Applying the standard naming conventions would result in qutits. I much prefer qutits.
And the scientific community would be rather better off choosing names that let us focus on the furtherance of humanity's knowledge of the inner workings of the universe than opening the door for juvenile jokes.
...transgender lesbian, and let Microsoft try to figure out what that means. They'd probably have to google it!
*cough* Many lesbians decry traditional gender roles, which fits the loose definition of transgender. So why not just scrap the entire concept and have xbox profiles include a box for kinsey scale rankings? Or, to hell with it, let's just break out the Klein grids and make a game of bisexual twister out of it. The konami code could have an entirely new and twisted meaning here.
Of course, most of my friends are bisexual. Or at least, they become bisexual after a few drinks. And they say sexual orientation is fixed. Hrmph. The only girls I've known who followed a strict no-homo life were either dull little princesses without any imagination whatsoever, or zomfg-eye-bleach. Everyone else experiments. -_- Note for the guys: Don't get any fresh ideas. If she says she's a dyke, don't question it. Whether she is or not, you aren't getting in her pants, m-kays? But I digress... so I'll end with a crack about how labeling the ports male and female is sexist.
I guess my most major concern about using the Department of Homeland Security is that if anything should go wrong; that it's not during dinner.
And I guess my most major concern about using the Department of Homeland Security is that. They take my nail clippers away because it's a security risk, say I can't wear underwire bras, have closed the bathroom down for most, if not all of the flight (and god help you if you have a feminine issue then) now they want to take high-resolution naked pictures of me and share them with their government buddies, contractors, and basically anyone not me. They can't even handle issues of basic sanitation and common decency -- a problem as I understand has been solved for a few thousand years now. I would go on a feminist rant right about now, but frankly I don't think they're being sexist, just retarded. Unfortunately, retardation isn't curable. But I digress...
The only reason the internet still works at all is because they haven't gotten around to screwing it up -- yet. I can just see it now -- The entire internet has been turned off because a kindergartner in Utah made a drawing that suggested he was going to shoot the president. It was later disclosed that the drawing was of a cat and the sun. And later, mom posts it on the fridge...
In fact the set of signals you seem to think will be easily detected is in fact the precise sort that it cannot easily untangle. It would convert encrypted jibberish into mangled, encrypted jibberish.
Not if you can lower the noise floor by using predictive algorithms. GPS works on just such a principle -- just think a little bigger. Current methods only work because they're so hard to distinguish between random "static". Less random "static" means more signal gain. More signal gain means faster lock-on time and better signal recovery.
In fact, it's expected to be used to increase the aperture of cameras. The advantage of this, is that using random patterns you could be able to determine the kernel of the convolving pattern in the picture, therefore, you would be able to re-focus the image after it was taken. In regular photography that kernel is normally Gaussian and very hard to de-blur. But using certain patterns when taking the picture (probably implemented as micro-mirrors), you could, easily do this in post processing.
You people think in such limited terms. The military uses rapid frequency shifting and spread spectrum communications to avoid jamming. Such technology could be used to more rapidly identify the keys and encoding of such transmissions, as well as decreasing the amount of energy required to create an effective jamming signal by several orders of magnitude across the spectrum used if any pattern could be identified. Currently, massive antenna arrays are required to provide the resolution necessary to conduct such an attack. This makes the jamming equipment more mobile, and more effective at the same time. A successful attack on that vector could effectively kill most low-power communications capabilities of a mobile force, or at least increase the error rate (hello Shannon's Law) to the point where the signal becomes unusable. The Air Force is particularily dependent on realtime communications that rely on low-power signal sources.
If nothing else, getting a signal lock would at least tell you what's in the air. Stealth be damned -- you get a signal lock on the comms, which are on most of the time these days, and you don't need radar. Just shoot in the general direction of Signal X and *bang*. Anything that reduces the noise floor generates a greater exposure area for these classes of sigint attacks. Cryptologists need not apply.
