McCain is not the stranger to technology some think him to be. I don't recall anybody saying that he was. Except maybe McCain himself, since he loves to make fun of his own fuddy-duddy image.
I work for a company that employs thousands of people. Some of them work on the other side of the planet. If one of them sees a post by me, they have no way of knowing I'm a co-worker. Why is that "as bad as what twitter does"?
PS: I didn't mean this to be a "be all end all solution", I realise any system has flaws but slashdot is ridiculously open to this crap. That's a pretty lame excuse for sloppy thinking.
Dennehy noted that Intellipedia has several important distinctions from Wikipedia. First, Intellipedia is not limited to being an encyclopedia. Rather, users can create their own pages to be used within workgroups or teams so they can debate and collaborate around issues.
"We are not typically dealing with facts," he noted. "We are dealing with puzzles and mysteries. Everyone in the community is working on something of vital national security importance. We want to get to the point in the intelligence community where everyone is contributing their knowledge to Intellipedia." In other words, they're using the wiki as a collaboration tool, not as a information aggregator. That's actually what Ward Cunningham had in mind when he invented the Wiki, and it's still the one thing Wikis really excell at. Sure, wikis are used for a lot of other stuff (like building reference books, a task at which they positively suck), but only because using them saves a lot of money.
It isn't an impeachment until it passes the HoR and is sent to the Senate. This won't pass. It probably won't even come to a vote. It will be forgotten in a month, never mind 50 years.
I known about UECs. I also know that nobody who doesn't work for Bush thinks the idea is anything but another weird legal theory from a administration that seems to be in love with weird legal theories.
If some transnational group poses just as much threat as a national armed forces, what's wrong with taking them as the equivalent of POWs? Not a thing. But if you'd followed the news at all, you'd know that the Bush administration has repeatedly denied that the detainees are POWs. That's because POW camps are subject to all kinds of rules that they don't want to follow.
And, as I've already mentioned, many detainees were not captured on the battlefield. They're just people who stand accused of being affiliated with terrorist organizations. And I emphasize the word "accused", few have any real evidence against them. These are obviously not POWs. If they're accused criminals, they have a right to see the evidence against them, and defend themselves against their accusers. But no, they're not POWs, they're not accused criminals, they a new kind of prisoner: Unlawful Enemy Combatants.
Here's some concept you might find useful: "Preview before posting". "Try different settings", and "read the documentation". "Express yourself concisely," is also useful.
But you're in to much of a hurry for all that, which makes me pretty uninterested in anything you have to say.
Sorry, won't work. Lots of people share IP addresses. I'm sharing one now, because I'm accessing Slashdot from work, behind a corporate router with NAT.
If you're going to get into an argument with somebody, try arguing with something they actually said. I never said that Dubya never did anything wrong. Though it's worth mentioning that "treason" is not what you think it is.
Do you understand the difference between "cruelty" and "punishment"? The distinction might not mean much in terms of actual suffering, but it is a real distinction.
I know what irony is. Yours is too subtle for me. Or maybe I your strident tone made your irony less than obvious. That was certainly the reaction of the moderators who rated your post "informative".
By that logic, the government was wrong when it started refusing to pay for Medicare services at hospitals that wouldn't treat black people. (This happened in 1964 or thereabouts.) After all, these hospitals were just private entities selling their services to the government.
Of course, nowadays everybody agrees that it's wrong to refuse people medical treatment. So when the government uses its financial power to change people's behavior, it's taken as a sign of government authority run amuck.
Religious discrimination is illegal in many contexts (employment, retail sales) but there's no blanket ban. How would you enforce it? If my prejudice agains Presbyterians keeps me out of Walmart, whose to know?
In most jurisdictions, discriminating against somebody based on their sexual orientation is perfectly legal. You may think that's wrong (as do I) but being wrong doesn't make something illegal.
