No. The safety tip is: don't look like a whore if you don't want to be treated as a whore.
Okay, let me make sure I understand your point. You're saying that it's appropriate to rape sex workers? Or are you saying that anyone wearing revealing clothes should expect to be offered money in exchange for sex? I can kind of see some logic in the latter, but where I come from the latter is right out. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that rape is *never* justified. Consent is necessary for sexual activity. Period.
If you believe differently, then we need to keep a close eye on you.
Well, then perhaps your generation should have done a better job of teaching us manners. Or generally not cut back on funding education, worker's rights, and generally making things shitty for us, because you got yours, the hell to anybody that comes after.
We're going to be spending a shit ton of money and effort clearing up the messes that the elderly caused.
Respect does go both ways, but you guys should demonstrate it first, because all we know is the douchebaggery that you've shown us.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am polite and kind almost to a fault. Well, except that I don't suffer fools gladly. My generation? Yeah, sure. My generation will be the ones that are the first to get the shaft with Social Security. My generation is the one that made those shiny phones and created the network infrastructure that makes your job possible, boy.
And I do emphasize the word "boy." Because you clearly aren't acting like an adult. Hence the term "douchebag" in reference to you. Perhaps I should have said whiny child, but douchebag seems to flow quite naturally in this case, don't you think?
In any case, since no one seems to read Santayana any more I'll remind you that if you don't learn the lessons of history, you're doomed to repeat them. I'll break it down into small words so you'll be sure to understand. Yes. There are assholes of every stripe, including older folks. However, look around you -- some of those who came before you clearly knew what they were doing or you would still be up to your knees in pig shit on the farm.
It would behoove you to seek out those who have more experience and try to gain from it, rather than denigrating those who have lived longer than you have. Soon enough, you'll be the old one and there will be young people who might benefit from the experience you've had. It seems clear that you're (at least at the moment) too immature to get that, but perhaps that will change in the future.
Personally, I'm in favor of teaching people like you some manners and respect for the coming generation, as we're the ones you're going to be counting on in old age, not to just dump you in the middle of the woods to fend for yourself.
Personally, I'm in favor of teaching people like you that those with more experience often have a great deal to share and that if you weren't such a douchebag you might actually learn something. Manners and respect go both ways, my young apprentice.
No. Investigating the threat would be the logical thing to do. If it was determined that this person was deranged enough to actually carry out such acts, he should be placed in a secure mental health facility and treated. If the threat was found not to be credible, he should be left alone to think about how much unwanted attention and stress the things he said brought on him, and why he should be more thoughtful before posting in a public forum in the future.
I recall being told (back in the distant past --- the 1990s) that I shouldn't put anything in an email that I wouldn't want to see on the front page of my local newspaper. This goes triple for social media, IMHO.
Sure, the USA could be much better, but calling the USA a police state is an insult to people who actually suffer them.
You are absolutely correct that other governments do worse things to their people. That horrifies and disgusts me. But you seem to be saying that we shouldn't call out the abuses of *our* government just because other governments are doing much worse things? I think the Federal government could use you as a part of their propaganda^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H public relations team.
Are you saying "don't bitch because it's much worse elsewhere?" I don't agree. And for the record, I didn't call the U.S. a police state.
Tyranny? Huh? When was the last time you or a family member were pulled from your home without a warrant or just cause and beaten by any arm of the government? The West if far from the killing fields. Stop being so excessive with your rhetoric if you want to be taken seriously.
Umm...It happens all the time. Although not to me personally. Most likely because I'm not poor and black or mistakenly accosted by jackbooted thugs.
Twenty years! Hah! I was singing that when I was 6, which was, well, never mind but a lot more than 20 years ago. Now get offa my lawn.
I heard it when I was a young boy (more like forty years ago) myself, but I started singing it exclusively instead of the "normal" version 20 years ago.
The copyright is mine, though. And if you don't use it as I've specified, I'll sue you for that lawn, buster!
So, let's all go file a billion copyright violation lawsuits against the U.S. government...would cripple them to the point they would not be doing much else for a very long time.
