There should be such a law. In fact, I think police officers should be required to be in counseling while in active, non-desk service. For their sake as well as our own: constantly experiencing the underbelly of society can turn anyone into an asshole.
Well now this is all far too complex for someone with no education in law, like myself, to make snap judgments on without reading the story. Thanks for ruining my fun with your facts and your expertise, you elitist bastard.
Interesting. Has there ever been a case requiring the use of new, patented technology before? I mean, if a product was considered safe enough before the technology came out, how could it be considered unsafe afterwords?
This isn't about patents. It's worse. This is classic legislation from the bench. If we want all saws to have this safety feature, we need to pass a law. Otherwise, if you want this safety feature, spend the extra bucks to buy a saw that has it. Hopefully this ludicrous and dangerous precedent will be overturned on appeal.
Ah, power tools. Cheap, don't require a license or even a class to buy or operate, and potentially deadly to the untrained. One of the last bastions holding out against the evil nanny state. Of course, this particular bastion is guarded by a cadre of thumbless idiots, but that just makes it all the funnier for the rest of us.
When we decide that certain items must include certain safety features, we pass a law specifying that. Did anyone ever sue an auto manufacturer who did not include airbags? I don't think so. If we want all saws to have this technology, we need to pass a law, otherwise, this is a horrible blurring of the separation of powers, amounting to legislation from the judiciary.
That being said, I don't think we should pass such a law. Power tool injuries are just too hilarious.
"Whad'ya do there buddy?"
"Oh, I chopped off all of my own fingers with a table saw."
While I agree with much of your post in principle, in this specific case, I'm not sure what you are on about. It sounds as if your reasoning goes like this: "I don't like war. (agreed) War is stupid. (agreed) Therefore, anything with the name war in the title is stupid. (doesn't follow from the premises given) Therefore, cyberwar is a stupid word. (again, doesn't follow) "
What would you call state sponsored infiltration and destruction of computer assets, then? Hacktivism? I mean, here we have an actual military unit designated to do such things. I'm sorry, but I think it is quite descriptive to call such personnel 'cyber-warriors' and what they do 'cyber-war.'
Let's leave a discussion of the morality of war out of it, it has nothing to do with whether this is a valid word.
You are the one who hasn't backed up what they said.
But I must ask again: who do you think is reading this? You write as if you were preaching to your choir, but they aren't listening. It's just you and me down here, buddy, and you aren't convincing anyone of anything.
Contract law can not compel third parties to honor the contract, therefore, it is not like a marriage. And like desegregation, there are some things people should be forced to do. Discrimination is not protected by the constitution, sorry.
Most drug laws were enacted by Nixon, in retaliation against the hated hippie. Show me one conservative governor who has legalized medical marijuana. Oh right, you can't
Creationism is not science. It is not falsifiable, and therefore should not be taught as a science. That's just not up for debate.
Hmm, it's funny. You mention lots of supposed laws the left has enacted, without backing that up with anything but your own say so. Why don't I believe you?
What arms are we allowed to keep and bear? Nukes? Tanks? Fighter planes? We all agree we need to draw a line, we just debate where that line is.
Congress was not controlled by the Democrats when Bush started taking away due process. We only got control in 2006.
No, we have never held people indefinitely without trial. Ever. Habeas corpus, look it up. If they are combatants, they are covered by international convention, and a trial is required. If they are not combatants, a civilian trial is required by the constitution.
And I was right, you do not provide references for most of you wild assertions.
Face it, the right wing are fascists. The left wing are liberators. You right wingers want to keep the status quo, and let the privileged keep or even increase their privilege. You only care about personal responsibility when it is someone else. The left wants an equitable and egalitarian society, but that means the privileged will have less power, and the right wing hates that idea.
Wow, way to illustrate your lack of reading comprehension. Where did I say that Language is studied by English professors? Many linguists are fine people, like Noam Chomsky. That's why I bashed English as a field, not linguistics. Honestly, though, I'm really bashing prescriptivists, who could come from any field. And foolish post modern deconstructionists who can't tell computer generated nonsense from a real paper.
But none of it is a science. Hell, biology is more of a science. It's philosophy, a bunch of clever ideas and hypotheses unrelated to the real world and lacking any sort of rigorous logical structure.
Now the real question is, do I really believe any of that, or am I just trolling the soft sciences? I'm not even sure myself.
