nope. Not satire. What part of ten 50 kiloton nuclear detonations doesnt scare you? What part of governments developing nuclear programs and announcing a will to destroy the united states doesn terrify you? Or is it just cause you think no-one would ever do it? That it couldnt happen here, in the good ole USA?
OK. The 1.5 billion people dont want to kill me. Heck, the 77% of Iran doesnt want to kill me. I am not sure about the 23%. I am quite sure about the Government of Iran.
The govenrment of Egypt doenst want to kill me. A large section of its population does. There arent any serious groups in egypt that will kill me, though. They dont receieve state sponsorship, so they tend to stay relatively small. There are agroups in Iran who want to kill me. They may yet be able to. I would prefer to kill them first.
Look, when you go to kill another government, the governent either has to unconditionally surrender (Japan) or be destroyed (Germany). If Neither of those things happen, you will have a cycle of violence. If you utterly destroy a government, and then route out various organiztions, and dont allow state sponsored organized terrorism, terrorism will end. At least on a large scale.
The ability to destry me requires state sponsorship. Am I saying you need to kill 1.5 billion muslims? Heck no! Do you perhaps need to destroy the organizational structure supporting 700 million? Perhaps.
Incidentally, given the choice between killing 1.5 billion of them, and having my top ten cities destroyed, I would have to go with killing 1.5 billion of them. At the end of the day, I want to be alive. Currently, that is being threatened. Think about it. Once a state who is saying "we will destroy you" has about 200 pounds of weapons grade nuclear fuel, and proper machinig tools, and a good deal of understanding of how explosives compress things, how hard is it to follow up on that threat? So as long as somone is saying "I will destroy you" and going about doing things to make that possible, I find it my responsibility to destroy them soundly first. Do I think that means "Go Around killing everyone" hopefully not. Does it mean a whole heck of a lot of "collateral damadge"? Unfortunately, I think so. I dont think you can destroy a government without a majority of the people being killed being stupid boys age 15-23 who dont know any better. Does that mean I dont want to? No. As long as those regiemes exist, my life is in danger. Will I do my best to minimize loss of life? Mostly, I would hope so. Does that mean I shouldnt go ahead and try to destroy the snake ifI cant conviniently get to its head? Yes. Is the situation horribly complicated in a relegiously zealous country where the relegious leaders tend to hold great political power? Yes. Does that mean I can turn away from the threat to me? I dont think so.
Look. People understand war. People can get over things. Organizations dont. Organizations perpetuate hate forever. You have to utterly destroy the organization that wants to kill you. However many people that takes, are unfortunate.
We didnt destroy saddams organization. It would have ben ugly, and GBI didnt want to look ugly. So now he is stronger than in 1990. Politically. I dont know enough about his military. Destroy the organization. If you dont give hate the structure to manifest, and dont CONTINUE providing reasons for somone to hate me, then people will get over it. EVEN if I killed their little brother. At least most will. If I kill their little brother, and leave in place organizations which thrive on that hate. Then the older sis will keep tryin to kill me.
Look. There isnt a fully unified Islam. Yet. Do we go to war and make one, and hopefully crush it? I hope so.
Iran and Iraq both are developing nuclear weapons proograms. Accourding to an article I read in Janes, neither is much further than 5 years away from being able to build warheads. Do they launch them at us with missles? Nope. They give them to various people and they go stand in the middle of cities, and go boom. Say they took the top 10 cities in the US. Just by population. Just do a google search. I got them as being
New York (8 million)
Los Angeles (3 and a half million)
Chicago (3 million) Houston (2 million) Philiedelphia (one and a half million) Phoenix (1.3 million) San Diego (1.2 million) Dallas (1.2 million) San Antonio (1.1 million) Detroint (950 thousand)
so that is what 23.8 million people? That is less than a tenth of the population, right? We could stand that. It wouldnt destroy the United states, right?
As far as I can tell, that is wrong. As Far as I understand it, you take out that much of the US, you take out those crucial parts of our national infrastructure, we wouldnt have the organizational capacity to rebuild very well.
See, when people are calling for the destruction of the great satan (Iran, Iraq, Most terrorist organizations sponsored by them, Syria, Afghanistan, Large numbers of the people in power in Pakistan, even if not the official arm of the government) and are developing the means to destroy the great satan, I think it behooves us to destroy them first.