Aside from either side of the same ruling class sniping at each other and spying on us, what exactly has the government been doing? Well, aside from kowtowing to their corporate masters, not much IMHO.
Pretty sad that, from what I saw in the comments, only one or two of you are smart enough to realize that 1,004 people DOES NOT constitute, nor do they speak for, the majority of U.S. citizens. I HATE polls like this. 1,004 people? Really? That's only a few more people than ONE college graduating class. And they speak for MILLIONS of citizens.
Here's a super accurate poll. I interviewed 20 of my friends, they all disagree with govt. tracking, there for 100% of U.S. Citizens do not support it.
Get real people.
Through appropriate Statistical Sampling methodologies, accurate assessments of an entire population can be made based on responses from just a small group within the population.
I suggest you educate yourself, lest you become the poster boy for "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." Oops. Too late.
...However, the real beauty of VMS wasn't so much it's architecture...
One of the questions that comes up all the time is: How enthusiastic
is our support for UNIX?
Unix was written on our machines and for our machines many years ago.
Today, much of UNIX being done is done on our machines. Ten percent of our
VAXs are going for UNIX use. UNIX is a simple language, easy to understand,
easy to get started with. It's great for students, great for somewhat casual
users, and it's great for interchanging programs between different machines.
And so, because of its popularity in these markets, we support it. We have
good UNIX on VAX and good UNIX on PDP-11s.
It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run
out of things they can do with UNIX. They'll want a real system and will end
up doing VMS when they get to be serious about programming.
With UNIX, if you're looking for something, you can easily and quickly
check that small manual and find out that it's not there. With VMS, no matter
what you look for -- it's literally a five-foot shelf of documentation -- if
you look long enough it's there. That's the difference -- the beauty of UNIX
is it's simple; and the beauty of VMS is that it's all there.
-- Ken Olsen, president of DEC, DECWORLD Vol. 8 No. 5, 1984
[It's been argued that the beauty of UNIX is the same as the beauty of Ken
Olsen's brain. Ed.]
FAIL0 - no scenario given. (Actually you even copied almost exactly the sentences that I used in some of my "FAIL0" examples.)
You mean the part about you not being very bright? I've got your FAIL0 right here, Benny.
Gratuitous insults aside, I don't subscribe to your rules about how to communicate. Nor did I copy anything you wrote. In fact, I didn't read most of your screed. If you don't like it, don't read what I write.
To paraphrase, you queried whether and/or why the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has a positive impact on our society. While (as many others have pointed out) the right against self-incrimination is just one part of the amendment, you chose to focus on that.
The law professor and veteran police officer/law student, in the video I linked to (as did a slew of other folks) in my earlier post, exposited the value of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination much more eloquently than I could. They also include numerous examples ("scenarios," in your parlance) of how invoking, and more importantly, not invoking those protections, impacted outcomes in serious ways.
If, after watching this video, you are still unconvinced as to the value of the self-incrimination protections of the Fifth Amendment, you're certainly as dim as you present yourself to be.
I'm pretty convinced you're trolling here. Perhaps you'll pleasantly surprise me, but I doubt it.
If the executive then declines to punish the officers for the beating, the right not to be beaten fades to a paper tiger.
The previous sentence is irrelevant to this. If they chose to not punish someone for beating you, regardless of why they did it or their motivations, that lack of enforcement is what causes you to lose your right to not be beaten.
You might as well say something along the lines of: You have a right to not be murdered, but someone might murder you to stop you from saying something they don't want. If the executive declines to punish the murderer, your right to not be murdered disappears.... therefore freedom of speech exists to stop you from being murdered.
Stop trying to layer other stuff on right to not self-incriminate. You simply shouldn't be incriminate your self, or be further punished for not incriminating yourself. Speaking of other rights, like to not be physically harmed, only conflates the right and hides its more basic principle behind other independent rights.
The best argument I've heard recently for the Fifth amendment and for not talking to police, prosecutors or any other law enforcement folks can be found here.
Clearly you're not bright enough to understand why the Bill of Rights included the guarantee that you cannot be forced to bear witness against yourself. That's sad. I feel pity for you.
