My parents have Dish and my inlaws have the Charter DVR, both of which are total crap compared to the Tivo software. Even it's not perfect but the updates over the past years (series 2) have been for the better and have actually made me keep it over the PC DVR I had build using various linux DVR software packages, none of them were that much better than the Tivo. And when I finally had the weather and streaming audio working Tivo came out with the same features built in. The only drawback I have now is the movie collection and youtube browsing features I had with the PCDVR have to be used in the media room and not in the living room or the bedroom where the Tivos take care of everything else. Amazon Unbox isn't great but it's a pretty good option so far.
I just want to know who the dumbass is who seeded the torrent of the album.
It should have been tracks that said "Go to radioheads website to get this for free and show the RIAA you hate them, then download it again from every computer you have access to"
The difference is the for-profit mentality of the music production VS the FOSS mentality of a linux distro. Even RedHat makes their money on the boxed versions and support, not the downlaod to end users.
(Server os and lindows/linspire examples acknowleged but they're rare in the mix)
Point is, the effort is being made to either make a direct profit or improve something. They're not the same model right now.
People do not currently knock over 7/11s for alcohol or cigarette money.
Wanna look a little closer at that statement?
How do you know that?
How do you know what they will spend the money on once they rob a place and why do you assume that it's not for the highest item sales numbers of those stores baring gas? I have not really seen a 7-11 that doesn't sell cigs and beer.
Also the fact that so many people steal cigarettes and alcohol directly from 7-11s seems to go against your statements fundamental idea. Do a couple searches online and you'll see what I mean, those legal drugs are stolen more often than the actual cash at places like 7-11.
My point is really solidified by your reply. Your most basic assumption is that the money would have gone somewhere else. That's my point. These things are infrastructure upgrades and are neglected. There "should" have been proper vetting of possible attacks to our basic protection systems on up. But you look at it as though these things are impossible. If the money didn't go to one thing, it would have gone to another, and not the necessary valid protections that are the underlying reasons for the money being spent in the first place.
Funds spent on the security of the people should require money be spent to actually make the people safer.
"If Usenet.com can show that it complies with the DMCA by removing access to infringing content and by suspending the accounts of repeat offenders, it may be enough to provide it with protection under the hosting and linking provisions of the DMCA."
Honest question. Would you legalize cocain and sell it to kids?
Unless it's dirt cheap as well, kids that get some from their parents legal purchases and get hooked are going to have to either get their parents to get more for them or they would become the same gun carrying, drug dealing, robbing for the cash to get their next fix, problems that we have today. I already see kids running drugs and carrying guns to school as it is.
I honestly consider legalization an option, but only see it fixing the problem to a degree, and shifting the problem area more likely. Not solving the underlying problem that the drugs exist and can be used to feel good and are addictive. Unless those are addressed, I see no real solution.
So do we all feel safer after the establishment of Homeland Security and the billions of dollars spent in upgrading the ease of violating our civil liberties here at home in the name of protecting those same distinctions that make America different? This is another nail in the coffin of fear that we're building for ourselves here in the name of safety. When our most basic methods of crying out for help to our protectors can so easily be broken and used by the tormentors I feel a tremendous sense of loss for what we could have done with the same motivation and money that has been spent on this fear mongering compaign with the almost transparent attempts to simply gain power using the real threats that we face as a shield. America is great because of the people who don't love it or leave it, but protect it and improve it. The swearing in of the presidency is the paramount symbol of this nation, to make an oath to protect America against threats forign and domestic and uphold the constitution. It's not a choice between the two. For without the constitution there would have been no America to protect. At least no America where you would have the rights that allow you to be protected in the first place.
It's sad that the most basic of methods to protect the people is so vulnerable.
It corrently works by having a camera sitting behind it and viewing the fingers as they move. If they build the camera into the device it would have to have a very wide angle and be able to distinguish between the fingers and the background.
And you must be one of those "intellectually useless" people who can't admit that the way things improve is through criticism of the current state and proposal of better future situations. Part of that process is having the foresight of thought to see the possible outcomes of new technologies. RFID, Automatic updates, Software activation, Lasers, all of these have valid reasons for development as well as possible abuse issues that have been noticed by more than the fringe conspiracy theorists. If these things go unwatched we have no information to evaluate wether or not they are being abused. So keep your personal slurs in your head and be a little open when others voice concerns like these, just like you would appreciate people do with you.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? The effects of global politics does not follow the headlines or editorials. The things that effect history are usually behind the normal view of the general population. Do you ever notice that the news stories that actually report current events are not only skewed for the local audience but are constantly playing catch up to the events they are reporting. I'm not talking about horrific death scenes that garner readership and human interest stories about individual accomplishments. I'm talking about the events that shape the future of the global arena.