Okay, I know an ex-pat who has moved to China and married. I have a much better understanding of the current state of technology and governmental oversight there than most here. Let's clear some things up:
The government closely monitors it citizens using every form of surveillance available in public places (which include the internet) to ensure that they are not acting in a fashion the government defines as "subversive". They aren't interested in international cyber-terrorism. They simply realize that they need to be where their citizens are to maintain the umbrella of surveillance. They're not trying to blow up power plants or destroy financial markets, or engage in other acts of cyber-terrorism. They are simply of the mindset that the internet lacks geographical boundaries, and hence treat it somewhat like international waters, and regularily patrol and conduct intrusions on remote systems for the purpose of effecting surveillance on its own citizens.
They are also interested in industrial espionage against specific high-value targets that have technology that China cannot replicate with its limited (though rapidly growing) infrastructure. China is very good at copying technology. It has very little ability (or desire) to innovate. They are focused primarily on a massive modernization program so as to set themselves up to compete with the EU, US, and south asian markets. Hong Kong is about the only ace they have up their sleeve right now there. So they conduct limited cyber attacks for the purpose of acquiring the information and designs to manufacture technologies that are highly intricate (such as microprocessor design).
This is not a statement on the validity of any sovereignty claims, or a moral judgement on China's state-sponsored activities on the global communications networks, merely an statement of their motivations.
And for the record, I know you were speaking tongue in cheek. But let's face it, the cool thing about this country is that we can have two bat-shit insane states like California and Texas coexist peacefully without constantly waging turf wars with each other over Arizona and New Mexico.
The problem is that the so-called 'blue' states wind up paying most of their federal taxes to fund 'red' states, ie., the north pays the south. We are constantly bailing California out of their problems, and those states usually operate at a deficit, in addition to their cultural problems. It would be easier for everyone to establish a system of government which allowed greater autonomy for the southern states (California included) and that we only worked together for the common defense of each other. It would be culturally-beneficial for both sides to have this division, as well as financially advantageous for the majority of states.
I am not speaking first-hand, but my understanding is that your method is much closer to justice than anything I have ever heard of. Your story suggests making it (somewhat) public that the rape occurred. I expect that to be either too much of a tarnish on the girl's reputation or just the girl is unwilling to speak about it, at least not until much later.
Let me put it to you like this; I've only met two women that have not confided in me that they've been sexually assaulted at some point in their lives. That is how pervasive it is. The legal system has utterly failed, not because the system is somehow flawed, but because society itself refuses to acknowledge there is a problem, and it is a crime that is very difficult to find supporting evidence for. Rapists aren't stupid -- they know how to avoid leaving marks, they usually use condoms, and the ones that use so-called 'date rape' drugs are well aware that they are fast-acting and not metabolized by fat, meaning that the first time after sex that you go to the bathroom, the evidence is flushed from the body. These are commonly known facts, and pharmaceuticals don't want to accept responsibility for the misuse of their product and so they have resisted efforts to include chemical tracers that would be detectable over longer periods of time. And even that being the case, many kinds of 'date rape' drugs can be manufactured with relative ease by anyone trained in organic chemistry or follows one of the many recipes available online.
This spirit is sewn into the very fabric of the state.
Yes, but the land is worth nothing. It is the people that make the land great, or not. Maybe if they'd listened to the people that were there first, instead of just taking what they had and killing any who protested, they'd have a more educated approach on the matter.
Texas was a republic before it was a state,
No, Texas was a bunch of settlements that repeatedly failed until the mid-1700s, when Spain setup several successful settlements there, notably San Antonio, and called it New Spain. Present-day Texas was considered to be mostly owned by the native peoples at that time, and Spain claiming a small portion of it for its settlements. In 1803, the US wanted to annex Texas. Spain said no. They drew some lines in the sand and called it a day. In 1821, The Mexicans won a war and claimed the territory formerly claimed by Spain. It then fell under Mexican law and became the state of Coahuila y Tejas. It wasn't until 1835 that the people of Texas beat Mexico and declared themselves independent.
At this point, we can safely say Texas was an independent state. Now here's the crucial fact: You may recall from your social studies class that the United States was founded in 1788, 47 years beforehand. But I understand that the Texas public education system has been having some issues regarding factual presentation lately, so I'll forgive you for not knowing that. It's not your fault, afterall.
