So, you're saying that the united states is an irrational crackpot state with the most powerful military in the world, and your plan is to provoke a fight? Nice. Good luck with that.:)
Right, but they often want to do those things more than they want to do the things the rest of us do to keep us from having to sleep in doorways and and beg for food.:) The homeless folks I've spoken with want to keep doing drugs and resent any attempts by shelter organizations to "control" them by asking them to go into rehab, be back at night by a certain curfew time and so on. There are a distinct minority that use the system to get back on their feet, but the remainder are always in and out of shelters because of their rather childish world view. Throwing money on them only encourages that view to become more widespread.
Well, put it this way, then. The air strike solves the problem of the civilians being more afraid of the insurgents than they are of the US Army. The old equation used to be, "On this hand, I have possible extortion and death from the insurgents if I don't allow them to use my building to kill Americans, and on this other hand, I have no danger from the Americans if I do. That's a pretty easy decision." Now it'll be "On this hand, I have possible extortion and death from the insurgents if I don't allow them to use my building to kill Americans, but on the other hand, I will have no building or family left, courtesy of the Americans, if I do. I can either move my family out, or we and the other families can shoot the sniper in the head."
I'm all for making friends and minimizing deaths, but if someone decides to aid people who are trying to kill my friends, in my opinion, that disqualifies them from that protection. It sucks to be caught between a rock and a hard place, but that's just one of the many reasons war sucks. Compassion is no reason for an army to make it easier for its soldiers to get killed. Armies fight wars and wars are dangerous things that involve killing.
Maybe now that the decision to help the insurgents has a hefty price tag attached to it, fewer people will make that choice.
Or, more accurately put, whoever invades us gets five times the benefit. It's not like the other 80% gets put towards lighting dollar bills on fire and people snapping each other with towels.
Exactly. They would be less likely to want more food than they would, for instance, nicer clothes, some jewelry for a dowry, bribe money for a local official to help a member of the family that was wrongly imprisoned, money for the "bus" that goes to market, and so on.
How about my five static addresses on my dedicated server running Linux? AOL has blocked us, not because of any email we've sent, but because of an unsecured Windows system on the same subnet. They've also been known to block based on AOL users mistakenly marking non-spam emails as spam. I get error reports from AOL for any spam reported from the subnet my server is on, and you'd be surprised at what some people report as spam. Ever gotten a Vacation bounce from someone who is out of the office? Some AOL user will mark that as spam. Ever get a 'how to unsubscribe' message from a mailman-based mailing list? Some AOL user will mark that as spam.
The point here is about how little research AOL puts into putting someone on a blacklist compared to the impact it has when they make a mistake. I would love to not have to communicate with AOL, or with Time Warner (who are equally irrational), but I have too many clients who either use them, or know people who do.
That having been said, if you're venturing out into making statements about something you may only know vaguely something about, and when doing so may betray your ignorance, it's not a good idea to be a dick in the process.
I had a similar problem with a few ISPs when the virus outbreak of last fall took place. Weeks of almost daily attempts at contacting them were in vain. Finally I wrote a small perl script to send them an email every time one of the virus-infected systems on their network attempted to establish a connection (blocked by iptables). Within a week, all three ISPs fixed the problem. Something about ten or twenty emails a day appeals to the base animal nature of the people who make the decisions there or something.
Try riding your bicycle up and down hills in cold snow blowing in your face, in the early dark of mid-december with ice and slush on the road, surrounded by minivan-driving soccer mom's talking on cell phones and drinking coffee, and see how long you last. Maybe in more temperate zones that don't have real winters, the bicycle or motorcycle is a practical all-year-round transportation option, but up here, it's really only viable seven or eight months out of the year.
what's to keep someonw from just replacing the database? If you want to suicide into a building. zero the database, and if you want to generally cause havoc with the plane itself, replace it with a database of GPS coordinates of airports within ~500mi of the destination airport? Good luck trying to land before running out of fuel or commandeering some straight stretch of highway.
Nothing is hack proof. But this is probably the best attempt so far to solve the "put it where it dont belong" problem we've had with our airliners.
Do you pay any taxes in any of the countries that participated in the war action? You must have known that your money could have been spent on military actions. That would make you as culpable as the leaders you condemn, by your somewhat unique logic.
Your argument also assumes that no innocent people were killed by the Iraqi regime, or would be in future years. I think you would have a hard time arguing that assumption.
Not only will the RIAA be worried about other people hearing it if we play CDs, but what if the song gets into your head by listening to it? We can't have that! Then the song exists not only on digital media, but also on biological. Then if you accidentally hum it while driving, or sing it in the shower, you're redistributing their precious intellectual property and could be sued for a whopping 6 billion dollars. I should sue them for the cost of the roll of duct tape it would take to keep all of my CD cases closed so my roommate doesn't get his grubby hands on them and make me liable for redistribution, and also for the psychologist bills I'll have to pay with this new precedent to repress the memory of every RIAA-owned song via hypnosis. If every one of us did that, that six billion would disappear pretty quickly. I probably should have disclaimed the sarcasm. Damned lawyers.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you're saying that the united states is an irrational crackpot state with the most powerful military in the world, and your plan is to provoke a fight? Nice. Good luck with that. :)
Right, but they often want to do those things more than they want to do the things the rest of us do to keep us from having to sleep in doorways and and beg for food. :) The homeless folks I've spoken with want to keep doing drugs and resent any attempts by shelter organizations to "control" them by asking them to go into rehab, be back at night by a certain curfew time and so on. There are a distinct minority that use the system to get back on their feet, but the remainder are always in and out of shelters because of their rather childish world view. Throwing money on them only encourages that view to become more widespread.