It wont be a pretty war like desert storm. That is true. We didnt really occupy any territory in desert storm. We didnt go through the bloody horrible mess of occupying land and destroying governments that would be neccessary if you want to do away with the possiblity of waking up one moring with our top ten cities gone. Do I have a beef with Iran? Its govenrment, yes. Its people, probably not. 77% of Iran in the last election voted for economic nad social reform. Unfortunately, the government is in large part controlled by the "Council of Guardians" which gets to dissawlow certain people from running for office, can veto any law seen as corrupting Islam, and happens to contorl the military.
I think that in order for the US to not wake up one morning with its ifrastructure destroyed (incidentally, if we did wake up with a nuked infrastructure, how long could our ships stay out at sea? Could we even organize a war, let alone manage to excute it, if we cant pay for food for soldiers and all the people who support them?) it MUST have the stomach for such a war. We have for years been listening to people calling for our destruction. We have read reports on how they are building the means to destroy us. Woe unto us if we do not listen to those warnings. Woe unto us if we do not take the opportunity preseted when the number of dead are counted in the thousands, and not the millions to prevent the count from reaching the millions.
Am I saying that it will be a pretty war? No, it will be horrible. Thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of americans will die. We will be sattelite beamed courtesy CNN live footage of their bodies being torn into pieces. We will be told of the horrors of all the awful awful things americans do to unarmed civilians. "Oh the horror!" we will hear. And it will be a horror. But that horror will prevent waking up and having a tenth of our population from being flash fried, and our infrastructure being destroyed. When a political leader says, and creates the availability to "Destroy the great Satan", and you are the great satan, it is ill advised to ignore that leader. Far better off are you, killing him, and his followers.
I am sick to death of hearing people say violence breeds violence. There is no family feud if I kill your whole family. A little violence breeds violence. Japan and germany are not very violent vis-a-vis the US or britain, last I heard. Will innocients die? Certainly. Do I like that? No. Will it be horrible? Yes. Do I rather that then wait around till the state sponsored terrorists have nukes? you betcha. Look at Pakistan. If they have a civil war, wear will their nukes be? Who will control them, who will aim them? I dont know, and I dont really want to find out.
Is it enough to destroy govenrments? No. Again, look to germany and Japan. Something must be put in the place of the old oligarchic regieme (they are all oligarchies). History seems to say that democracies dont want much other than goods and money and coke. Lets make sure they have those things. But first, lets make sure they cant take them away from us.
Maybe you should go back and learn your Amercan Civics. Maybe you mean this should take precedents over the bill of rights. But in this country, NOTHING take precednce over the bill of rights. The constitution cannot by inference prohibit that which is expressly permitted.
Anyhow, I am curious, are you saying that documenting what people think/feel is hate incitement?
Also, you have to have a fairly extreme read of "any incitement to such discrimination" to get to rulling out racist speech. Is sayin I hate you the same as telling somone to go out and kill you? I hope not, I sure dont think so.
For one thing, it would have been difficult for the committee to come up with an alternative, making royalties inevitable.
"It would have been difficult not to use" the patents, said Peter Glaskowsky, an analyst at MicroDesign Resources. One of the patents controls how the processor gets a memory address, or the location of the data in memory. Rambus' technique is relatively straightforward and efficient, he said.
End Quote. So Rambus is claiming: the JEDEC would pretty much have had to use their pantets, as it is the only way to do it. This is a justification for their behaior not being so bad. Is the only way to do something in any way realted to the things obviousness? As in, if a group of proffeisionals gets together, and decide to do something a particular way, and it is really the only way to do something, doesnt that mean that that is obvious?
actually, when the JEDEC was in session, Rambs had only APPLIED for the patent, this means that the patent wasnt yet issued. In general, until the patent has been issued, people make sure NOT to publicly publish their patents. THAT is specifically why (I magine) the JEDEC has as part of it's rules that you have to disclose when you have applied for a patent on something that they are discussing as an open standard.
you assume tha RSA is breakable. It probably isnt unless quantum computers become a reality. Before you say something like "everything is breakable" learn some number theory. Understand what people mean when they say that a problem is hard. Given that most encryption schemes rely on factoring large numbers, for the most part, you break RSA, you pretty much have broken encryption. The only serious encryption that I know of that doesnt rely on factoring numbers being hard is a one time pad.
