I would trade the chance that they would listen in to my conversation (especially since it would be illegal without a court-order), for the chance to stop something like the WTC disaster.
But that's a craps shoot at best. You might as well be picking lotto numbers. There aren't enough people to listen to all of the phone conversations. "Oh, but we have computer cycles to throw at winnowing out the pertinent emails.", you may say. But that still doesn't do anything about backdoor-less encryption that's already out there. These people have no compunction against taking massive numbers of innocent lives and you expect them to drop current technology for something with a backdoor simply because we legislate it?!?!? That means that the ONLY conversations the technology can target belong to those who roll over and comply and if you believe that includes terrorists you're living in some kind of fantasy world. If it were that easy we could just pass legislation that all terrorists must register as such and turn themselves in.
One of the pieces is called a "brokit". I'd think if you couldn't come up with a more creative name that you'd opt for "fixit" or "bildit" or something rather than "brokit". Now whaddaya say when your little brother trashes your creation?
What's a nice gallbladder like you doin' in a joint like this?
It does indeed look to be a fairly standard laparoscopy setup. One port to pump gas in and house the scope, two for instrumentation (retractors, knife, cautery and such).
Re:Assasination: a creative alternative
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 1
I've been advocating "death by pork-chop." Send 'em to Allah with bacon on their breath. Who cares if those remaining see them as martyrs or not as long as they think the death sends them straight to heaven? Let them know that all Islamic terrorists we apprehend will shuffle off this mortal coil with pork in their bellies and be plunked square in the midst of hades. That takes a little of the shiny away from the martyr's death now, doesn't it?
.... you can clearly see from the wording of the message that it was not an incitement to terrorism.
On the contrary. Removed from its context I can't tell anything. I could easily infer from the snippet reproduced above that the poster was telling the other party that they intend to train as a suicide bomber and daring them to do the same. For that reason (lack of context) I have no trouble believing that the original quote might have been abused. The difficulty I had was that the quote used and the defense offered for it were ludicrous. If someone had said "Oh, yeah! Well you just come with me and join the Marines and we'll see who's a coward!" I would be hard pressed to assume that they were talking about a fear of early morning calisthenics. It's too much like the Taliban dismissing their "guest's" involvement because they have no facilities to train pilots.
Perhaps in a few days, someone will come across my comment and report it to the US government, saying simply that terrorist elements are operating on Slashdot, hiding encrypted messages in the comments. And that will be the end of slashdot.
Perhaps. The first scenario is probably quite likely (I'm sure you probably seeded that eventuality into the minds of some of the "pranksters" here just by saying it). I think your conclusion is a bit paranoid though. And yes, I am aware that there are efforts from many fronts that continually seek to curtail our rights in the name of many righteous causes. I do have enough faith in the system to believe that a deliberate misreading would be sufficient to close down Slashdot. Investigate, yes. The end of/., no.
You're correct. I did read too much into the term "official".
The difficulty I have, if we go with the broader definition of censorship, is the knee-jerk reaction that what Clear Channel is doing is reprehensible. The intent of this "ban" appears to be akin to the way most people choose their words carefully around someone who has suffered a recent loss.
... The discussion post was between two people who were fighting each others by words, one called the other one that you are a hypocrite, so the other one was very angry so he told him - I'm just giving the meaning- : Let's see who is the hypocrite, Come with me to Afghanistan and let's train ourselves there.. so the person meant that army exercises will be a way to prove who is the coward and who is the brave!"
I'm not saying what Islamway is or isn't, but does this person honestly expect me to believe this was a challenge to a pushup contest?
Censorship has nothing to do with the government, it has to do with the act of censoring.
I'm going to keep saying this until people get it, or pick up a dictionary.
OK. Here's your dictionary definitions according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
1 : one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct
2 : one who supervises conduct and morals: as a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
3 : a hypothetical psychic agency that represses unacceptable notions before they reach consciousness
Now, unless your contention is that Clear Channel is a Roman magistrate or a "psychic agency" (so Miss Cleo could be a censor?) censorship is not the issue since they are not operating in an "official" (read governmental) capacity.
if you're that out of control of your own emotions that you a) can't control your reaction to a song
You mean the way you couldn't control your reaction to the post? As far as those who have lost loved-ones in this tragedy, many of them may very well be unable to get a handle on their emotions right now. The fact that the radio stations didn't have the songs banned prior to this but have done so now sounds more like discretion than censorship.
- the recent UN Racism conference, which the US pulled out of because of the suggestion that Israel might be racist towards the Palestinians.
Gee. And here I thought it was because those who organized the conference had lost control to special interest groups who railroaded it into an anti-Israeli conference. Individual Israelis may very well be racially motivated against Palestinians as a whole, just as individual Palestinians may be racially motivated against Israelis as a whole. I think the problem was that the conference degenerated into a one-way discussion of racism in a single region of the world.