Moving on -- Just as quickly, the new government collapsed -- in 1836. From 1837 to 1842, Mexico fought with the so-called republic (and I say so-called because it was relative anarchy during that time by historical account) winning some battles and losing others, while the government of Texas negotiated with the United States for statehood (and protection). It was this inability of the Republic of Texas to hold on to its territories that was a decisive factor in it's repeated requests for annexation to the United States. In 1845, Texas was annexed to the United States. The United States then came in, beat the snot out of Mexico, and in 1848 Mexico called it quits and ceded most of what is now modern Texas to the United States. Of course, once we got their nuts out of the fire, in 1861 they ceded from the Union along with the rest of the south, and the civil war happened. I won't bore you with the details of those fine years of our country's history, I'm sure you've read about it.
Conclusion
So I must wonder, after a careful review of the historical facts, where of all places this notion of Texas being "independently minded" comes from. It would sound to me like it's a state incapable of forming its own governance nor maintaining suitable arms to protect its borders and interests, and I would assert very little's changed since: They're still not capable of defending their borders from illegal immigration and they can't figure out how to govern themselves well enough not to be an embarassment to the Union.
Threatening to throw them out of the union would quite literally only encourage Texans.
A geek is the only one who will try for that not a successful business.
Apparently well-designed and engineered products make for bad business. Why, imagine if the customers found out something had been well-designed and was beyond criticism or reproach! Why, who would buy such a thing?
When criminal greed crosses the line to utter malice, it's a sign that someone needs to encounter some righteous justice. Some people just deserve a beating.
Of course, we never make mistakes in our conclusions over who the guilty party is. Advocating the use of permanent physical damage to a person's body as an acceptable judiciary solution renders impossible the reversal of the damage should new evidence ever become available, or the process itself fail in some fashion. It is for this reason that we prefer the use of federal prison, with its own set of more socially acceptable punishments for which the state is not responsible. Hint: Soap.
Showing a browser selection has been imposed on them and these geeks think MS is going to select the best approach possible for randomness.
I don't believe many of them think that, judging by the comments so far. I think they're incredulous that a multibillion dollar company that has been developing software since the dawn of the information era managed to screw up a rather basic computer science problem. Given a lack of indication as to motive, they've decided to jump to whatever conclusion fits their personal biases best, which is what happens in every argument when there aren't enough facts to conduct a proper analysis.
Just because you've got a forum full of people who spend their days working with machines that answer everything with either 1 or 0, doesn't mean they've learned anything from the interaction and incorporated it into their own thought processes.
This sounds like gross generalization of guilt, to me. How about I turn around and make a responsible demand: since you demanded punitive action against every person in the state of Texas regardless of guilt, how about having your personal citizenship revoked?
I do write to my legislators, and use every legal means available to me to call attention to the issue of copyright law and its effect on our culture, our values, and our rights. I have voted at every opportunity. I have protested, and been spoken to by law enforcement about it, and they came by every once and awhile to make sure everyone was okay, and when they were they smiled, waved, and took another walk around the courthouse. I have stood by my friends and family in court and advised them on the process, directed them towards justice when injustice had been the norm for too long. I have sat down with judges, and public defenders, and shaken hands with my elected officials.
I'm not a politician. Nobody asked me to do this. I'm a citizen and it's my responsibility to do these things. Injustice continues because a community becomes apathetic. Therefore, yes -- I stand by what I say. As a country we should have certain standards, and the rights abuses happening in Texas is occuring because its citizens are failing to act. Failing to reach those standards should result in the rest of the assembled states sending a clear message: We practice democracy, and democracy demands citizen participation.
And if those citizens are in any way being blocked from a redress of their greviances, then we should step in to re-establish order and justice, by force if nececcsary. Our policies when dealing with other countries injustices and crimes done against its own government cannot be taken seriously if we don't at least hold to them on our own ground. That said, there's no evidence the citizens are in any way blocked from the accessing of the methods of democratic process. And that being the case, it is an internal matter for the state.
So again, I stand by the statement: Kick Texas out of the union. It's nothing personal to Texas -- the same argument can be made of any state in the union and be equally valid.
So basically, she's getting screwed three ways 'til Sunday, mostly because she doesn't have an Attorney worth a damn.
"The rule of law does not mean that the protection of the law must be available only to a fortunate few or that the law should be allowed to be prostituted by vested interests for protecting and upholding the status quo under the guise of enforcement of civil and political rights. The poor too have civil and political rights and the rule of law is meant for them also, though today it exists only on paper and not in reality."
