It's not the governments fault that the biggest commitment you've ever made to a "relationship" is deciding to pay by the minute or by the hour.
"You've ever made"? As in, me? I live with my partner since 32 years and will do so for the rest of our live. We don't need a state certification to be sure of that. Whom are you talking of? Get back to your mother's basement, and off my lawn.
There's a new thing (for you) involved, that's named "money". The U.S. spends more money on military than all other states of this planet combined.
That's the reason, the "US can do whatever it feels like doing in other sovereign nations." Well, quite simply -- it can, we don't. Power speaks. And you don't even seem to know this elemantary truth.
The real pity is: You, US citizens, once were the spearhead of civil liberties. Now, you don't know this even more, as just observed. Soon, you will create concentration camps (like in the 50s for the Japanese, now for Arab/Islamic minorities) and will hamstring political dissidents (like with McCarthy).
You destroyed the acceptence of US politics world-wide to an extend, where, if it's not intentional -- it's criminal. I still wonder who earns from this development. If there's one thing the (now-defunct, owing to your political development) Groklaw got right, it's: Follow the money, that's where the power is.
You may lump as all together as Nazis; but we fight Nazis here, in Germany. We have them, but we do something against them. We could do more, but many citizens -- and that's the majority of people -- work hard to make these tendencies a non-issue for federal politics.
Whereas, you -- well, you have a government that doesn't bring an action against its officials who lied before congress, doesn't bring an action against its sworn officers who have knowingly decided to breach the law. Instead, it prosecutes the people who defend your constitution. You allowed the government to comandeer private resources, an action that is constitutionally only allowed in war time. And worse -- you don't care about it. Your press calls to suppress freedom of press and there's no outcry about it.
You voted them in, Bush and Obama, and you knew what you were doing.
You, the U.S.A., returns to behaviour of the 50s -- concentration camps like the Japanese citizens, or like Guantanamo, witch hunts like McCarthy, power without checks-and-balances. You think J. Edgar Hoover was bad, and it got over when he died? Well, Keith Alexander is worse. He should be the American darkest nightdream -- but he isn't. He is beyond the law now and can do like he wish, he is the living proove that you are neither willing to care for your republic nor for your democracy. And you will not get rid of his heritage, because he's much more intelligent than Hoover ever was.
There was a time when the U.S.A. was revered for their spirit, for their strive for justice and freedom. Well, these days are long over. People like Keith Alexander and others destroyed this spirit, and you -- the people of the U.S.A. -- didn't fight it.
No. That marriage is important is a re-invention of the 90s, re-establishing the prude atmosphere of the early 60s. (The even more prudish/rascist 50s get established right now, the US turning into a country that values propriate behavior for the Powers That Be over constitutional rights and freedom.)
The 70s, and to some degree the 80s, knew that marriage is just a contract with the state and has nothing to do with any personal relationship.
You should tell this to all your fellow military collegues, running torture camps or outright killing innocent victims like in the Manning video, abducting people on foreign territory (since, US law isn't valid there... great, isn't it?). Obviously, these military personal should have had written orders, accounting to your expectation. And they should have presented them and protested.
Well, where are those brave US military persons?
Since they don't come forward, we have to assume that they agreed to these actions; these crimes against humanity, as laid down in UN resolutions.
So, why are the US torture camp officers are not called on for their responsibility? Where are those trials, for orderingor following an illegal order? Shooting innocent bystanders from helicopters, just for fun?
Because, as you, yourself, wrote, nothing changed after Vietnam and incidents like the My Lai Massaker. The US military has an official conduct. Yes. Great. They don't live by it. That all that matters. And that's why the rest of the world doesn't accept your excuse of a "military codex that's followed".
If that's the case, why do all those personally voted people in US congress vehemently clamp to their party line? Or did you see a Rep lately that didn't want to block anything that's in front of him/her? How about those "`I will rather risk polical death than plug tax evasion schemes' promises" that they signed?
Being from Europe (Germany), I don't buy your argument. The news and the reported facts about congress member behavior tell different.
And your argument about the reason of your two-party system, well -- [citation neeeded]. The canonical explanation is that your voters know that a vote for any other party is lost, owing to the winner-takes-it-all voting system. Quite different to our system, for example, that handles 4-6 political parties in parlament quite stable, thank you. Why do you think that canoncial explanation doesn't hold water?