....too much equipment left over from the cold war (much of it provided by the US so that those who wanted to could fight a terrorist war against the USSR- but hey killing Commie civilians is alright isn't it:-/
It was so they could fight a war against an invading Soviet army. Not the same as "commie civilians".
They also concentrated on the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, as he was staying within Washington when this attack started.
How does that differ if they concentrate on how this affects one of your own? Same coverage, we just had more to report since more of our own were affected.
As far as global perspective, I think we've always had difficulty with that. I've never been out of the country. I haven't even been to all 48 contiguous states. I have to travel over 1,000 miles to go to my hometown and haven't even traveresed 50% of the country in the process. In Europe you can take daytrips to numbers of other countries by car or rail. Most Americans don't even think in terms of Canada being another country (that might be different farther north, I don't know) because we are far more alike than different. Mexico on the other hand has a different language, different culture and different standards of living (at least along the border), but it still doesn't seem like a foreign country in the same sense that Germany or India or Peru do.
Interesting that you begin your post with finger pointing and end with a call to stop pointing fingers. How can you see the way to end something when you can't recognize how it begins?
Re:Yes. It is entirely about economics.
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
You seem to miss the point entirely, even though I quoted the pertinent passage from the post I replied to. The comment implied that terrorist attacks would go away if "these people" were to experience some economic prosperity. I pointed out the Bin Ladin was very prosperous. The tone of your reply seems to disagree while the content manages to admit the man has plenty of cash. My point was precisely that if economic prosperity would solve this, Bin Ladin would not be a problem for the US.
Re:Yes. It is entirely about economics.
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Show these people a little shred of economic prosperity and I guarantee you this whole thing will dissapear. I'll tell you, it isn't the Saudi oil sheiks who are crashing jets into buildings.
Osama Bin Ladin is poor? He may not be an oil baron, but he ain't sellin' pencils on the street corner either.
They can allow the terrorists to do their dirty work without "official" sanction so that they can appear diplomatically to have clean hands. It enables them to work both sides of the fence.
Slashdot Mirror
And the script kiddies could call the fix "Briar Patch".
"Oh, please br'er Bear, whatever you do, don't throw me in the Briar Patch!" - Br'er Rabbit.
I would trade the chance that they would listen in to my conversation (especially since it would be illegal without a court-order), for the chance to stop something like the WTC disaster.
But that's a craps shoot at best. You might as well be picking lotto numbers. There aren't enough people to listen to all of the phone conversations. "Oh, but we have computer cycles to throw at winnowing out the pertinent emails.", you may say. But that still doesn't do anything about backdoor-less encryption that's already out there. These people have no compunction against taking massive numbers of innocent lives and you expect them to drop current technology for something with a backdoor simply because we legislate it?!?!? That means that the ONLY conversations the technology can target belong to those who roll over and comply and if you believe that includes terrorists you're living in some kind of fantasy world. If it were that easy we could just pass legislation that all terrorists must register as such and turn themselves in.
One of the pieces is called a "brokit". I'd think if you couldn't come up with a more creative name that you'd opt for "fixit" or "bildit" or something rather than "brokit". Now whaddaya say when your little brother trashes your creation?
...the hacker added a quote and attributed it to John Ashcroft?
....most gallbladders aren't found inside joints
What's a nice gallbladder like you doin' in a joint like this?
It does indeed look to be a fairly standard laparoscopy setup. One port to pump gas in and house the scope, two for instrumentation (retractors, knife, cautery and such).
Strange I speak your language better then you do.
/.
A) That's not that big an accomplishment on
2) I think you meant "than" you do....
B) If we didn't care about the WTC why is the french president in New York right now (the first to have gone there)?
#) Nothing against him, but the trip was already scheduled prior to the attacks.
"It's not a tumor!" - Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Kindergarten Cop"
Is that Hebrew for "steak sauce"?
I've been advocating "death by pork-chop." Send 'em to Allah with bacon on their breath. Who cares if those remaining see them as martyrs or not as long as they think the death sends them straight to heaven? Let them know that all Islamic terrorists we apprehend will shuffle off this mortal coil with pork in their bellies and be plunked square in the midst of hades. That takes a little of the shiny away from the martyr's death now, doesn't it?
.... you can clearly see from the wording of the message that it was not an incitement to terrorism.
/., no.
On the contrary. Removed from its context I can't tell anything. I could easily infer from the snippet reproduced above that the poster was telling the other party that they intend to train as a suicide bomber and daring them to do the same. For that reason (lack of context) I have no trouble believing that the original quote might have been abused. The difficulty I had was that the quote used and the defense offered for it were ludicrous. If someone had said "Oh, yeah! Well you just come with me and join the Marines and we'll see who's a coward!" I would be hard pressed to assume that they were talking about a fear of early morning calisthenics. It's too much like the Taliban dismissing their "guest's" involvement because they have no facilities to train pilots.