Let me guess, this was a United Church of Christ congregation? They've gone seriously anti-anti-gay. Many of them have actually stopped performing legal marriages, which I guess is a protest against the fact that same sex couples can't get married. If you want to get married in such a church, they will perform something called a Holy Union, which is available to both gay and straight couples, but which has no legal standing. If you want your marriage legalized, you have to provide your own official to sign the documents: the UCC pastor won't do it.
I'm neither gay nor a Christian. But I find that little bit of civil disobedience rather touching.
While the higher-up organization might make stands on certain issues, it did not reflect my experience. The previous Scout Leader was an Atheist. The higher-ups don't merely "make stands", they make rules. And the rules say that no scout or scout leader can be an atheist or gay. The fact that nobody ratted on your atheist scout leader speaks well for the people in your troop, but if anybody had, he would have been shown the door.
Your understanding of the law is very poor, as is your logic. But I don't have the energy to parse your argument, especially since it's beside the point.
Laws don't determine what's right or wrong. They're just an encoding of the traditions of the societies that make them. In American, we happen to believe that before the government can lock people up without showing something in the way of evidence that they need locking up. The exception is POWs, whom you can imprison without charge for the length of the war. There's no third category.
Except for the Gitmo detainess. And that only works because Gitmo happens to be a U.S. military base on the soil of a country (Cuba) with which the U.S. does not have relations. But enough with the legal hairsplitting: it doesn't matter whether Dubya actually has found a loophole in the constitution. It's enough that he's ignoring it. How does that make us look to the rest of the world? Like hypocrites and assholes, that's how.
And incidentally, a lot of the detainees were not picked up on the battlefield. The were rousted out of their homes, often in countries far away from any battlefield, and on the basis of accusations considered credible only by the local secret police. So fuck you and your "saboteurs".
As for your stupid little rant against Congressman K.: it's ad homimen, it's bigoted, and it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. And jeez, haven't you ever heard of paragraphs? You're the one that's coming across as a mouth-breather.
OK, your sort of have a point. Except that preventive detention is not punishment. Which only makes it more evil, but that doesn't eliminate the different.
God, this thread has some convoluted logic. You're saying that back in in 2001, Congress should have impeached Bush for stuff hadn't done yet, but that's OK, because the stuff he hadn't done yet included illegal imprisonment. Yeah, that makes sense.
Officially, Slashdot does not allow sockpuppets. But how do you prevent them? They do require that every user have a unique email address, but anyone can get one of those. Twitter's a Linux geek, so he probably has his own POP server with wildcarding, which means that he doesn't even have to create a new email account for each email address he wants to use.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, this is Slashdot! The wording your supposed to use is "I, for one, welcome our new McCain blogger overlords," or something like that.
Do you understand the difference between reporting on what a candidate is doing and shilling for that candidate? Obviously not.
"We are not typically dealing with facts," he noted. "We are dealing with puzzles and mysteries. Everyone in the community is working on something of vital national security importance. We want to get to the point in the intelligence community where everyone is contributing their knowledge to Intellipedia." In other words, they're using the wiki as a collaboration tool, not as a information aggregator. That's actually what Ward Cunningham had in mind when he invented the Wiki, and it's still the one thing Wikis really excell at. Sure, wikis are used for a lot of other stuff (like building reference books, a task at which they positively suck), but only because using them saves a lot of money.
No, I need something big enough for my porn collection.
In that case, the detainees just need to file a writ of habea corpus. Problem solved! Gee, I wonder why nobody thought of that...
I don't think "The Supremes said I could" is a useful defense in an impeachment trial. Not that it will come to that.
It isn't an impeachment until it passes the HoR and is sent to the Senate. This won't pass. It probably won't even come to a vote. It will be forgotten in a month, never mind 50 years.
And, as I've already mentioned, many detainees were not captured on the battlefield. They're just people who stand accused of being affiliated with terrorist organizations. And I emphasize the word "accused", few have any real evidence against them. These are obviously not POWs. If they're accused criminals, they have a right to see the evidence against them, and defend themselves against their accusers. But no, they're not POWs, they're not accused criminals, they a new kind of prisoner: Unlawful Enemy Combatants.