Just to follow one example, and don't go off on it if you can't get the concept, it's an example. The NSA domestic wiretapping program was outed by a newspaper after it had been running for quite a while, what enabled it to be done at all was the crippling of the separation of branches, specifically the judicial and executive branches. There was described in the forming of this country that there should be separate branches and the checks and balances to keep each in compliance with the spirit of the constitution. A complicated task only possible if one viewpoint did not gain power over the checks and balances that were supposed to keep that group in check and stop them from abusing the power that is granted them. The laws are there to support this balance not there to enforce it. They are too complicated and are meant to change with the evolution of the country. Therefore the interpreters are sworn to protect the constitution against those who would (sometimes rightfully) try to alter or reshape the laws and power boundaries set forth in the past. This fails when the group trying to change the current boundaries spans more than one branch to the point that the bias is uncontested and the changes are made, for better or for worse, without the opposition being able to view and possibly debate the change. Without the checks and balances that were built into the system, it fails to protect the people from these events that go unnoticed unless leaked or discovered by ethically obligated reporters. The NSA wiretapping program may or may not be against the constitution but unless the debate takes place with people of the opposing viewpoint, with security the same as the promoting group, the system cannot catch it until it's too late to stop any damage it may cause to the underpinnings of this free nation.
Again, the NSA wiretapping issue is just a recently discovered issue but it stands as an example of why the separation of branches and integration of checks and balances were built into our system of government. The architects of our government foresaw that the government they were creating was susceptible to this abuse and by human nature any group with viewpoints and agendas would eventually be comprised of some portion who would look to any means to further their goals. That this has happened in our history and been exposed on occasion seems to be forgotten when the general population is presented with evidence of possible abuse and the opposing viewpoint group calls for investigation. And these are just the ones that are caught and picked up by the people out of the loop.
So to finally address your post about the Iran issue, there are so many suspect issues that have been caught already between the US and other countries, perpetrated by the current government as well as past administrations of both parties, that to take only recent headline summaries into account does an injustice to the factors in play with these public decisions. The facts in context and perspective are even difficult to comprehend and take months to digest by even the current specialists employed by the current administration. And sometimes even they don't expect the outcomes that result from their actions. Unless there is debate between opposing parties instead of personal posturing and generalizations about patriotism or stubbornness, these issues are being decided by one viewpoint, without the checks and balances that were put
Might even be more than professional responsibility. Isn't there some kind of LAW for this sort of thing? Like presenting false evidence or fraud?
Presenting the evidence in the first place sounds fine but when they learned that the case was overturned, shouldn't they be required by law to inform the court that the evidence they submitted had been negated.
To me it sounds like submitting matched DNA evidence at the beginning of a trial and then learning that it was actually inconclusive halfway through the trial and not informing the defence. Isn't that illegal?
Kenmore products no less. Check online, people have complained about this. They label them "Made in PRC" The Peoples Republic of China to look a little better.
I don't want to put words in the posters mouth but I've got a sad feeling about the current state as well. It doesn't come from the actual current efforts though. More the past intervening years between. The depressing part that the other poster may be talking about is that we had all these possibilities before sitting in front of us. New technology that was amazing at the time and all sorts of recent advancements that were supposed to give us the same opportunities that we are looking for this time. But it kinda got lost or misdirected in the following years. Funding cuts and stories of mismanagement and waste. Partisan posturing, vindictive bills being passed, and the science for the sake of science taking a back seat.
Now I know that it hasn't completely stopped and we have done some very nice things in the meantime but the optimism in your post was the same as my feelings when we were first standing at this doorway. I got quite a letdown over a long time. Even to the point that people were actually saying that the whole thing was staged and we couldn't have done it for real.
So here we are again looking at the varied and endless possibilities. And the sadness that we've been here before is hard to suppress.
Now I'm all for net neutrality, but a University network is not the same as an ISP or intermediary backbone carrier. There are very important differences that are being overlooked if you are comparing the two on the same grounds.
This is actually more on the lines of parents installing filtering/throttling software on their network to which the child connects their computer, so that child doesn't cause problems with their telecommute. This is a tasked network in place for specific purposes already, not a neutral network connection to begin with.