Perhaps in a few days, someone will come across my comment and report it to the US government, saying simply that terrorist elements are operating on Slashdot, hiding encrypted messages in the comments. And that will be the end of slashdot.
Perhaps. The first scenario is probably quite likely (I'm sure you probably seeded that eventuality into the minds of some of the "pranksters" here just by saying it). I think your conclusion is a bit paranoid though. And yes, I am aware that there are efforts from many fronts that continually seek to curtail our rights in the name of many righteous causes. I do have enough faith in the system to believe that a deliberate misreading would be sufficient to close down Slashdot. Investigate, yes. The end of
You're correct. I did read too much into the term "official".
The difficulty I have, if we go with the broader definition of censorship, is the knee-jerk reaction that what Clear Channel is doing is reprehensible. The intent of this "ban" appears to be akin to the way most people choose their words carefully around someone who has suffered a recent loss.
... The discussion post was between two people who were fighting each others by words, one called the other one that you are a hypocrite, so the other one was very angry so he told him - I'm just giving the meaning- : Let's see who is the hypocrite, Come with me to Afghanistan and let's train ourselves there .. so the person meant that army exercises will be a way to prove who is the coward and who is the brave!"
I'm not saying what Islamway is or isn't, but does this person honestly expect me to believe this was a challenge to a pushup contest?
I'm going to keep saying this until people get it, or pick up a dictionary.
OK. Here's your dictionary definitions according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
Now, unless your contention is that Clear Channel is a Roman magistrate or a "psychic agency" (so Miss Cleo could be a censor?) censorship is not the issue since they are not operating in an "official" (read governmental) capacity.
if you're that out of control of your own emotions that you a) can't control your reaction to a song
You mean the way you couldn't control your reaction to the post? As far as those who have lost loved-ones in this tragedy, many of them may very well be unable to get a handle on their emotions right now. The fact that the radio stations didn't have the songs banned prior to this but have done so now sounds more like discretion than censorship.
- the recent UN Racism conference, which the US pulled out of because of the suggestion that Israel might be racist towards the Palestinians.
Gee. And here I thought it was because those who organized the conference had lost control to special interest groups who railroaded it into an anti-Israeli conference. Individual Israelis may very well be racially motivated against Palestinians as a whole, just as individual Palestinians may be racially motivated against Israelis as a whole. I think the problem was that the conference degenerated into a one-way discussion of racism in a single region of the world.
....too much equipment left over from the cold war (much of it provided by the US so that those who wanted to could fight a terrorist war against the USSR- but hey killing Commie civilians is alright isn't it :-/
It was so they could fight a war against an invading Soviet army. Not the same as "commie civilians".
Surely you accept that the US is doing SOMETHING to get a good spankin' deal on oil.
We buy in bulk.....
Seriously, we are the biggest consumers of petro-chemical products (wish it weren't so).
(remove the next president of the USA's name to send mail)
President Psu?
They also concentrated on the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, as he was staying within Washington when this attack started.
How does that differ if they concentrate on how this affects one of your own? Same coverage, we just had more to report since more of our own were affected.
As far as global perspective, I think we've always had difficulty with that. I've never been out of the country. I haven't even been to all 48 contiguous states. I have to travel over 1,000 miles to go to my hometown and haven't even traveresed 50% of the country in the process. In Europe you can take daytrips to numbers of other countries by car or rail. Most Americans don't even think in terms of Canada being another country (that might be different farther north, I don't know) because we are far more alike than different. Mexico on the other hand has a different language, different culture and different standards of living (at least along the border), but it still doesn't seem like a foreign country in the same sense that Germany or India or Peru do.
Why do you consider the Russian nation's self-conscience is less than that of the United States?
Ummm, because we haven't invaded Mexico or Canada with American military troops for awhile?
Interesting that you begin your post with finger pointing and end with a call to stop pointing fingers. How can you see the way to end something when you can't recognize how it begins?
You seem to miss the point entirely, even though I quoted the pertinent passage from the post I replied to. The comment implied that terrorist attacks would go away if "these people" were to experience some economic prosperity. I pointed out the Bin Ladin was very prosperous. The tone of your reply seems to disagree while the content manages to admit the man has plenty of cash. My point was precisely that if economic prosperity would solve this, Bin Ladin would not be a problem for the US.
Show these people a little shred of economic prosperity and I guarantee you this whole thing will dissapear. I'll tell you, it isn't the Saudi oil sheiks who are crashing jets into buildings.
Osama Bin Ladin is poor? He may not be an oil baron, but he ain't sellin' pencils on the street corner either.
Their answer was: Send armed troops to Northern Ireland and shoot anyone who looks at you funny. Worked great.
BTW only reasonable people can reason with reasonable people.
That's not at all what I'm talking about. Finding those responsible and bringing them to justice is a reasonable act.
What benefit do they have to protect terrorists?
They can allow the terrorists to do their dirty work without "official" sanction so that they can appear diplomatically to have clean hands. It enables them to work both sides of the fence.