Supreme Court of India, PUDR v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 1473, 1477)
When will it finally be seen that the effect civil law has when applied to criminal cases is really rape?
Right about the time we start treating it like rape. The belief that enhanced understanding of a problem will stir a people to action is one of mankind's oldest illusions. You must be the change you wish to see in the world, not count on others to "see the light".
Since you mention rape specifically, let me share a personal anecdote. Of the people I know who have been raped (and I am counted amongst that number), the community response is usually not to go to the police (who are useless and will do nothing anyway) -- it's to get the person to a hospital and checked out, and while that's happening we assemble a bunch of people, find the fucker, and beat him to within an inch of his life. And there's usually a couple of us after that keep an eye on him wherever he runs to, and makes sure wherever he moves, that scarlet letter follows him around. Little birdies, you know. At least that's how we do it in the projects and lower-income parts of town. I don't know how rich people do it. I mean, if you're 19, blonde, white and got C cups or better you've got a chance at getting a conviction... The rest of us, well... Our justice springs from a darker place. And our sufferance is a quieter kind. Very few of us ever see the inside of a courtroom.
In this, you and I are alike in our common desire for change -- we wish for justice, pray for it, ask those in power to bring it to us, but we get form letters back, with xeroxed signatures on official letterhead. They don't care about you, or me. They care about money. So if you want justice, you either need money, a lot of people who will stand with you... or a gun. I wish it weren't that way, I really do. But when a government ceases to listen to its people, who shout in the night "Please help us!"... Such actions are inevitable.
If the legal system offers no remedy for you, and there is no way for peaceful assembly and protest to have any influence upon the institutions which are responsible for the redress of your greviance then our founding fathers made it clear what a citizen's last recourse is: Take up arms. They've broken the most basic of social contracts between a citizen and its government, which is this: In exchange for protection of my person, of my personal interests, and peaceful redress of my greviances, I will in return offer you compensation in the form of taxation, military service (in some countries, but not ours) and will do my best to uphold the lawful principles and standards of my community. When this contract is broken and cannot be mended, the government has sewn the seeds of its own destruction. The justice system is the cornerstone of this negotiation of that contract. If it fails, everything else falls.
Fight hard to mend it. Write letters to everyone you know. Write to the judges. You don't have to be a lawyer. Just be a person, a citizen, and state as clearly as you can why this must be changed. They are human beings too, just like you. They will listen, even if they do not answer you in kind. Beg them if you must. Do everything you can, and fight until you can't. And when you've done everything you can, when you've put your full force of will behind your actions, you may find that the universe assists in mysterious ways. Believe it or not, human beings aren't fundamentally evil -- just often misled. And most problems have a solution that is peaceful, if only you can maintain the patience and self-respect for your own morality to do so.
Of course, as I said in my example above, you might have gathered I don't have that kind of resolve. But you might.
The RIAA is the best argument in the world why you SHOULD be buying music -- NON-RIAA MUSIC (see RIAA Radar).
Actually, I specifically get as many RIAA and MPAA-sponsored media as I can and then offer it for free to as many people as I can. Sometimes I even leave DVDs filled with AVI files of the top 20 movies of the week from Piratebay just laying around on buses and such. The way I figure it, a handful of terrorists only managed to bring down four planes and three buildings at a cost of a few billion. By our legal system's reakoning, I've caused about $14.6 trillion dollars worth of damage so far. I'm very disappointed, because I figured by now I should be the most wanted woman in this country. And yet boys never call me back.:(
I motion before the assembled citizens that Texas have it's state status revoked with immediate effect. Lately it seems like every legal ruling and precident that comes out of that state is a violation of one human right or another, or at least criminally stupid. We beat them once, I'm sure we can do it again!:(
Slashdot Mirror
Basically nano-combustion that very quickly creates a very strong electrical charge.
EMP in a suitcase.
Applying the standard naming conventions would result in qutits. I much prefer qutits.
And the scientific community would be rather better off choosing names that let us focus on the furtherance of humanity's knowledge of the inner workings of the universe than opening the door for juvenile jokes.
...transgender lesbian, and let Microsoft try to figure out what that means. They'd probably have to google it!