People like you make me realize that the current transformation of the USA into a fascist police state is actually supported by many of its inhabitants.
It's basically blackmail by the US: Any bank that does not "voluntarily" release data on its US customers will be denied access to US dollar transactions in international banking. Since US dollars are rather important in international transactions, this is pretty much the death of any bank that does any sort of international business.
Another possibility for the bank is to deny accounts to US citizens (and other persons who have to file taxes in the US). A bank that is a customer of mine does exactly that, on grounds that it is too expensive to provide the USA with all that data and just that data. No US customers, no data transfer, problem solved.
What exactly is the security issue that's significant enough to warrant such extreme and invasive measures?
That's easy to answer: They are not yet conditioned enough to accept all-around surveillance and ID requests under all circumstances. This is clearly a threat to the US "war on terrorism" and thus a security issue.
> I'm sure that in (picking a city at random) Frankfurt it is more pleasant than here.
That might be. But nevertheless here (Frankfurt) public transport to the suburbs (where I live) closes so early that you can't even go to the movies proper.
$6.40? You're lucky. One way public transport from home to Frankfurt is $8, two way is 15 $ (return fare is cheaper). One way taxi back home from Frankfurt is around 80 US-$ -- and we pay that much too often, after 11pm nothing is on any more
You're right that public transport sucks. You're wrong that it sucks in US only.
That's what I meant; just that I didn't have a link to a study at the hand.
Whereas, several scientists who got interviewed in the radio the other day claimed that one should be able to see an effect after roughly 2 years, even though the pesticide stays longer in the soil. That claim seems to be the reason why the ban is made for this length of time, at first.
> So we moved on to the next method, trial and error.
As long as trial is based on hypothesis [what's the plural?] and measurable predictions for outcome -- well, that's what was called (experimental) science when I studied, some decades ago.
> > > 1. It's unlikely that the version she currently uses does not run on Win7 > > > > If she tried firing it up on Windows 7, it would probably run, yes, although having it fail is more likely than you might think. But it's not *certified* on Windows 7, so she can't do that. She likely would be legally liable if she did. > > You simply do not know that.
Why? Of course, one may know that.
In Europe, that would be the case, that's for sure. As a doctor, it's not practical to run medical software on uncertified infrastructure. (It's not forbidden -- but you can't assert liability against the software vendor in that case, you're forfeighting any indemnity.)
I would be surprised if that's different in suit-obsessed USA.
I'm not aware of any TSA screening that found any terrorist suspect. But I'm aware of thousands of lost hours due to TSA screening for all travellers. I'm also aware of lost income from tourism who don't travel to USA any more, owing to the draconian processes at immigration. AFAICS, the changed screening process have done a lot of harm, and no good.
Thus, I severely doubt hat airline personnel screening really wasn't better.
But then, I'm European and I think we should not let the terrorists win by giving up our freedom, our civil liberties and our life style, as US folks often seems to believe to be necessary. I would have liked to say that this comes from much more terrorist attacks in Europe than in USA (albeight not such a big one as 9/11) -- but that's not true, KKK terrorism caused more deaths than 9/11 much earlier.
Some site had misleading info labeling an innocent as criminal.
Said innocent succeeded in getting the site to remove respective material.
Google still delivered incriminating material through its search results.
Complaining to Google didn't help. (As far as it's reported, it seems that represseive dictatorships like China hav no problem complaining to Google and get a reaction; but that course ain't available for a private person.)
Successfully suing Google might get some relief, though I doubt it.
Would you please cite any factual errors in the text above, with references? (I'd like to have references from you and not the other way round, since these are criminal charges, and we all respect innocent-until-proven-guilty, don't we?)
If you aren't able to do this, IMNSHO there is a difference between the original (now deleted) content and the search-engine delivered (still defamotory) content.
I'm from Germany, and the same situation is seen here as well.
It's called "Störerhaftung", roughly translated as "liability for disturbance" according to LEO dictionary. You are responsible for the stuff posted over your connection, if you didn't take adequate precautions to prohibit it. Hamburg's court is famous to cater for all who seek vengeance in online space, and can usually be called upon.