"Once DoD went to the extent of saying, 'Soldiers are dying,' because that's ultimately what the command in Iraq, what Centcom did, it's hard for anyone to push back," one former official said.
But some experts counter that dismantling Web sites is ineffective -- no sooner does a site come down than a mirror site pops up somewhere else. Because extremist groups store backup copies of forum information in servers around the world, "you can't really shut down this process for more than 24 or 48 hours," said Evan F. Kohlmann, a terrorism researcher and a consultant to the Nine/Eleven Finding Answers Foundation.
Those quotes summarize why they did it and why it was ineffective. Welcome to the internet, where information never dies.
Bullshit. Same sex marriage? Drug laws? Creationism in schools? The right wants to tell everyone what to do, unless they are rich. Then they can do whatever they want.
The left has not taken away anyone's gun rights as defined in the constitution. Nor the right to free association. It was Bush that put protesters into 'free speech zones.' And Bush that took away people's due process, hell, the right is still screaming that we shouldn't give accused terrorists a fair trial.
So, there's some facts for you to suck on, some actual examples rather than baseless assertions. Bet you can't find any to back up your bullshit.
There's your bias: the article makes it seem Obama's administration is less transparent. I'm not saying they are more, and they should be, but this article is highly biased. Including it as news shows bias, and linking to it on a far right wing site shows extreme bias.
Imagine! The gall of people, smashing two innocent and unrelated words together like that to create a third, wholly unauthorized word. That kind of original thinking and insubordination must be punished. Otherwise, people might catch on that language is created by people, not professors. They might realize that it's all arbitrary, and English is not a science, and barely a legitimate academic discipline at all, but rather the preferred refuge of pompous losers who can't make it in any other field.
Slashdot Mirror
We should have tougher psychological entrance screening, too. A society that lets bullies into its police force isn't safe or free.
So you're saying we're putting the loser dregs of society on our borders to fling poo at random strangers as they pass? Why am I not surprised.
There should be such a law. In fact, I think police officers should be required to be in counseling while in active, non-desk service. For their sake as well as our own: constantly experiencing the underbelly of society can turn anyone into an asshole.
You missed the quote from a Google exec, stating the need to take action, no matter how evil?
Depends on whether you would call the UK circa 1970 a capitalist country or not. The inventor of the relational database was British.
Well now this is all far too complex for someone with no education in law, like myself, to make snap judgments on without reading the story. Thanks for ruining my fun with your facts and your expertise, you elitist bastard.
Interesting. Has there ever been a case requiring the use of new, patented technology before? I mean, if a product was considered safe enough before the technology came out, how could it be considered unsafe afterwords?
This isn't about patents. It's worse. This is classic legislation from the bench. If we want all saws to have this safety feature, we need to pass a law. Otherwise, if you want this safety feature, spend the extra bucks to buy a saw that has it. Hopefully this ludicrous and dangerous precedent will be overturned on appeal.
Ah, power tools. Cheap, don't require a license or even a class to buy or operate, and potentially deadly to the untrained. One of the last bastions holding out against the evil nanny state. Of course, this particular bastion is guarded by a cadre of thumbless idiots, but that just makes it all the funnier for the rest of us.
Stumps up, dude!
When we decide that certain items must include certain safety features, we pass a law specifying that. Did anyone ever sue an auto manufacturer who did not include airbags? I don't think so. If we want all saws to have this technology, we need to pass a law, otherwise, this is a horrible blurring of the separation of powers, amounting to legislation from the judiciary.
That being said, I don't think we should pass such a law. Power tool injuries are just too hilarious.
"Whad'ya do there buddy?"
"Oh, I chopped off all of my own fingers with a table saw."
COMEDY GOLD!
Psychologist?!? Those quacks? Talk about your soft sciences, sheesh. I'll stick with my psychiatrist, thanks. She hands out pills.
The only hard disciplines are math and perhaps physics.
Okay, now I know I'm trolling.
This is fun! Let's see how much more time I can get you to waste.
You aren't convincing anyone of anything. Well, you've convinced me of your ignorance and stupidity, but I was already thoroughly convinced of that.
While I agree with much of your post in principle, in this specific case, I'm not sure what you are on about. It sounds as if your reasoning goes like this: "I don't like war. (agreed) War is stupid. (agreed) Therefore, anything with the name war in the title is stupid. (doesn't follow from the premises given) Therefore, cyberwar is a stupid word. (again, doesn't follow) "
What would you call state sponsored infiltration and destruction of computer assets, then? Hacktivism? I mean, here we have an actual military unit designated to do such things. I'm sorry, but I think it is quite descriptive to call such personnel 'cyber-warriors' and what they do 'cyber-war.'