Here's some concept you might find useful: "Preview before posting". "Try different settings", and "read the documentation". "Express yourself concisely," is also useful.
But you're in to much of a hurry for all that, which makes me pretty uninterested in anything you have to say.
Ooh, bitter much? But you're right, and I think the process you describe is inevitable for any big organization.
Sorry, won't work. Lots of people share IP addresses. I'm sharing one now, because I'm accessing Slashdot from work, behind a corporate router with NAT.
If you're going to get into an argument with somebody, try arguing with something they actually said. I never said that Dubya never did anything wrong. Though it's worth mentioning that "treason" is not what you think it is.
Do you understand the difference between "cruelty" and "punishment"? The distinction might not mean much in terms of actual suffering, but it is a real distinction.
I know what irony is. Yours is too subtle for me. Or maybe I your strident tone made your irony less than obvious. That was certainly the reaction of the moderators who rated your post "informative".
By that logic, the government was wrong when it started refusing to pay for Medicare services at hospitals that wouldn't treat black people. (This happened in 1964 or thereabouts.) After all, these hospitals were just private entities selling their services to the government.
Of course, nowadays everybody agrees that it's wrong to refuse people medical treatment. So when the government uses its financial power to change people's behavior, it's taken as a sign of government authority run amuck.
Religious discrimination is illegal in many contexts (employment, retail sales) but there's no blanket ban. How would you enforce it? If my prejudice agains Presbyterians keeps me out of Walmart, whose to know?
In most jurisdictions, discriminating against somebody based on their sexual orientation is perfectly legal. You may think that's wrong (as do I) but being wrong doesn't make something illegal.
You don't need to buy people, they're free!
Let me guess, this was a United Church of Christ congregation? They've gone seriously anti-anti-gay. Many of them have actually stopped performing legal marriages, which I guess is a protest against the fact that same sex couples can't get married. If you want to get married in such a church, they will perform something called a Holy Union, which is available to both gay and straight couples, but which has no legal standing. If you want your marriage legalized, you have to provide your own official to sign the documents: the UCC pastor won't do it.
I'm neither gay nor a Christian. But I find that little bit of civil disobedience rather touching.
Your understanding of the law is very poor, as is your logic. But I don't have the energy to parse your argument, especially since it's beside the point.
Laws don't determine what's right or wrong. They're just an encoding of the traditions of the societies that make them. In American, we happen to believe that before the government can lock people up without showing something in the way of evidence that they need locking up. The exception is POWs, whom you can imprison without charge for the length of the war. There's no third category.
Except for the Gitmo detainess. And that only works because Gitmo happens to be a U.S. military base on the soil of a country (Cuba) with which the U.S. does not have relations. But enough with the legal hairsplitting: it doesn't matter whether Dubya actually has found a loophole in the constitution. It's enough that he's ignoring it. How does that make us look to the rest of the world? Like hypocrites and assholes, that's how.
And incidentally, a lot of the detainees were not picked up on the battlefield. The were rousted out of their homes, often in countries far away from any battlefield, and on the basis of accusations considered credible only by the local secret police. So fuck you and your "saboteurs".
As for your stupid little rant against Congressman K.: it's ad homimen, it's bigoted, and it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. And jeez, haven't you ever heard of paragraphs? You're the one that's coming across as a mouth-breather.
OK, your sort of have a point. Except that preventive detention is not punishment. Which only makes it more evil, but that doesn't eliminate the different.
God, this thread has some convoluted logic. You're saying that back in in 2001, Congress should have impeached Bush for stuff hadn't done yet, but that's OK, because the stuff he hadn't done yet included illegal imprisonment. Yeah, that makes sense.
Officially, Slashdot does not allow sockpuppets. But how do you prevent them? They do require that every user have a unique email address, but anyone can get one of those. Twitter's a Linux geek, so he probably has his own POP server with wildcarding, which means that he doesn't even have to create a new email account for each email address he wants to use.