The US generally cannot (despite what Hollywood and Slashdotters like to think) just go and grab folks from other sovereign countries without repercussions*.
There are so many illegal actions (regarding International treaties) that my mind boggles that you call them no repercussions, From my own country (Germany), the USA has abducted people, put them into Guantanamo[sp?], and didn't bother at all about consequences
Many people have been illegally deported to foreign countries, by the USA, and have been tortured there. No problem at all for the USA government, and for US nationalists out there. Laws are for cowards who can't defend themselves, aren't they?
So, yes, the US can and doesgrab folks from other sovereign countries without repercussions -- that's what the global dislike of US foreign affairs politics is all about. That you can't see this, speaks volumes.
The above reminds me somewhat of a story line in Red Dwarf, where factions of cats wage war - "the cause of the cat civil war is whether their god was named Cloister or Clister".
Read again:
At that time, the courts had to settle which groups were the actual Christians, and thus officially tolerated, and which were the churches of the false Christians that did not fall under the Edict's orders to restore seized property
.
(emphasis mine) and learn: "never attribute something to ignorance that can be equally well be explained by greed".
Yeah, and both the article and the blogger are wrong. You are spouting BS, and others called you to your wrong Amtrag assertions already.
The Internet took up an exponential growth from the start -- as one of the persons who were technically responsible for connecting European countries to it, I was eye witness. I was employed by a public State University, like most others who did such work, so no free market, government money it was. The general public usage exploded after introduction of the World Wide Web -- conceived and realized by government money, too (CERN and Mosaic at NCSA).
You either don't know what you're talking about, or you try to rewrite our (my) past. Get off my lawn.
That explains your "Score:5, Informative". Good old Slashdot. I wonder why I even visit here anymore.
Because you replying to his signature and not to his actual actual content is a real hall mark for/. discussion culture? With your low numeric id, you're the living proof that/. always had it's share of idiots; sad as it is.
I haven't read about any GOP head who argued to put the Tea Party nutcases where they belong -- to the scrapheap of history (if they don't understand history, they're condemned to repeat it).
Could you please document the GOP's resistance and opposition to the Tea Party's extremisc positions?
As far as I'm concerned, the GOP left the camp of civilized behavior many years ago. Looking from abroad, it's clear that their only aim is to give Haliburton et.al. even more power than they have today.
No, it's not (why they're being clobbered), and no, they're not (being nice). There is a schism in the U.S. between a more traditionalist approach to governance (what is now labeled conservative) and a neo-statist approach (what is now labeled liberal).
Do you really think so? Astonishing.
Recently, I read Heinlein again. The Green Hills of Earth and Revolt in 2100. For an outsider like me, it's clear: you're heading towards a totalitarian society, as imagined by Heinlein, and you don't even recognize it -- just as he wrote. As an author to understand you aliens, he's quite successful, even after all those years.
Good luck, and here's me hoping that some of your next's generation will make it to civilization, you'll need it. And then, you're welcome, to the rest of the world, to us...
Slashdot Mirror
"You've ever made"? As in, me? I live with my partner since 32 years and will do so for the rest of our live. We don't need a state certification to be sure of that. Whom are you talking of? Get back to your mother's basement, and off my lawn.
There's a new thing (for you) involved, that's named "money". The U.S. spends more money on military than all other states of this planet combined.
That's the reason, the "US can do whatever it feels like doing in other sovereign nations." Well, quite simply -- it can, we don't. Power speaks. And you don't even seem to know this elemantary truth.
The real pity is: You, US citizens, once were the spearhead of civil liberties. Now, you don't know this even more, as just observed. Soon, you will create concentration camps (like in the 50s for the Japanese, now for Arab/Islamic minorities) and will hamstring political dissidents (like with McCarthy).
You destroyed the acceptence of US politics world-wide to an extend, where, if it's not intentional -- it's criminal. I still wonder who earns from this development. If there's one thing the (now-defunct, owing to your political development) Groklaw got right, it's: Follow the money, that's where the power is.
You may lump as all together as Nazis; but we fight Nazis here, in Germany. We have them, but we do something against them. We could do more, but many citizens -- and that's the majority of people -- work hard to make these tendencies a non-issue for federal politics.