Let's leave a discussion of the morality of war out of it, it has nothing to do with whether this is a valid word.
Habeas corpus means 'show me the body.' It means prisoners can not be held indefinitely without trial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States
You are the one who hasn't backed up what they said.
But I must ask again: who do you think is reading this? You write as if you were preaching to your choir, but they aren't listening. It's just you and me down here, buddy, and you aren't convincing anyone of anything.
I'm having fun wasting your time, though.
Boring. Who do you think is reading this, anyhow?
Yawn.
Contract law can not compel third parties to honor the contract, therefore, it is not like a marriage. And like desegregation, there are some things people should be forced to do. Discrimination is not protected by the constitution, sorry.
Most drug laws were enacted by Nixon, in retaliation against the hated hippie. Show me one conservative governor who has legalized medical marijuana. Oh right, you can't
Creationism is not science. It is not falsifiable, and therefore should not be taught as a science. That's just not up for debate.
Hmm, it's funny. You mention lots of supposed laws the left has enacted, without backing that up with anything but your own say so. Why don't I believe you?
What arms are we allowed to keep and bear? Nukes? Tanks? Fighter planes? We all agree we need to draw a line, we just debate where that line is.
Congress was not controlled by the Democrats when Bush started taking away due process. We only got control in 2006.
No, we have never held people indefinitely without trial. Ever. Habeas corpus, look it up. If they are combatants, they are covered by international convention, and a trial is required. If they are not combatants, a civilian trial is required by the constitution.
And I was right, you do not provide references for most of you wild assertions.
Face it, the right wing are fascists. The left wing are liberators. You right wingers want to keep the status quo, and let the privileged keep or even increase their privilege. You only care about personal responsibility when it is someone else. The left wants an equitable and egalitarian society, but that means the privileged will have less power, and the right wing hates that idea.
Wow, way to illustrate your lack of reading comprehension. Where did I say that Language is studied by English professors? Many linguists are fine people, like Noam Chomsky. That's why I bashed English as a field, not linguistics. Honestly, though, I'm really bashing prescriptivists, who could come from any field. And foolish post modern deconstructionists who can't tell computer generated nonsense from a real paper.
But none of it is a science. Hell, biology is more of a science. It's philosophy, a bunch of clever ideas and hypotheses unrelated to the real world and lacking any sort of rigorous logical structure.
Now the real question is, do I really believe any of that, or am I just trolling the soft sciences? I'm not even sure myself.
"Once DoD went to the extent of saying, 'Soldiers are dying,' because that's ultimately what the command in Iraq, what Centcom did, it's hard for anyone to push back," one former official said.
But some experts counter that dismantling Web sites is ineffective -- no sooner does a site come down than a mirror site pops up somewhere else. Because extremist groups store backup copies of forum information in servers around the world, "you can't really shut down this process for more than 24 or 48 hours," said Evan F. Kohlmann, a terrorism researcher and a consultant to the Nine/Eleven Finding Answers Foundation.
Those quotes summarize why they did it and why it was ineffective.
Welcome to the internet, where information never dies.
It just, you know, pines for the fjords.
Bullshit. Same sex marriage? Drug laws? Creationism in schools? The right wants to tell everyone what to do, unless they are rich. Then they can do whatever they want.
The left has not taken away anyone's gun rights as defined in the constitution. Nor the right to free association. It was Bush that put protesters into 'free speech zones.' And Bush that took away people's due process, hell, the right is still screaming that we shouldn't give accused terrorists a fair trial.
So, there's some facts for you to suck on, some actual examples rather than baseless assertions. Bet you can't find any to back up your bullshit.
Well, hey. All of that I can completely agree with.
There's your bias: the article makes it seem Obama's administration is less transparent. I'm not saying they are more, and they should be, but this article is highly biased. Including it as news shows bias, and linking to it on a far right wing site shows extreme bias.
Imagine! The gall of people, smashing two innocent and unrelated words together like that to create a third, wholly unauthorized word. That kind of original thinking and insubordination must be punished. Otherwise, people might catch on that language is created by people, not professors. They might realize that it's all arbitrary, and English is not a science, and barely a legitimate academic discipline at all, but rather the preferred refuge of pompous losers who can't make it in any other field.