Slashdot Mirror
nope. Not satire. What part of ten 50 kiloton nuclear detonations doesnt scare you? What part of governments developing nuclear programs and announcing a will to destroy the united states doesn terrify you? Or is it just cause you think no-one would ever do it? That it couldnt happen here, in the good ole USA?
OK. The 1.5 billion people dont want to kill me. Heck, the 77% of Iran doesnt want to kill me. I am not sure about the 23%. I am quite sure about the Government of Iran.
The govenrment of Egypt doenst want to kill me. A large section of its population does. There arent any serious groups in egypt that will kill me, though. They dont receieve state sponsorship, so they tend to stay relatively small. There are agroups in Iran who want to kill me. They may yet be able to. I would prefer to kill them first.
Look, when you go to kill another government, the governent either has to unconditionally surrender (Japan) or be destroyed (Germany). If Neither of those things happen, you will have a cycle of violence. If you utterly destroy a government, and then route out various organiztions, and dont allow state sponsored organized terrorism, terrorism will end. At least on a large scale.
The ability to destry me requires state sponsorship. Am I saying you need to kill 1.5 billion muslims? Heck no! Do you perhaps need to destroy the organizational structure supporting 700 million? Perhaps.
Incidentally, given the choice between killing 1.5 billion of them, and having my top ten cities destroyed, I would have to go with killing 1.5 billion of them. At the end of the day, I want to be alive. Currently, that is being threatened. Think about it. Once a state who is saying "we will destroy you" has about 200 pounds of weapons grade nuclear fuel, and proper machinig tools, and a good deal of understanding of how explosives compress things, how hard is it to follow up on that threat? So as long as somone is saying "I will destroy you" and going about doing things to make that possible, I find it my responsibility to destroy them soundly first. Do I think that means "Go Around killing everyone" hopefully not. Does it mean a whole heck of a lot of "collateral damadge"? Unfortunately, I think so. I dont think you can destroy a government without a majority of the people being killed being stupid boys age 15-23 who dont know any better. Does that mean I dont want to? No. As long as those regiemes exist, my life is in danger. Will I do my best to minimize loss of life? Mostly, I would hope so. Does that mean I shouldnt go ahead and try to destroy the snake ifI cant conviniently get to its head? Yes. Is the situation horribly complicated in a relegiously zealous country where the relegious leaders tend to hold great political power? Yes. Does that mean I can turn away from the threat to me? I dont think so.
Look. People understand war. People can get over things. Organizations dont. Organizations perpetuate hate forever. You have to utterly destroy the organization that wants to kill you. However many people that takes, are unfortunate.
We didnt destroy saddams organization. It would have ben ugly, and GBI didnt want to look ugly. So now he is stronger than in 1990. Politically. I dont know enough about his military. Destroy the organization. If you dont give hate the structure to manifest, and dont CONTINUE providing reasons for somone to hate me, then people will get over it. EVEN if I killed their little brother. At least most will. If I kill their little brother, and leave in place organizations which thrive on that hate. Then the older sis will keep tryin to kill me.
I hope we do.
Look. There isnt a fully unified Islam. Yet. Do we go to war and make one, and hopefully crush it? I hope so.
Iran and Iraq both are developing nuclear weapons proograms. Accourding to an article I read in Janes, neither is much further than 5 years away from being able to build warheads. Do they launch them at us with missles? Nope. They give them to various people and they go stand in the middle of cities, and go boom. Say they took the top 10 cities in the US. Just by population. Just do a google search. I got them as being
New York (8 million)
Los Angeles (3 and a half million)
Chicago (3 million)
Houston (2 million)
Philiedelphia (one and a half million)
Phoenix (1.3 million)
San Diego (1.2 million)
Dallas (1.2 million)
San Antonio (1.1 million)
Detroint (950 thousand)
so that is what 23.8 million people? That is less than a tenth of the population, right? We could stand that. It wouldnt destroy the United states, right?
As far as I can tell, that is wrong. As Far as I understand it, you take out that much of the US, you take out those crucial parts of our national infrastructure, we wouldnt have the organizational capacity to rebuild very well.
See, when people are calling for the destruction of the great satan (Iran, Iraq, Most terrorist organizations sponsored by them, Syria, Afghanistan, Large numbers of the people in power in Pakistan, even if not the official arm of the government) and are developing the means to destroy the great satan, I think it behooves us to destroy them first.