The two best sources for the number of deaths in Iraq are a study published in The Lancet, which estimated 650,000 deaths, to 2006, and a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which estimated 150,000 deaths. The best evidence-based estimate is that it's somewhere in between those two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Both studies were done by investigators who had done these war estimates before, and actually went to Iraq to poll people in the field.
That's not true of the Iraq Body Count, which was put together by some anonymous guys who stayed home clipping English language newspapers. They make the dubious assumption that every death was reported in the newspaper and reprinted in an English language newspaper.
Since you want to get the facts straight.
Thanks for the clarification and the cites. You make my point better than I did. As should be obvious, I was giving the lie to the GPs assertion that drone strikes were killing so many more people than anything else. I just don't get how people can be so rabid that they spout complete nonsense just to attack someone they don't like. There are plenty of things to skewer Obama (and I voted for him -- twice) over without resorting to distortions and outright falsehoods. Sigh.
If you want to talk about innocents being killed, the current guy is much worse. That, and he himself made the argument that he has the right to hit Americans with drone strikes without due process. Personally I'm happy with the one time that this has been done because that asshole had it coming, but it still sets a bad precedent. Emphasis Added
Examples of what's important are: your shopping list, where you're having dinner tonight, mundane thoughts such as "yes, I'll have another beer" and nearly anything else. Anything you say can be used against you, and I'm not quoting Miranda; I'm quoting reality itself.
Yeah, you want fluoride in your water. You want it in trace amounts, though; and you want F+ ion, not all the other garbage that gets dumped in your water to get F+ ion into it artificially. If they artificially produced F+ ion by stripping it out of toxic waste, you'd get something vastly different--and the argument would be entirely stupid. Instead, the argument is between people shouting "FLUORIDE" while the reality is between Fluoride and Toxic Fluoride Compounds.
Perhaps this will spawn a market for devices that will disrupt video recordings. These can be installed in places where people value their privacy and/or are there with people they don't want others to see them with, etc., etc., etc. I think this would be a great selling point for many people. "Come to our establishment! We won't let others spy on you!"
Slashdot Mirror
No. The safety tip is: don't look like a whore if you don't want to be treated as a whore.
Okay, let me make sure I understand your point. You're saying that it's appropriate to rape sex workers? Or are you saying that anyone wearing revealing clothes should expect to be offered money in exchange for sex? I can kind of see some logic in the latter, but where I come from the latter is right out. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that rape is *never* justified. Consent is necessary for sexual activity. Period.
If you believe differently, then we need to keep a close eye on you.
Well, then perhaps your generation should have done a better job of teaching us manners. Or generally not cut back on funding education, worker's rights, and generally making things shitty for us, because you got yours, the hell to anybody that comes after.
We're going to be spending a shit ton of money and effort clearing up the messes that the elderly caused.
Respect does go both ways, but you guys should demonstrate it first, because all we know is the douchebaggery that you've shown us.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am polite and kind almost to a fault. Well, except that I don't suffer fools gladly. My generation? Yeah, sure. My generation will be the ones that are the first to get the shaft with Social Security. My generation is the one that made those shiny phones and created the network infrastructure that makes your job possible, boy.
And I do emphasize the word "boy." Because you clearly aren't acting like an adult. Hence the term "douchebag" in reference to you. Perhaps I should have said whiny child, but douchebag seems to flow quite naturally in this case, don't you think?
In any case, since no one seems to read Santayana any more I'll remind you that if you don't learn the lessons of history, you're doomed to repeat them. I'll break it down into small words so you'll be sure to understand. Yes. There are assholes of every stripe, including older folks. However, look around you -- some of those who came before you clearly knew what they were doing or you would still be up to your knees in pig shit on the farm.
It would behoove you to seek out those who have more experience and try to gain from it, rather than denigrating those who have lived longer than you have. Soon enough, you'll be the old one and there will be young people who might benefit from the experience you've had. It seems clear that you're (at least at the moment) too immature to get that, but perhaps that will change in the future.
Personally, I'm in favor of teaching people like you some manners and respect for the coming generation, as we're the ones you're going to be counting on in old age, not to just dump you in the middle of the woods to fend for yourself.