Probably the facts: 1. There is no link to an actual article or any other related or corroborating information source. 2. The summary admits that certain router features were not enabled, and simply enabling them fixed the "problem". 3. The title of "Halo 3 Causing Network Issues" has so far been only superficially associated with the "problems" they were having by giant leaps of non technical assumption. 4. This is another KDawson post/nonstory.
Online apps are only going to get more and more popular. Webmail is like the gateway drug of internet apps. It starts off innocently enough. Going from an in house email system that is only intranet. Then you need to give employees the ability to send outside email, no problem, but your servers can still filter out attachments both ways and give the company a security and intellectual property barrier. Then the online apps start looking appealing, no maintenance, no servers, just internet access. A lot of cost savings for the company. What could go wrong? Then Microsoft and the other big players start talking about making Office an online application and hyping the benifits of such a new age system. The benifits are described in beautiful powerpoint presentations to the execs and the IT departments warnings are just plain text. What's going to happen to the companies that fall for this new online paradigm? I think more of the same. Information leaks, database vulnerabilities, simple password guessing, general hacks, etc. And all the information accessed through these new online applications is going to be out there for the taking. Ease of use and availability on a new level, to the hackers.
Nice to see you ignore pretty much every actual point in the "rant" so well then since you are so obviously well adjusted yourself that you feel the need to respond.
"She is a MIT engineering student. If her defense was that she was too dumb to figure that a circuit-board attached to a shirt and handful of play-dough might look suspicious in an airport, she had better either have a damn good lawyer, or an incredibly gullible jury. Any reasonable person will find the idea that this was a publicity stunt much, much more credible. The girl's own mother says she should have been more careful."
Still ignoring the point that you don't know all the details and think of things like this in generalizations and not specifics. It's amazing that you can't even come to terms with a simple concept that the issue I keep trying to get across is not that she is or is not stupid, did or did not take actions that others would obviously find distressing or even if she has any brains at all. It's that the fundamental issue of charging someone with a crime should be backed up by the minimum requirements that the crime in itself accuses. The fact that she must have had intent to pull a hoax keeps escaping you in the same way you keep trying to hit your head against the brick wall that is logical, factual thought.
"Oh drop the "I'm an objective arbiter and you are just making a biased knee jerk reaction" crap. Your opinions are just as biased as anyone else's, the fact that you are making a knee jerk reaction against authority instead of in support of it does not make you objective."
You need to go and get a dictionary or visit a website other than slashdot that has the capability to do basic phrase searches. Try looking up knee jerk reaction for instance. That you say I am having a knee jerk reaction to this and then explaining to me that my opinion is based on the wonderful leap of reasoning that I: "assume that anything the government is doing is automatically an assault on the rights of the people without stopping to think about the facts first." shows how out of touch with reality you actually are. The fact that you say these conclusions do not make them true or even likely. The fact that you repeat them after missing such a fundamental point of reasoning is further evidence that you are just ignoring the posts you respond to and existing in the very fantasy world you accuse others of inhabiting.
"I mean seriously, an 1,100 rant with no substance at all" If you actually read the post you are responding to I think that you will find some key points in them, and in comparison to your own, you might actually find more actual facts and logic being employed. It's very revealing that you, on one hand respond to a post 3 days after an event and then accuse others of needing to get a life in the same breath. The fact that you cannot actually dispute the arguments or disprove any of the logical thought progressions shows that you cannot address or do not dare attempt to defend your own poorly framed and hastily constructed criticisms of other peoples ideas. The fact that you devolve to accusing people of being closed minded for having a viewpoint that you just created out of thin air and without basis or merit, simply to attack them, shows that you cannot argue the actual issues in discussion.
"Your opinions are just as biased as anyone else's" Never said that my opinion was anything but my own and should therefore have just as much tendency for bias as anybody elses. Foe fact that you keep avoiding is that in this case my opinion is backed by the many documents that the united states is currently functioning on in at least one branch entirely. That there should be justice in the judicial system, doesn't strike me as a biased opinion but I'm flawed in that area I guess and just like the people who defend those documents, think that people should be charged only with the crimes that they can be reasonably accused of committing. That the crime they are being charged with should have some merit and be r
Slashdot Mirror
All I have to say is TIVO!
