Meta analysis is bunk, even when it's "properly" done. This isn't even a well done meta-analysis, this is dick waving. "My guys are more prolific than your guys, so we must be right" isn't science. Still, might be enough to sway the Supreme Court.
GITMO is a place outside US borders, where the previous administration decided the Constitution doesn't apply. Closing GITMO will prevent this disingenuous argument from happening again.
Saying that closing Guantanamo is just a matter of getting him the money is out of touch with reality. But that's *Obama's* excuse, not mine.
Also, the AG didn't decide that military tribunals were appropriate. He decided that they were the least inappropriate option he had available. Acting like that's the same thing is, again, disingenuous.
No, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, it is a life support system. Weakening the Constitution endangers everyone. Those who would weaken the Constitution would destroy America.
That's a bullshit excuse. The President is sworn to uphold the constitution. When Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the President has to challenge it. Obama has done no such thing.
Also, there are other ways to close Guantanamo. He's forbidden from using budgeted funds to close Guantanamo. So, lets have a bake sale. If Obama asked for donations to go towards closing Guantanamo I'd gladly pony up $100. I bet there are a few tens of thousands of freedom loving Americans who would do the same. But Obama hasn't tried anything, so it's hard to look at this as anything but an excuse.
Also, it's worth pointing out that Obama's Justice Department hasn't indicted anyone for torture. Not one. He can't blame that on Congress. Obama condones torture.
In every way shape and form Obama has failed to deliver on his promises of change. He has no one to blame for this but himself.
SWAT teams were created by Daryl Gates, who once said "Casual drug users ought to be taken out and shot. They were *always* intended to be used against non-violent suspects.
First, meta-analyses are worthless. It's a polite way of saying post-hoc data fudging.
Second, increases in aggressive behavior are common after all sorts of normally encouraged activities. e.g. sports, watching Power Rangers, playing Cops & Robbers or Cowboys & Indians.
Third, aggressive behavior is normal in humans. Show me a study where violent video game playing is shown to increase future criminal behavior.
No multi-player game is worth anything to me. If I want to play multiplayer, I'll just play OpenArena. I'll happily play $60 for an 80hour or greater RPG though.
If the game is a great football simulation, real gamers will buy it.
They're not interested in real gamers. There's a lot more meathead jocks out there then there are real gamers. It's a lot easier to separate them from their money too.
That's become even more expensive because so many developers no longer want to write for consoles or work on a multi-million dollar title. The stress involved in doing so can be substantial.
BooHoo. If the gaming industry can't attract talent that's their own damn fault.
Why couldn't every ISP that offers consumer-grade connectivity (that doesn't allow serving) do NAT at the ISP level
Because breaking the internet into two classes of users fundamentally breaks the internet. Having an internet connection without a publicly addressable IP address is like having a home telephone without a phone number. Can you imagine the phone tag hell you'd get into if half the phone users out there couldn't be dialed directly?
No, NAT is a horrible hack. Just because you don't need to be addressable today doesn't mean it won't become important in the future. If the average internet user can't be addressed, no one will write good server apps for the average internet user. We need to preserve this capability.
In other words, converting to IPV6 is more expensive than keeping IPV4.
Yes, keeping up with the times is more expensive than fading into obsolescence. That's the price of being an ISP. Keep up with current technology or lose your customers.
At least, that *would* be the case if we had anything resembling a free market for ISPs in the US.
The vast majority of people have zero use for that functionality yet. Claiming that people will never have a use for accepting incoming connections is like claiming they will never have a use for incoming phone calls. In fact, incoming phone calls is the perfect use case for running a server at home.
Just, rest assured, cops rarely get away with it if you have a decent lawyer.
It takes a damn good lawyer to get a cop tried for deprivation of rights under color of law. It ought to happen every time the exclusionary rule is applied.
Slashdot Mirror
The Post Office has traditionally been self-sufficient. Whether it can remain self sufficient in the e-mail age is yet to be determined.
Meta analysis is bunk, even when it's "properly" done. This isn't even a well done meta-analysis, this is dick waving. "My guys are more prolific than your guys, so we must be right" isn't science. Still, might be enough to sway the Supreme Court.
You are absolutely correct. Those who invented, authorized, and implemented that policy are the worst kind of criminal.
GITMO is a place outside US borders, where the previous administration decided the Constitution doesn't apply. Closing GITMO will prevent this disingenuous argument from happening again.