Well, put it this way, then. The air strike solves the problem of the civilians being more afraid of the insurgents than they are of the US Army. The old equation used to be, "On this hand, I have possible extortion and death from the insurgents if I don't allow them to use my building to kill Americans, and on this other hand, I have no danger from the Americans if I do. That's a pretty easy decision." Now it'll be "On this hand, I have possible extortion and death from the insurgents if I don't allow them to use my building to kill Americans, but on the other hand, I will have no building or family left, courtesy of the Americans, if I do. I can either move my family out, or we and the other families can shoot the sniper in the head."
I'm all for making friends and minimizing deaths, but if someone decides to aid people who are trying to kill my friends, in my opinion, that disqualifies them from that protection. It sucks to be caught between a rock and a hard place, but that's just one of the many reasons war sucks. Compassion is no reason for an army to make it easier for its soldiers to get killed. Armies fight wars and wars are dangerous things that involve killing.
Maybe now that the decision to help the insurgents has a hefty price tag attached to it, fewer people will make that choice.
Or, more accurately put, whoever invades us gets five times the benefit. It's not like the other 80% gets put towards lighting dollar bills on fire and people snapping each other with towels.
Exactly. They would be less likely to want more food than they would, for instance, nicer clothes, some jewelry for a dowry, bribe money for a local official to help a member of the family that was wrongly imprisoned, money for the "bus" that goes to market, and so on.
How about my five static addresses on my dedicated server running Linux? AOL has blocked us, not because of any email we've sent, but because of an unsecured Windows system on the same subnet. They've also been known to block based on AOL users mistakenly marking non-spam emails as spam. I get error reports from AOL for any spam reported from the subnet my server is on, and you'd be surprised at what some people report as spam. Ever gotten a Vacation bounce from someone who is out of the office? Some AOL user will mark that as spam. Ever get a 'how to unsubscribe' message from a mailman-based mailing list? Some AOL user will mark that as spam.
The point here is about how little research AOL puts into putting someone on a blacklist compared to the impact it has when they make a mistake. I would love to not have to communicate with AOL, or with Time Warner (who are equally irrational), but I have too many clients who either use them, or know people who do.
That having been said, if you're venturing out into making statements about something you may only know vaguely something about, and when doing so may betray your ignorance, it's not a good idea to be a dick in the process.
I had a similar problem with a few ISPs when the virus outbreak of last fall took place. Weeks of almost daily attempts at contacting them were in vain. Finally I wrote a small perl script to send them an email every time one of the virus-infected systems on their network attempted to establish a connection (blocked by iptables). Within a week, all three ISPs fixed the problem. Something about ten or twenty emails a day appeals to the base animal nature of the people who make the decisions there or something.
Try riding your bicycle up and down hills in cold snow blowing in your face, in the early dark of mid-december with ice and slush on the road, surrounded by minivan-driving soccer mom's talking on cell phones and drinking coffee, and see how long you last. Maybe in more temperate zones that don't have real winters, the bicycle or motorcycle is a practical all-year-round transportation option, but up here, it's really only viable seven or eight months out of the year.
Yes, the first thought that crossed my mind was "for the amount they're charging for it, you'd think they could pay more than one model."
I'll share the two I have which are identical to lines in both Linux and in SCO:
Line one:
}
Line two:
};
I think I'll ask $500/infringement.
I guess that would explain why it's hands-free.
Wow. That'll make rootkits ten times harder to detect. I'm not sure that's the best way to solve whatever the supposed problem is.
what's to keep someonw from just replacing the database? If you want to suicide into a building. zero the database, and if you want to generally cause havoc with the plane itself, replace it with a database of GPS coordinates of airports within ~500mi of the destination airport? Good luck trying to land before running out of fuel or commandeering some straight stretch of highway.
Nothing is hack proof. But this is probably the best attempt so far to solve the "put it where it dont belong" problem we've had with our airliners.
Do you pay any taxes in any of the countries that participated in the war action? You must have known that your money could have been spent on military actions. That would make you as culpable as the leaders you condemn, by your somewhat unique logic.
Your argument also assumes that no innocent people were killed by the Iraqi regime, or would be in future years. I think you would have a hard time arguing that assumption.
Security clearances, maybe?
What about EMP? Do they still sell hardware with tech old enough that it wouldn't get fried from an electromagnetic pulse?
Not only will the RIAA be worried about other people hearing it if we play CDs, but what if the song gets into your head by listening to it? We can't have that! Then the song exists not only on digital media, but also on biological. Then if you accidentally hum it while driving, or sing it in the shower, you're redistributing their precious intellectual property and could be sued for a whopping 6 billion dollars. I should sue them for the cost of the roll of duct tape it would take to keep all of my CD cases closed so my roommate doesn't get his grubby hands on them and make me liable for redistribution, and also for the psychologist bills I'll have to pay with this new precedent to repress the memory of every RIAA-owned song via hypnosis. If every one of us did that, that six billion would disappear pretty quickly. I probably should have disclaimed the sarcasm. Damned lawyers.