*cough* Many lesbians decry traditional gender roles, which fits the loose definition of transgender. So why not just scrap the entire concept and have xbox profiles include a box for kinsey scale rankings? Or, to hell with it, let's just break out the Klein grids and make a game of bisexual twister out of it. The konami code could have an entirely new and twisted meaning here.
Of course, most of my friends are bisexual. Or at least, they become bisexual after a few drinks. And they say sexual orientation is fixed. Hrmph. The only girls I've known who followed a strict no-homo life were either dull little princesses without any imagination whatsoever, or zomfg-eye-bleach. Everyone else experiments. -_- Note for the guys: Don't get any fresh ideas. If she says she's a dyke, don't question it. Whether she is or not, you aren't getting in her pants, m-kays? But I digress... so I'll end with a crack about how labeling the ports male and female is sexist.
The real news here is that people still use myspace. -_-
Pretty soon Google will tell me that I'm out of milk even before I open the fridge door.
It also knows what you did last summer. *ominous look towards the laptop in the corner*
I guess my most major concern about using the Department of Homeland Security is that if anything should go wrong; that it's not during dinner.
And I guess my most major concern about using the Department of Homeland Security is that. They take my nail clippers away because it's a security risk, say I can't wear underwire bras, have closed the bathroom down for most, if not all of the flight (and god help you if you have a feminine issue then) now they want to take high-resolution naked pictures of me and share them with their government buddies, contractors, and basically anyone not me. They can't even handle issues of basic sanitation and common decency -- a problem as I understand has been solved for a few thousand years now. I would go on a feminist rant right about now, but frankly I don't think they're being sexist, just retarded. Unfortunately, retardation isn't curable. But I digress...
The only reason the internet still works at all is because they haven't gotten around to screwing it up -- yet. I can just see it now -- The entire internet has been turned off because a kindergartner in Utah made a drawing that suggested he was going to shoot the president. It was later disclosed that the drawing was of a cat and the sun. And later, mom posts it on the fridge...
In fact the set of signals you seem to think will be easily detected is in fact the precise sort that it cannot easily untangle. It would convert encrypted jibberish into mangled, encrypted jibberish.
Not if you can lower the noise floor by using predictive algorithms. GPS works on just such a principle -- just think a little bigger. Current methods only work because they're so hard to distinguish between random "static". Less random "static" means more signal gain. More signal gain means faster lock-on time and better signal recovery.
In fact, it's expected to be used to increase the aperture of cameras. The advantage of this, is that using random patterns you could be able to determine the kernel of the convolving pattern in the picture, therefore, you would be able to re-focus the image after it was taken. In regular photography that kernel is normally Gaussian and very hard to de-blur. But using certain patterns when taking the picture (probably implemented as micro-mirrors), you could, easily do this in post processing.
You people think in such limited terms. The military uses rapid frequency shifting and spread spectrum communications to avoid jamming. Such technology could be used to more rapidly identify the keys and encoding of such transmissions, as well as decreasing the amount of energy required to create an effective jamming signal by several orders of magnitude across the spectrum used if any pattern could be identified. Currently, massive antenna arrays are required to provide the resolution necessary to conduct such an attack. This makes the jamming equipment more mobile, and more effective at the same time. A successful attack on that vector could effectively kill most low-power communications capabilities of a mobile force, or at least increase the error rate (hello Shannon's Law) to the point where the signal becomes unusable. The Air Force is particularily dependent on realtime communications that rely on low-power signal sources.
If nothing else, getting a signal lock would at least tell you what's in the air. Stealth be damned -- you get a signal lock on the comms, which are on most of the time these days, and you don't need radar. Just shoot in the general direction of Signal X and *bang*. Anything that reduces the noise floor generates a greater exposure area for these classes of sigint attacks. Cryptologists need not apply.
Okay, I know an ex-pat who has moved to China and married. I have a much better understanding of the current state of technology and governmental oversight there than most here. Let's clear some things up:
The government closely monitors it citizens using every form of surveillance available in public places (which include the internet) to ensure that they are not acting in a fashion the government defines as "subversive". They aren't interested in international cyber-terrorism. They simply realize that they need to be where their citizens are to maintain the umbrella of surveillance. They're not trying to blow up power plants or destroy financial markets, or engage in other acts of cyber-terrorism. They are simply of the mindset that the internet lacks geographical boundaries, and hence treat it somewhat like international waters, and regularily patrol and conduct intrusions on remote systems for the purpose of effecting surveillance on its own citizens.