Personally, I'm in favor of teaching people like you that those with more experience often have a great deal to share and that if you weren't such a douchebag you might actually learn something. Manners and respect go both ways, my young apprentice.
All three of them.
Freedom of speech is not the freedom to be an asshole.
Actually, yes it is.
Oh, and you're a fucking moron. I'm surprised you can even read. Your mama should have aborted you.
See what I did there? I used my freedom of speech rights to be an asshole. Get it now?
Arresting him was the logical thing.
No. Investigating the threat would be the logical thing to do. If it was determined that this person was deranged enough to actually carry out such acts, he should be placed in a secure mental health facility and treated. If the threat was found not to be credible, he should be left alone to think about how much unwanted attention and stress the things he said brought on him, and why he should be more thoughtful before posting in a public forum in the future.
I recall being told (back in the distant past --- the 1990s) that I shouldn't put anything in an email that I wouldn't want to see on the front page of my local newspaper. This goes triple for social media, IMHO.
Sure, the USA could be much better, but calling the USA a police state is an insult to people who actually suffer them.
You are absolutely correct that other governments do worse things to their people. That horrifies and disgusts me. But you seem to be saying that we shouldn't call out the abuses of *our* government just because other governments are doing much worse things? I think the Federal government could use you as a part of their propaganda^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H public relations team.
Are you saying "don't bitch because it's much worse elsewhere?" I don't agree. And for the record, I didn't call the U.S. a police state.
Tyranny? Huh? When was the last time you or a family member were pulled from your home without a warrant or just cause and beaten by any arm of the government? The West if far from the killing fields. Stop being so excessive with your rhetoric if you want to be taken seriously.
Umm...It happens all the time. Although not to me personally. Most likely because I'm not poor and black or mistakenly accosted by jackbooted thugs.
And don't call me "sue" (hey, why should Shirley have all the fun)
You leave Shirley out of this. She's got enough problems already!
Twenty years! Hah! I was singing that when I was 6, which was, well, never mind but a lot more than 20 years ago. Now get offa my lawn.
I heard it when I was a young boy (more like forty years ago) myself, but I started singing it exclusively instead of the "normal" version 20 years ago.
The copyright is mine, though. And if you don't use it as I've specified, I'll sue you for that lawn, buster!
I always sing:
Happy birthday to you!
You live in a zoo!
You look like a monkey,
And you smell like one too!
I copyrighted that twenty years ago. I now grant a free, non-exclusive license to anyone who wishes to use it.
Oh, and you're welcome.
So, let's all go file a billion copyright violation lawsuits against the U.S. government...would cripple them to the point they would not be doing much else for a very long time.
Aside from either side of the same ruling class sniping at each other and spying on us, what exactly has the government been doing? Well, aside from kowtowing to their corporate masters, not much IMHO.
Pretty sad that, from what I saw in the comments, only one or two of you are smart enough to realize that 1,004 people DOES NOT constitute, nor do they speak for, the majority of U.S. citizens. I HATE polls like this. 1,004 people? Really? That's only a few more people than ONE college graduating class. And they speak for MILLIONS of citizens.
Here's a super accurate poll. I interviewed 20 of my friends, they all disagree with govt. tracking, there for 100% of U.S. Citizens do not support it.
Get real people.
Through appropriate Statistical Sampling methodologies, accurate assessments of an entire population can be made based on responses from just a small group within the population.
I suggest you educate yourself, lest you become the poster boy for "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt." Oops. Too late.
...However, the real beauty of VMS wasn't so much it's architecture...
FAIL0 - no scenario given. (Actually you even copied almost exactly the sentences that I used in some of my "FAIL0" examples.)
You mean the part about you not being very bright? I've got your FAIL0 right here, Benny.
Gratuitous insults aside, I don't subscribe to your rules about how to communicate. Nor did I copy anything you wrote. In fact, I didn't read most of your screed. If you don't like it, don't read what I write.
To paraphrase, you queried whether and/or why the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has a positive impact on our society. While (as many others have pointed out) the right against self-incrimination is just one part of the amendment, you chose to focus on that.