Whereas, you -- well, you have a government that doesn't bring an action against its officials who lied before congress, doesn't bring an action against its sworn officers who have knowingly decided to breach the law. Instead, it prosecutes the people who defend your constitution. You allowed the government to comandeer private resources, an action that is constitutionally only allowed in war time. And worse -- you don't care about it. Your press calls to suppress freedom of press and there's no outcry about it.
You voted them in, Bush and Obama, and you knew what you were doing.
You, the U.S.A., returns to behaviour of the 50s -- concentration camps like the Japanese citizens, or like Guantanamo, witch hunts like McCarthy, power without checks-and-balances. You think J. Edgar Hoover was bad, and it got over when he died? Well, Keith Alexander is worse. He should be the American darkest nightdream -- but he isn't. He is beyond the law now and can do like he wish, he is the living proove that you are neither willing to care for your republic nor for your democracy. And you will not get rid of his heritage, because he's much more intelligent than Hoover ever was.
There was a time when the U.S.A. was revered for their spirit, for their strive for justice and freedom. Well, these days are long over. People like Keith Alexander and others destroyed this spirit, and you -- the people of the U.S.A. -- didn't fight it.
Shame on you.
The 70s, and to some degree the 80s, knew that marriage is just a contract with the state and has nothing to do with any personal relationship.
Well, where are those brave US military persons?
Since they don't come forward, we have to assume that they agreed to these actions; these crimes against humanity, as laid down in UN resolutions.
So, why are the US torture camp officers are not called on for their responsibility? Where are those trials, for orderingor following an illegal order? Shooting innocent bystanders from helicopters, just for fun?
Because, as you, yourself, wrote, nothing changed after Vietnam and incidents like the My Lai Massaker. The US military has an official conduct. Yes. Great. They don't live by it. That all that matters. And that's why the rest of the world doesn't accept your excuse of a "military codex that's followed".
Being from Europe (Germany), I don't buy your argument. The news and the reported facts about congress member behavior tell different.
And your argument about the reason of your two-party system, well -- [citation neeeded]. The canonical explanation is that your voters know that a vote for any other party is lost, owing to the winner-takes-it-all voting system. Quite different to our system, for example, that handles 4-6 political parties in parlament quite stable, thank you. Why do you think that canoncial explanation doesn't hold water?
Very scary, from this side of the pond.
*PLONK*
Another possibility for the bank is to deny accounts to US citizens (and other persons who have to file taxes in the US). A bank that is a customer of mine does exactly that, on grounds that it is too expensive to provide the USA with all that data and just that data. No US customers, no data transfer, problem solved.
That's easy to answer: They are not yet conditioned enough to accept all-around surveillance and ID requests under all circumstances. This is clearly a threat to the US "war on terrorism" and thus a security issue.
Anybody who's been around as long as you've supposed to be on this site and haven't heard about or read a book from Evi, is suspect.
How's PRISM going, Sir?
That might be. But nevertheless here (Frankfurt) public transport to the suburbs (where I live) closes so early that you can't even go to the movies proper.
$6.40? You're lucky. One way public transport from home to Frankfurt is $8, two way is 15 $ (return fare is cheaper). One way taxi back home from Frankfurt is around 80 US-$ -- and we pay that much too often, after 11pm nothing is on any more
You're right that public transport sucks. You're wrong that it sucks in US only.
Whereas, several scientists who got interviewed in the radio the other day claimed that one should be able to see an effect after roughly 2 years, even though the pesticide stays longer in the soil. That claim seems to be the reason why the ban is made for this length of time, at first.
As long as trial is based on hypothesis [what's the plural?] and measurable predictions for outcome -- well, that's what was called (experimental) science when I studied, some decades ago.
> > > 1. It's unlikely that the version she currently uses does not run on Win7
> >
> > If she tried firing it up on Windows 7, it would probably run, yes, although having it fail is more likely than you might think. But it's not *certified* on Windows 7, so she can't do that. She likely would be legally liable if she did.
>
> You simply do not know that.
Why? Of course, one may know that.