It wont be a pretty war like desert storm. That is true. We didnt really occupy any territory in desert storm. We didnt go through the bloody horrible mess of occupying land and destroying governments that would be neccessary if you want to do away with the possiblity of waking up one moring with our top ten cities gone. Do I have a beef with Iran? Its govenrment, yes. Its people, probably not. 77% of Iran in the last election voted for economic nad social reform. Unfortunately, the government is in large part controlled by the "Council of Guardians" which gets to dissawlow certain people from running for office, can veto any law seen as corrupting Islam, and happens to contorl the military.
I think that in order for the US to not wake up one morning with its ifrastructure destroyed (incidentally, if we did wake up with a nuked infrastructure, how long could our ships stay out at sea? Could we even organize a war, let alone manage to excute it, if we cant pay for food for soldiers and all the people who support them?) it MUST have the stomach for such a war. We have for years been listening to people calling for our destruction. We have read reports on how they are building the means to destroy us. Woe unto us if we do not listen to those warnings. Woe unto us if we do not take the opportunity preseted when the number of dead are counted in the thousands, and not the millions to prevent the count from reaching the millions.
Am I saying that it will be a pretty war? No, it will be horrible. Thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of americans will die. We will be sattelite beamed courtesy CNN live footage of their bodies being torn into pieces. We will be told of the horrors of all the awful awful things americans do to unarmed civilians. "Oh the horror!" we will hear. And it will be a horror. But that horror will prevent waking up and having a tenth of our population from being flash fried, and our infrastructure being destroyed. When a political leader says, and creates the availability to "Destroy the great Satan", and you are the great satan, it is ill advised to ignore that leader. Far better off are you, killing him, and his followers.
I am sick to death of hearing people say violence breeds violence. There is no family feud if I kill your whole family. A little violence breeds violence. Japan and germany are not very violent vis-a-vis the US or britain, last I heard. Will innocients die? Certainly. Do I like that? No. Will it be horrible? Yes. Do I rather that then wait around till the state sponsored terrorists have nukes? you betcha. Look at Pakistan. If they have a civil war, wear will their nukes be? Who will control them, who will aim them? I dont know, and I dont really want to find out.
Is it enough to destroy govenrments? No. Again, look to germany and Japan. Something must be put in the place of the old oligarchic regieme (they are all oligarchies). History seems to say that democracies dont want much other than goods and money and coke. Lets make sure they have those things. But first, lets make sure they cant take them away from us.
"This takes precedence over the Bill of Rights"
Maybe you should go back and learn your Amercan Civics. Maybe you mean this should take precedents over the bill of rights. But in this country, NOTHING take precednce over the bill of rights. The constitution cannot by inference prohibit that which is expressly permitted.
Anyhow, I am curious, are you saying that documenting what people think/feel is hate incitement?
Also, you have to have a fairly extreme read of "any incitement to such discrimination" to get to rulling out racist speech. Is sayin I hate you the same as telling somone to go out and kill you? I hope not, I sure dont think so.
what if she doesnt have a pic?
For one thing, it would have been difficult for the committee to come up with an alternative, making royalties inevitable.
"It would have been difficult not to use" the patents, said Peter Glaskowsky, an analyst at MicroDesign Resources. One of the patents controls how the processor gets a memory address, or the location of the data in memory. Rambus' technique is relatively straightforward and efficient, he said. End Quote. So Rambus is claiming: the JEDEC would pretty much have had to use their pantets, as it is the only way to do it. This is a justification for their behaior not being so bad. Is the only way to do something in any way realted to the things obviousness? As in, if a group of proffeisionals gets together, and decide to do something a particular way, and it is really the only way to do something, doesnt that mean that that is obvious?actually, when the JEDEC was in session, Rambs had only APPLIED for the patent, this means that the patent wasnt yet issued. In general, until the patent has been issued, people make sure NOT to publicly publish their patents. THAT is specifically why (I magine) the JEDEC has as part of it's rules that you have to disclose when you have applied for a patent on something that they are discussing as an open standard.
you assume tha RSA is breakable. It probably isnt unless quantum computers become a reality. Before you say something like "everything is breakable" learn some number theory. Understand what people mean when they say that a problem is hard. Given that most encryption schemes rely on factoring large numbers, for the most part, you break RSA, you pretty much have broken encryption. The only serious encryption that I know of that doesnt rely on factoring numbers being hard is a one time pad.