My parents have Dish and my inlaws have the Charter DVR, both of which are total crap compared to the Tivo software. Even it's not perfect but the updates over the past years (series 2) have been for the better and have actually made me keep it over the PC DVR I had build using various linux DVR software packages, none of them were that much better than the Tivo. And when I finally had the weather and streaming audio working Tivo came out with the same features built in. The only drawback I have now is the movie collection and youtube browsing features I had with the PCDVR have to be used in the media room and not in the living room or the bedroom where the Tivos take care of everything else. Amazon Unbox isn't great but it's a pretty good option so far.
Will someone please mod this up?
I just want to know who the dumbass is who seeded the torrent of the album.
It should have been tracks that said "Go to radioheads website to get this for free and show the RIAA you hate them, then download it again from every computer you have access to"
The difference is the for-profit mentality of the music production VS the FOSS mentality of a linux distro. Even RedHat makes their money on the boxed versions and support, not the downlaod to end users.
(Server os and lindows/linspire examples acknowleged but they're rare in the mix)
Point is, the effort is being made to either make a direct profit or improve something. They're not the same model right now.
People do not currently knock over 7/11s for alcohol or cigarette money.
Wanna look a little closer at that statement?
How do you know that?
How do you know what they will spend the money on once they rob a place and why do you assume that it's not for the highest item sales numbers of those stores baring gas? I have not really seen a 7-11 that doesn't sell cigs and beer.
Also the fact that so many people steal cigarettes and alcohol directly from 7-11s seems to go against your statements fundamental idea. Do a couple searches online and you'll see what I mean, those legal drugs are stolen more often than the actual cash at places like 7-11.
My point is really solidified by your reply. Your most basic assumption is that the money would have gone somewhere else. That's my point. These things are infrastructure upgrades and are neglected. There "should" have been proper vetting of possible attacks to our basic protection systems on up. But you look at it as though these things are impossible. If the money didn't go to one thing, it would have gone to another, and not the necessary valid protections that are the underlying reasons for the money being spent in the first place.
Funds spent on the security of the people should require money be spent to actually make the people safer.
From this article:
"If Usenet.com can show that it complies with the DMCA by removing access to infringing content and by suspending the accounts of repeat offenders, it may be enough to provide it with protection under the hosting and linking provisions of the DMCA."
And from the last article itself:
"To date, Usenet.com has refused to remove content or discontinue offering certain newsgroups."
From the last article still on the front page of slashdot as I scroll down:
"Usenet.com has been refusing the labels requests"
I thought that they refused to take down the content in the last article about this?
Honest question. Would you legalize cocain and sell it to kids?
Unless it's dirt cheap as well, kids that get some from their parents legal purchases and get hooked are going to have to either get their parents to get more for them or they would become the same gun carrying, drug dealing, robbing for the cash to get their next fix, problems that we have today. I already see kids running drugs and carrying guns to school as it is.
I honestly consider legalization an option, but only see it fixing the problem to a degree, and shifting the problem area more likely. Not solving the underlying problem that the drugs exist and can be used to feel good and are addictive. Unless those are addressed, I see no real solution.
Alright so here's the rant:
So do we all feel safer after the establishment of Homeland Security and the billions of dollars spent in upgrading the ease of violating our civil liberties here at home in the name of protecting those same distinctions that make America different? This is another nail in the coffin of fear that we're building for ourselves here in the name of safety. When our most basic methods of crying out for help to our protectors can so easily be broken and used by the tormentors I feel a tremendous sense of loss for what we could have done with the same motivation and money that has been spent on this fear mongering compaign with the almost transparent attempts to simply gain power using the real threats that we face as a shield. America is great because of the people who don't love it or leave it, but protect it and improve it. The swearing in of the presidency is the paramount symbol of this nation, to make an oath to protect America against threats forign and domestic and uphold the constitution. It's not a choice between the two. For without the constitution there would have been no America to protect. At least no America where you would have the rights that allow you to be protected in the first place.
It's sad that the most basic of methods to protect the people is so vulnerable.
It corrently works by having a camera sitting behind it and viewing the fingers as they move. If they build the camera into the device it would have to have a very wide angle and be able to distinguish between the fingers and the background.
I will gladly pay the protection money to Yahoo to keep DRM away. Give me high bitrate and lossless choices and watch my downloads soar!