They are also interested in industrial espionage against specific high-value targets that have technology that China cannot replicate with its limited (though rapidly growing) infrastructure. China is very good at copying technology. It has very little ability (or desire) to innovate. They are focused primarily on a massive modernization program so as to set themselves up to compete with the EU, US, and south asian markets. Hong Kong is about the only ace they have up their sleeve right now there. So they conduct limited cyber attacks for the purpose of acquiring the information and designs to manufacture technologies that are highly intricate (such as microprocessor design).
This is not a statement on the validity of any sovereignty claims, or a moral judgement on China's state-sponsored activities on the global communications networks, merely an statement of their motivations.
*In my best Benderesque voice:* Heya baby, wanna destroy all humans?
I don't think our operating systems are compatible. Sorry.
And for the record, I know you were speaking tongue in cheek. But let's face it, the cool thing about this country is that we can have two bat-shit insane states like California and Texas coexist peacefully without constantly waging turf wars with each other over Arizona and New Mexico.
The problem is that the so-called 'blue' states wind up paying most of their federal taxes to fund 'red' states, ie., the north pays the south. We are constantly bailing California out of their problems, and those states usually operate at a deficit, in addition to their cultural problems. It would be easier for everyone to establish a system of government which allowed greater autonomy for the southern states (California included) and that we only worked together for the common defense of each other. It would be culturally-beneficial for both sides to have this division, as well as financially advantageous for the majority of states.
I am not speaking first-hand, but my understanding is that your method is much closer to justice than anything I have ever heard of. Your story suggests making it (somewhat) public that the rape occurred. I expect that to be either too much of a tarnish on the girl's reputation or just the girl is unwilling to speak about it, at least not until much later.
Let me put it to you like this; I've only met two women that have not confided in me that they've been sexually assaulted at some point in their lives. That is how pervasive it is. The legal system has utterly failed, not because the system is somehow flawed, but because society itself refuses to acknowledge there is a problem, and it is a crime that is very difficult to find supporting evidence for. Rapists aren't stupid -- they know how to avoid leaving marks, they usually use condoms, and the ones that use so-called 'date rape' drugs are well aware that they are fast-acting and not metabolized by fat, meaning that the first time after sex that you go to the bathroom, the evidence is flushed from the body. These are commonly known facts, and pharmaceuticals don't want to accept responsibility for the misuse of their product and so they have resisted efforts to include chemical tracers that would be detectable over longer periods of time. And even that being the case, many kinds of 'date rape' drugs can be manufactured with relative ease by anyone trained in organic chemistry or follows one of the many recipes available online.
And if I ever met you, I would rape you personally.
You know, on the internet nobody knows you're a dog. Woof. Woof.
This spirit is sewn into the very fabric of the state.
Yes, but the land is worth nothing. It is the people that make the land great, or not. Maybe if they'd listened to the people that were there first, instead of just taking what they had and killing any who protested, they'd have a more educated approach on the matter.
Texas was a republic before it was a state,
No, Texas was a bunch of settlements that repeatedly failed until the mid-1700s, when Spain setup several successful settlements there, notably San Antonio, and called it New Spain. Present-day Texas was considered to be mostly owned by the native peoples at that time, and Spain claiming a small portion of it for its settlements. In 1803, the US wanted to annex Texas. Spain said no. They drew some lines in the sand and called it a day. In 1821, The Mexicans won a war and claimed the territory formerly claimed by Spain. It then fell under Mexican law and became the state of Coahuila y Tejas. It wasn't until 1835 that the people of Texas beat Mexico and declared themselves independent.
At this point, we can safely say Texas was an independent state. Now here's the crucial fact: You may recall from your social studies class that the United States was founded in 1788, 47 years beforehand. But I understand that the Texas public education system has been having some issues regarding factual presentation lately, so I'll forgive you for not knowing that. It's not your fault, afterall.