Saying that closing Guantanamo is just a matter of getting him the money is out of touch with reality. But that's *Obama's* excuse, not mine.
Also, the AG didn't decide that military tribunals were appropriate. He decided that they were the least inappropriate option he had available. Acting like that's the same thing is, again, disingenuous.
And a thick skull from the looks of it.
No, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, it is a life support system. Weakening the Constitution endangers everyone. Those who would weaken the Constitution would destroy America.
That's a bullshit excuse. The President is sworn to uphold the constitution. When Congress passes an unconstitutional law, the President has to challenge it. Obama has done no such thing.
Also, there are other ways to close Guantanamo. He's forbidden from using budgeted funds to close Guantanamo. So, lets have a bake sale. If Obama asked for donations to go towards closing Guantanamo I'd gladly pony up $100. I bet there are a few tens of thousands of freedom loving Americans who would do the same. But Obama hasn't tried anything, so it's hard to look at this as anything but an excuse.
Also, it's worth pointing out that Obama's Justice Department hasn't indicted anyone for torture. Not one. He can't blame that on Congress. Obama condones torture.
In every way shape and form Obama has failed to deliver on his promises of change. He has no one to blame for this but himself.
SWAT teams were created by Daryl Gates, who once said "Casual drug users ought to be taken out and shot. They were *always* intended to be used against non-violent suspects.
Honestly it is the Judges that need the wake-up call.
Never going to happen. They have far too much discretion, and are even immune to being sued or prosecuted for abuses of power.
Obviously you don't understand genetics. Humans are have few if any 'genetic inclinations'. It's one of our hallmarks.
So humans are genetically inclined not to have any genetic inclinations?
Just goes to show the corruption that's inevitable when there's a profit motive behind law enforcement. Fines are punishment, not funding.
First, meta-analyses are worthless. It's a polite way of saying post-hoc data fudging.
Second, increases in aggressive behavior are common after all sorts of normally encouraged activities. e.g. sports, watching Power Rangers, playing Cops & Robbers or Cowboys & Indians.
Third, aggressive behavior is normal in humans. Show me a study where violent video game playing is shown to increase future criminal behavior.
And they've yet to demonstrate any negative consequences should a 5 year old actually play GTA IV.
If the purpose of the ratings are to increase piracy and disdain for authority, then yes it's working just fine.
No multi-player game is worth anything to me. If I want to play multiplayer, I'll just play OpenArena. I'll happily play $60 for an 80hour or greater RPG though.
If the game is a great football simulation, real gamers will buy it.
They're not interested in real gamers. There's a lot more meathead jocks out there then there are real gamers. It's a lot easier to separate them from their money too.
That's become even more expensive because so many developers no longer want to write for consoles or work on a multi-million dollar title. The stress involved in doing so can be substantial.
BooHoo. If the gaming industry can't attract talent that's their own damn fault.
Why couldn't every ISP that offers consumer-grade connectivity (that doesn't allow serving) do NAT at the ISP level
Because breaking the internet into two classes of users fundamentally breaks the internet. Having an internet connection without a publicly addressable IP address is like having a home telephone without a phone number. Can you imagine the phone tag hell you'd get into if half the phone users out there couldn't be dialed directly?
No, NAT is a horrible hack. Just because you don't need to be addressable today doesn't mean it won't become important in the future. If the average internet user can't be addressed, no one will write good server apps for the average internet user. We need to preserve this capability.
In other words, converting to IPV6 is more expensive than keeping IPV4.
Yes, keeping up with the times is more expensive than fading into obsolescence. That's the price of being an ISP. Keep up with current technology or lose your customers.
At least, that *would* be the case if we had anything resembling a free market for ISPs in the US.
The vast majority of people have zero use for that functionality yet. Claiming that people will never have a use for accepting incoming connections is like claiming they will never have a use for incoming phone calls. In fact, incoming phone calls is the perfect use case for running a server at home.
But you can't criminally prosecute police for every little misstep
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Isn't that what they like to say? I would have no problem stuffing our prisons with the thugs.
Doesn't mean they won't make up a reason to search you anyway.
All it takes is a K9 officer to fake a "tell" on your car, and they can search you. Cops lie about probable cause all the time.
You have a first amendment right to lie. Doesn't mean the government respects it.
Just, rest assured, cops rarely get away with it if you have a decent lawyer.
It takes a damn good lawyer to get a cop tried for deprivation of rights under color of law. It ought to happen every time the exclusionary rule is applied.