And you must be one of those "intellectually useless" people who can't admit that the way things improve is through criticism of the current state and proposal of better future situations. Part of that process is having the foresight of thought to see the possible outcomes of new technologies. RFID, Automatic updates, Software activation, Lasers, all of these have valid reasons for development as well as possible abuse issues that have been noticed by more than the fringe conspiracy theorists. If these things go unwatched we have no information to evaluate wether or not they are being abused. So keep your personal slurs in your head and be a little open when others voice concerns like these, just like you would appreciate people do with you.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? The effects of global politics does not follow the headlines or editorials. The things that effect history are usually behind the normal view of the general population. Do you ever notice that the news stories that actually report current events are not only skewed for the local audience but are constantly playing catch up to the events they are reporting. I'm not talking about horrific death scenes that garner readership and human interest stories about individual accomplishments. I'm talking about the events that shape the future of the global arena.
Just to follow one example, and don't go off on it if you can't get the concept, it's an example. The NSA domestic wiretapping program was outed by a newspaper after it had been running for quite a while, what enabled it to be done at all was the crippling of the separation of branches, specifically the judicial and executive branches. There was described in the forming of this country that there should be separate branches and the checks and balances to keep each in compliance with the spirit of the constitution. A complicated task only possible if one viewpoint did not gain power over the checks and balances that were supposed to keep that group in check and stop them from abusing the power that is granted them. The laws are there to support this balance not there to enforce it. They are too complicated and are meant to change with the evolution of the country. Therefore the interpreters are sworn to protect the constitution against those who would (sometimes rightfully) try to alter or reshape the laws and power boundaries set forth in the past.
This fails when the group trying to change the current boundaries spans more than one branch to the point that the bias is uncontested and the changes are made, for better or for worse, without the opposition being able to view and possibly debate the change. Without the checks and balances that were built into the system, it fails to protect the people from these events that go unnoticed unless leaked or discovered by ethically obligated reporters.
The NSA wiretapping program may or may not be against the constitution but unless the debate takes place with people of the opposing viewpoint, with security the same as the promoting group, the system cannot catch it until it's too late to stop any damage it may cause to the underpinnings of this free nation.
Again, the NSA wiretapping issue is just a recently discovered issue but it stands as an example of why the separation of branches and integration of checks and balances were built into our system of government. The architects of our government foresaw that the government they were creating was susceptible to this abuse and by human nature any group with viewpoints and agendas would eventually be comprised of some portion who would look to any means to further their goals. That this has happened in our history and been exposed on occasion seems to be forgotten when the general population is presented with evidence of possible abuse and the opposing viewpoint group calls for investigation. And these are just the ones that are caught and picked up by the people out of the loop.
So to finally address your post about the Iran issue, there are so many suspect issues that have been caught already between the US and other countries, perpetrated by the current government as well as past administrations of both parties, that to take only recent headline summaries into account does an injustice to the factors in play with these public decisions. The facts in context and perspective are even difficult to comprehend and take months to digest by even the current specialists employed by the current administration. And sometimes even they don't expect the outcomes that result from their actions. Unless there is debate between opposing parties instead of personal posturing and generalizations about patriotism or stubbornness, these issues are being decided by one viewpoint, without the checks and balances that were put
Might even be more than professional responsibility. Isn't there some kind of LAW for this sort of thing? Like presenting false evidence or fraud?
Presenting the evidence in the first place sounds fine but when they learned that the case was overturned, shouldn't they be required by law to inform the court that the evidence they submitted had been negated.
To me it sounds like submitting matched DNA evidence at the beginning of a trial and then learning that it was actually inconclusive halfway through the trial and not informing the defence. Isn't that illegal?
Not Walmart actually, some even at Sears!
Kenmore products no less. Check online, people have complained about this. They label them "Made in PRC" The Peoples Republic of China to look a little better.
I don't want to put words in the posters mouth but I've got a sad feeling about the current state as well. It doesn't come from the actual current efforts though. More the past intervening years between. The depressing part that the other poster may be talking about is that we had all these possibilities before sitting in front of us. New technology that was amazing at the time and all sorts of recent advancements that were supposed to give us the same opportunities that we are looking for this time. But it kinda got lost or misdirected in the following years. Funding cuts and stories of mismanagement and waste. Partisan posturing, vindictive bills being passed, and the science for the sake of science taking a back seat.
Now I know that it hasn't completely stopped and we have done some very nice things in the meantime but the optimism in your post was the same as my feelings when we were first standing at this doorway. I got quite a letdown over a long time. Even to the point that people were actually saying that the whole thing was staged and we couldn't have done it for real.
So here we are again looking at the varied and endless possibilities. And the sadness that we've been here before is hard to suppress.
Not to be too cynical, but I've not had too good of luck with the "Made in China" tools and equipment I've used over the years.