Moving on -- Just as quickly, the new government collapsed -- in 1836. From 1837 to 1842, Mexico fought with the so-called republic (and I say so-called because it was relative anarchy during that time by historical account) winning some battles and losing others, while the government of Texas negotiated with the United States for statehood (and protection). It was this inability of the Republic of Texas to hold on to its territories that was a decisive factor in it's repeated requests for annexation to the United States. In 1845, Texas was annexed to the United States. The United States then came in, beat the snot out of Mexico, and in 1848 Mexico called it quits and ceded most of what is now modern Texas to the United States. Of course, once we got their nuts out of the fire, in 1861 they ceded from the Union along with the rest of the south, and the civil war happened. I won't bore you with the details of those fine years of our country's history, I'm sure you've read about it.
Conclusion
So I must wonder, after a careful review of the historical facts, where of all places this notion of Texas being "independently minded" comes from. It would sound to me like it's a state incapable of forming its own governance nor maintaining suitable arms to protect its borders and interests, and I would assert very little's changed since: They're still not capable of defending their borders from illegal immigration and they can't figure out how to govern themselves well enough not to be an embarassment to the Union.
Threatening to throw them out of the union would quite literally only encourage Texans.
We can only hope.
A geek is the only one who will try for that not a successful business.
Apparently well-designed and engineered products make for bad business. Why, imagine if the customers found out something had been well-designed and was beyond criticism or reproach! Why, who would buy such a thing?
When criminal greed crosses the line to utter malice, it's a sign that someone needs to encounter some righteous justice. Some people just deserve a beating.
Of course, we never make mistakes in our conclusions over who the guilty party is. Advocating the use of permanent physical damage to a person's body as an acceptable judiciary solution renders impossible the reversal of the damage should new evidence ever become available, or the process itself fail in some fashion. It is for this reason that we prefer the use of federal prison, with its own set of more socially acceptable punishments for which the state is not responsible. Hint: Soap.
Showing a browser selection has been imposed on them and these geeks think MS is going to select the best approach possible for randomness.
I don't believe many of them think that, judging by the comments so far. I think they're incredulous that a multibillion dollar company that has been developing software since the dawn of the information era managed to screw up a rather basic computer science problem. Given a lack of indication as to motive, they've decided to jump to whatever conclusion fits their personal biases best, which is what happens in every argument when there aren't enough facts to conduct a proper analysis.
Just because you've got a forum full of people who spend their days working with machines that answer everything with either 1 or 0, doesn't mean they've learned anything from the interaction and incorporated it into their own thought processes.
This sounds like gross generalization of guilt, to me. How about I turn around and make a responsible demand: since you demanded punitive action against every person in the state of Texas regardless of guilt, how about having your personal citizenship revoked?
I do write to my legislators, and use every legal means available to me to call attention to the issue of copyright law and its effect on our culture, our values, and our rights. I have voted at every opportunity. I have protested, and been spoken to by law enforcement about it, and they came by every once and awhile to make sure everyone was okay, and when they were they smiled, waved, and took another walk around the courthouse. I have stood by my friends and family in court and advised them on the process, directed them towards justice when injustice had been the norm for too long. I have sat down with judges, and public defenders, and shaken hands with my elected officials.
I'm not a politician. Nobody asked me to do this. I'm a citizen and it's my responsibility to do these things. Injustice continues because a community becomes apathetic. Therefore, yes -- I stand by what I say. As a country we should have certain standards, and the rights abuses happening in Texas is occuring because its citizens are failing to act. Failing to reach those standards should result in the rest of the assembled states sending a clear message: We practice democracy, and democracy demands citizen participation.
And if those citizens are in any way being blocked from a redress of their greviances, then we should step in to re-establish order and justice, by force if nececcsary. Our policies when dealing with other countries injustices and crimes done against its own government cannot be taken seriously if we don't at least hold to them on our own ground. That said, there's no evidence the citizens are in any way blocked from the accessing of the methods of democratic process. And that being the case, it is an internal matter for the state.
So again, I stand by the statement: Kick Texas out of the union. It's nothing personal to Texas -- the same argument can be made of any state in the union and be equally valid.
So basically, she's getting screwed three ways 'til Sunday, mostly because she doesn't have an Attorney worth a damn.
"The rule of law does not mean that the protection of the law must be available only to a fortunate few or that the law should be allowed to be prostituted by vested interests for protecting and upholding the status quo under the guise of enforcement of civil and political rights. The poor too have civil and political rights and the rule of law is meant for them also, though today it exists only on paper and not in reality."
