the damnedest times, and I don't always notice. And I can't just turn it off for one thing and not another... it's system-wide.
I could just turn it off entirely, but it is useful now and then.
And this is one of the major points I was getting at: under the gold standard, the amount of money available -- that is, the TOTAL money supply -- was relatively fixed, compared to today. I was not arguing about the money in active circulation, or the ease of borrowing. Those are different subjects.
"Just as the amount of physical currency is a small factor in the money supply, the money supply is a (usually) small factor in the amount of money "in circulation". (I say "usually" because it will still dominate at the extremes, something the Fed seems blind to right now.)"
But that's TODAY. And I repeat again: I was talking about the economy under a gold standard. It did not work the same as today. For example, under the gold standard the amount of physical currency was NOT a small factor in the money supply. Essentially it WAS the money supply. Except for some variance due to fractional reserve, but the reserves were far higher, so that variance was FAR smaller than today.
Security was important then. But not as important. Nobody considered security to be such a big issue then. Hell, even Microsoft didn't... which is why IE was so full of holes.
But it wasn't as much of an issue because a lot fewer people were actively hunting for vulnerabilities, and a lot fewer vulnerabilities had been found. As you say: "there weren't mainstream exploits being found in Java". Yes there were, just not nearly as many. Nor were there nearly as many people trying to find them.
"Sun should have realized this a long time ago and fixed these security issues before they got into the news."
Now, that's just plain a dumb thing to say. First, as I say, it wasn't as important at the time. As you tacitly acknowledged in that quote I gave above. Second, how are they supposed to fix issues before they are found? Do you think the writers of early Java anticipated the extensive use it would get on the Web? Of course they didn't... there wasn't even a Web then.
So, first you are making sarcastic remarks to me about how long ago Oracle should have fixed exploits that weren't even known then... then you try to tell me that Sun should have fixed exploits that THEY didn't know existed? WTF?
Man, if you're a manufacturer of dune buggies, you aren't going to anticipate "bugs" that show up if people start using them in mud pit rallies. That just isn't what it was originally designed for, and a lot of problems will crop up that you could not have foreseen. Same with Java and the Web.
"To the best of my knowledge, the practice of fractional reserve banking is as older than representational (as opposed to specie) currency, at least in Western culture."
I already addressed fractional reserve. Repeat: it still existed, but it was restricted a lot more then than now. That was pretty much the sole major exception to a fixed amount of dollars.
"Regardless of the physical currency, the reserve requirement for fractional reserve banking dominated the money supply in modern times."
What do you mean by "modern times"? If you're talking about after 1934, then sure. But we didn't have a gold standard after 1934, did we?
If you're talking about prior to 1913, you're just plain wrong. See the chart I linked to way back further up in this thread.
"I don't think there was ever a time when all "gold standard" US dollars--both in circulation and in all bank accounts--were matched by equivalent physical gold in bank vaults."
Jesus Christ. You haven't paid attention to anything I actually wrote, did you? I already wrote that this was the case. So who are you arguing with? The gold standard required a certain percentage reserve. But it wasn't 100%. DUH. If it was 100%, then fractional reserve banking would not have been possible, would it? Do you think you're lecturing a 3rd grader? Not only do I know these things, I wrote as much myself yesterday. Try reading some time.
"You're missing my other point: the money "in circulation" (and its effect on inflation, which is the point of all this) depends as much on people's willingness to spend or loan money as it does the overall size of the pool of money."
I didn't miss that point. It simply has nothing to do with what I was talking about. You are using "in circulation" different from the way I was using it. You are using it to mean "actively circulating". I was using it to mean "dollars available for circulation". There's quite a difference.
"Hell, even just serving adult beverages and snacks would be awesome."
Well, snacks are already pretty common, but you have my vote on the "adult beverages".
If they can have dinner theaters and serve drinks, why not cocktails in the movie houses? It would probably be a lot healthier for you than the syrupy coke they currently serve. Unless you're mixing with coke I suppose.
Holy crap. A typo correction modded down as "redundant"? Hey, mystery modder, just how anal retentive can you be, anyway?
I know there are people on Slashdot who don't like me that's just ridiculous.
"And yet, it's not like Sun was any better."
You're comparing apples and oranges. First, security was less of an issue back when Sun was the "legal guardian" of Java. Second, it was also more of a community project then. It was far more open than Oracle has allowed it to be.
I would far rather see a platform based on a small number of solid principles (e.g. the Golden Rule, non-coercion, etc.) than one based on a shitload of tiny little specific planks.
That's kind of like asking "When did you stop beating your wife?"
What I am meant is what I have already stated: Oracle is notorious for being slow to implement security fixes.
"'Immeasurable impact on issues surrounding technology'. Not 'inventions'."
But if that is the criterion, you could say the Creationist Museum has had an "immeasurable impact on technology".
"Then your admonition to "read my name again" seems equally pointless."
???
No, because I have evidence. Apparently you don't.
"By that logic, nothing is ever impressive."
Nonsense. Take a look at patent regulations. 2 major rules are: (A) it must not be obvious to someone "knowledgeable of the industry", and (B) it cannot be just putting existing inventions together. It must be something unique; more than just the melding of previously known things (e.g., my example of can opener + pliers).
Google made a search engine based on new measurement ideas. That was an invention with a big impact. They also put similar technology behind their translator. A nice improvement, but again translators were around before Google that were already pretty good.
But for most of their OTHER stuff, they've been pretty good at (A) but not so hot at (B), which is the actual "impact on technology" part.
Give me a break. I didn't pull this out of my ass. Oracle is notorious in the industry for taking a long time to do security fixes to Java.
"... and the goal is for Oracle Java and OpenJDK to be the same thing."
If that were true, they could accomplish it instantly: simply drop their own fork and go with OpenJDK.
Therefore, it must not be true.
s/Prompt/Promt
Damn you, autocorrect!
I should also qualify that last paragraph.
Even Google Translate was not "new", in the sense that others had multi-language translation sites long before them (Prompt for example). But Google DID put new technology behind their translator, and they should get credit for that.
"... immeasurable impact on issues surrounding technology..."
What "immeasurable impact"? Google made a better search engine. Nice, but big deal. What ELSE have they done to "impact technology"? Google+? No. Gmail? No new technology there. Google Docs? They bought it, they didn't invent it. Google Apps? Others did similar things, they just weren't as big. Google Earth? Microsoft beat them to it by quite a few years. Google Maps? An incremental improvement in existing technology. (Google Earth + GIS.) Adsense? An extension of existing technology.
I will grant that Google Translate was something new. But most of Google's "technology" is about as much invention as somebody who welds a can opener to a pair of pliers: it might not be an obvious thing to do but it's hardly "new technology".