In Europe, that would be the case, that's for sure. As a doctor, it's not practical to run medical software on uncertified infrastructure. (It's not forbidden -- but you can't assert liability against the software vendor in that case, you're forfeighting any indemnity.)
I would be surprised if that's different in suit-obsessed USA.
I'm not aware of any TSA screening that found any terrorist suspect. But I'm aware of thousands of lost hours due to TSA screening for all travellers. I'm also aware of lost income from tourism who don't travel to USA any more, owing to the draconian processes at immigration. AFAICS, the changed screening process have done a lot of harm, and no good.
Thus, I severely doubt hat airline personnel screening really wasn't better.
But then, I'm European and I think we should not let the terrorists win by giving up our freedom, our civil liberties and our life style, as US folks often seems to believe to be necessary. I would have liked to say that this comes from much more terrorist attacks in Europe than in USA (albeight not such a big one as 9/11) -- but that's not true, KKK terrorism caused more deaths than 9/11 much earlier.
Some site had misleading info labeling an innocent as criminal.
Said innocent succeeded in getting the site to remove respective material.
Google still delivered incriminating material through its search results.
Complaining to Google didn't help. (As far as it's reported, it seems that represseive dictatorships like China hav no problem complaining to Google and get a reaction; but that course ain't available for a private person.)
Successfully suing Google might get some relief, though I doubt it.
Would you please cite any factual errors in the text above, with references? (I'd like to have references from you and not the other way round, since these are criminal charges, and we all respect innocent-until-proven-guilty, don't we?)
If you aren't able to do this, IMNSHO there is a difference between the original (now deleted) content and the search-engine delivered (still defamotory) content.
Well, reading your comment, are you now persuaded that correlation does imply causality?
http://xkcd.com/552/
I'm from Germany, and the same situation is seen here as well.
It's called "Störerhaftung", roughly translated as "liability for disturbance" according to LEO dictionary. You are responsible for the stuff posted over your connection, if you didn't take adequate precautions to prohibit it. Hamburg's court is famous to cater for all who seek vengeance in online space, and can usually be called upon.
Wikipedia article, with 152 checked citations.
You're welcome.
There are so many illegal actions (regarding International treaties) that my mind boggles that you call them no repercussions, From my own country (Germany), the USA has abducted people, put them into Guantanamo[sp?], and didn't bother at all about consequences
Many people have been illegally deported to foreign countries, by the USA, and have been tortured there. No problem at all for the USA government, and for US nationalists out there. Laws are for cowards who can't defend themselves, aren't they?
So, yes, the US can and does grab folks from other sovereign countries without repercussions -- that's what the global dislike of US foreign affairs politics is all about. That you can't see this, speaks volumes.
Read again:
(emphasis mine) and learn: "never attribute something to ignorance that can be equally well be explained by greed".
The Internet took up an exponential growth from the start -- as one of the persons who were technically responsible for connecting European countries to it, I was eye witness. I was employed by a public State University, like most others who did such work, so no free market, government money it was. The general public usage exploded after introduction of the World Wide Web -- conceived and realized by government money, too (CERN and Mosaic at NCSA).
You either don't know what you're talking about, or you try to rewrite our (my) past. Get off my lawn.
Because you replying to his signature and not to his actual actual content is a real hall mark for /. discussion culture? With your low numeric id, you're the living proof that /. always had it's share of idiots; sad as it is.
*PLONK*
I haven't read about any GOP head who argued to put the Tea Party nutcases where they belong -- to the scrapheap of history (if they don't understand history, they're condemned to repeat it).
Could you please document the GOP's resistance and opposition to the Tea Party's extremisc positions?
As far as I'm concerned, the GOP left the camp of civilized behavior many years ago. Looking from abroad, it's clear that their only aim is to give Haliburton et.al. even more power than they have today.
Do you really think so? Astonishing.
Recently, I read Heinlein again. The Green Hills of Earth and Revolt in 2100. For an outsider like me, it's clear: you're heading towards a totalitarian society, as imagined by Heinlein, and you don't even recognize it -- just as he wrote. As an author to understand you aliens, he's quite successful, even after all those years.
Good luck, and here's me hoping that some of your next's generation will make it to civilization, you'll need it. And then, you're welcome, to the rest of the world, to us...