The law professor and veteran police officer/law student, in the video I linked to (as did a slew of other folks) in my earlier post, exposited the value of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination much more eloquently than I could. They also include numerous examples ("scenarios," in your parlance) of how invoking, and more importantly, not invoking those protections, impacted outcomes in serious ways.
If, after watching this video, you are still unconvinced as to the value of the self-incrimination protections of the Fifth Amendment, you're certainly as dim as you present yourself to be.
I'm pretty convinced you're trolling here. Perhaps you'll pleasantly surprise me, but I doubt it.
If the executive then declines to punish the officers for the beating, the right not to be beaten fades to a paper tiger.
The previous sentence is irrelevant to this. If they chose to not punish someone for beating you, regardless of why they did it or their motivations, that lack of enforcement is what causes you to lose your right to not be beaten.
You might as well say something along the lines of: You have a right to not be murdered, but someone might murder you to stop you from saying something they don't want. If the executive declines to punish the murderer, your right to not be murdered disappears. ... therefore freedom of speech exists to stop you from being murdered.
Stop trying to layer other stuff on right to not self-incriminate. You simply shouldn't be incriminate your self, or be further punished for not incriminating yourself. Speaking of other rights, like to not be physically harmed, only conflates the right and hides its more basic principle behind other independent rights.
Know your rights. All three of them.
Summary, for those of us who can't watch Youtube wherever we happen to be?
Don't talk to law enforcement or prosecutors. Ever.
Go somewhere where you can watch it. It's worth it.
The best argument I've heard recently for the Fifth amendment and for not talking to police, prosecutors or any other law enforcement folks can be found here.
Clearly you're not bright enough to understand why the Bill of Rights included the guarantee that you cannot be forced to bear witness against yourself. That's sad. I feel pity for you.
The two best sources for the number of deaths in Iraq are a study published in The Lancet, which estimated 650,000 deaths, to 2006, and a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which estimated 150,000 deaths. The best evidence-based estimate is that it's somewhere in between those two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Both studies were done by investigators who had done these war estimates before, and actually went to Iraq to poll people in the field.
That's not true of the Iraq Body Count, which was put together by some anonymous guys who stayed home clipping English language newspapers. They make the dubious assumption that every death was reported in the newspaper and reprinted in an English language newspaper.
Since you want to get the facts straight.
Thanks for the clarification and the cites. You make my point better than I did. As should be obvious, I was giving the lie to the GPs assertion that drone strikes were killing so many more people than anything else. I just don't get how people can be so rabid that they spout complete nonsense just to attack someone they don't like. There are plenty of things to skewer Obama (and I voted for him -- twice) over without resorting to distortions and outright falsehoods. Sigh.
If you want to talk about innocents being killed, the current guy is much worse. That, and he himself made the argument that he has the right to hit Americans with drone strikes without due process. Personally I'm happy with the one time that this has been done because that asshole had it coming, but it still sets a bad precedent.
Emphasis Added
More than 92,000 civilian deaths in Iraq via armed conflict from 2003-2008
4000 deaths by drone strike since 2004
Please! Get some facts straight there friend.
Blowing my mod points on this thread as you clearly need correcting.
Examples of what's important are: your shopping list, where you're having dinner tonight, mundane thoughts such as "yes, I'll have another beer" and nearly anything else. Anything you say can be used against you, and I'm not quoting Miranda; I'm quoting reality itself.
This is so very true. See Here for details.
Yeah, you want fluoride in your water. You want it in trace amounts, though; and you want F+ ion, not all the other garbage that gets dumped in your water to get F+ ion into it artificially. If they artificially produced F+ ion by stripping it out of toxic waste, you'd get something vastly different--and the argument would be entirely stupid. Instead, the argument is between people shouting "FLUORIDE" while the reality is between Fluoride and Toxic Fluoride Compounds.
Thank you General Ripper
We have six, you see.
Thank you so much for that. No one does it like Flounder in space!
Perhaps this will spawn a market for devices that will disrupt video recordings. These can be installed in places where people value their privacy and/or are there with people they don't want others to see them with, etc., etc., etc. I think this would be a great selling point for many people. "Come to our establishment! We won't let others spy on you!"
Just sayin'.
Ugly George?