Supreme Court of India, PUDR v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 1473, 1477)
Two out of the three appellate judges in this case are in Louisiana.
Okay, we'll outlaw Louisiana too.
When will it finally be seen that the effect civil law has when applied to criminal cases is really rape?
Right about the time we start treating it like rape. The belief that enhanced understanding of a problem will stir a people to action is one of mankind's oldest illusions. You must be the change you wish to see in the world, not count on others to "see the light".
Since you mention rape specifically, let me share a personal anecdote. Of the people I know who have been raped (and I am counted amongst that number), the community response is usually not to go to the police (who are useless and will do nothing anyway) -- it's to get the person to a hospital and checked out, and while that's happening we assemble a bunch of people, find the fucker, and beat him to within an inch of his life. And there's usually a couple of us after that keep an eye on him wherever he runs to, and makes sure wherever he moves, that scarlet letter follows him around. Little birdies, you know. At least that's how we do it in the projects and lower-income parts of town. I don't know how rich people do it. I mean, if you're 19, blonde, white and got C cups or better you've got a chance at getting a conviction... The rest of us, well... Our justice springs from a darker place. And our sufferance is a quieter kind. Very few of us ever see the inside of a courtroom.
In this, you and I are alike in our common desire for change -- we wish for justice, pray for it, ask those in power to bring it to us, but we get form letters back, with xeroxed signatures on official letterhead. They don't care about you, or me. They care about money. So if you want justice, you either need money, a lot of people who will stand with you... or a gun. I wish it weren't that way, I really do. But when a government ceases to listen to its people, who shout in the night "Please help us!" ... Such actions are inevitable.
If the legal system offers no remedy for you, and there is no way for peaceful assembly and protest to have any influence upon the institutions which are responsible for the redress of your greviance then our founding fathers made it clear what a citizen's last recourse is: Take up arms. They've broken the most basic of social contracts between a citizen and its government, which is this: In exchange for protection of my person, of my personal interests, and peaceful redress of my greviances, I will in return offer you compensation in the form of taxation, military service (in some countries, but not ours) and will do my best to uphold the lawful principles and standards of my community. When this contract is broken and cannot be mended, the government has sewn the seeds of its own destruction. The justice system is the cornerstone of this negotiation of that contract. If it fails, everything else falls.
Fight hard to mend it. Write letters to everyone you know. Write to the judges. You don't have to be a lawyer. Just be a person, a citizen, and state as clearly as you can why this must be changed. They are human beings too, just like you. They will listen, even if they do not answer you in kind. Beg them if you must. Do everything you can, and fight until you can't. And when you've done everything you can, when you've put your full force of will behind your actions, you may find that the universe assists in mysterious ways. Believe it or not, human beings aren't fundamentally evil -- just often misled. And most problems have a solution that is peaceful, if only you can maintain the patience and self-respect for your own morality to do so.
Of course, as I said in my example above, you might have gathered I don't have that kind of resolve. But you might.
The RIAA is the best argument in the world why you SHOULD be buying music -- NON-RIAA MUSIC (see RIAA Radar).
Actually, I specifically get as many RIAA and MPAA-sponsored media as I can and then offer it for free to as many people as I can. Sometimes I even leave DVDs filled with AVI files of the top 20 movies of the week from Piratebay just laying around on buses and such. The way I figure it, a handful of terrorists only managed to bring down four planes and three buildings at a cost of a few billion. By our legal system's reakoning, I've caused about $14.6 trillion dollars worth of damage so far. I'm very disappointed, because I figured by now I should be the most wanted woman in this country. And yet boys never call me back. :(
Because, as we know, downloading tracks is not, itself, a violation of any section of the Copyright law.
Since when has what the law said or was intended to do had any effect on what actually happens?
What are we Texans supposed to do? Most of our judges basically tenured appointees. We're as stuck with them as you are.
I heard you guys have several military bases and a lot of guns. I'm sure you can work something out there.
I motion before the assembled citizens that Texas have it's state status revoked with immediate effect. Lately it seems like every legal ruling and precident that comes out of that state is a violation of one human right or another, or at least criminally stupid. We beat them once, I'm sure we can do it again! :(