Not that I'm saying they couldn't do it, jus tthat they might want to outsource the parts from their regular factories.
Getting fired for something that's on record that you not only asked permission to do, but got that granted permission documented.
That's a new one to me.
Are these people elected and when's the next open forum meeting?
Now I'm all for net neutrality, but a University network is not the same as an ISP or intermediary backbone carrier. There are very important differences that are being overlooked if you are comparing the two on the same grounds.
This is actually more on the lines of parents installing filtering/throttling software on their network to which the child connects their computer, so that child doesn't cause problems with their telecommute. This is a tasked network in place for specific purposes already, not a neutral network connection to begin with.
Probably the facts:
1. There is no link to an actual article or any other related or corroborating information source.
2. The summary admits that certain router features were not enabled, and simply enabling them fixed the "problem".
3. The title of "Halo 3 Causing Network Issues" has so far been only superficially associated with the "problems" they were having by giant leaps of non technical assumption.
4. This is another KDawson post/nonstory.
So who didn't see this thing comming?
Online apps are only going to get more and more popular. Webmail is like the gateway drug of internet apps. It starts off innocently enough. Going from an in house email system that is only intranet. Then you need to give employees the ability to send outside email, no problem, but your servers can still filter out attachments both ways and give the company a security and intellectual property barrier. Then the online apps start looking appealing, no maintenance, no servers, just internet access. A lot of cost savings for the company. What could go wrong? Then Microsoft and the other big players start talking about making Office an online application and hyping the benifits of such a new age system. The benifits are described in beautiful powerpoint presentations to the execs and the IT departments warnings are just plain text. What's going to happen to the companies that fall for this new online paradigm? I think more of the same. Information leaks, database vulnerabilities, simple password guessing, general hacks, etc. And all the information accessed through these new online applications is going to be out there for the taking. Ease of use and availability on a new level, to the hackers.
Nice to see you ignore pretty much every actual point in the "rant" so well then since you are so obviously well adjusted yourself that you feel the need to respond.
"She is a MIT engineering student. If her defense was that she was too dumb to figure that a circuit-board attached to a shirt and handful of play-dough might look suspicious in an airport, she had better either have a damn good lawyer, or an incredibly gullible jury. Any reasonable person will find the idea that this was a publicity stunt much, much more credible. The girl's own mother says she should have been more careful."
Still ignoring the point that you don't know all the details and think of things like this in generalizations and not specifics. It's amazing that you can't even come to terms with a simple concept that the issue I keep trying to get across is not that she is or is not stupid, did or did not take actions that others would obviously find distressing or even if she has any brains at all. It's that the fundamental issue of charging someone with a crime should be backed up by the minimum requirements that the crime in itself accuses. The fact that she must have had intent to pull a hoax keeps escaping you in the same way you keep trying to hit your head against the brick wall that is logical, factual thought.
"Oh drop the "I'm an objective arbiter and you are just making a biased knee jerk reaction" crap. Your opinions are just as biased as anyone else's, the fact that you are making a knee jerk reaction against authority instead of in support of it does not make you objective."
You need to go and get a dictionary or visit a website other than slashdot that has the capability to do basic phrase searches. Try looking up knee jerk reaction for instance. That you say I am having a knee jerk reaction to this and then explaining to me that my opinion is based on the wonderful leap of reasoning that I: "assume that anything the government is doing is automatically an assault on the rights of the people without stopping to think about the facts first." shows how out of touch with reality you actually are. The fact that you say these conclusions do not make them true or even likely. The fact that you repeat them after missing such a fundamental point of reasoning is further evidence that you are just ignoring the posts you respond to and existing in the very fantasy world you accuse others of inhabiting.
"I mean seriously, an 1,100 rant with no substance at all"
If you actually read the post you are responding to I think that you will find some key points in them, and in comparison to your own, you might actually find more actual facts and logic being employed. It's very revealing that you, on one hand respond to a post 3 days after an event and then accuse others of needing to get a life in the same breath. The fact that you cannot actually dispute the arguments or disprove any of the logical thought progressions shows that you cannot address or do not dare attempt to defend your own poorly framed and hastily constructed criticisms of other peoples ideas. The fact that you devolve to accusing people of being closed minded for having a viewpoint that you just created out of thin air and without basis or merit, simply to attack them, shows that you cannot argue the actual issues in discussion.
"Your opinions are just as biased as anyone else's"
Never said that my opinion was anything but my own and should therefore have just as much tendency for bias as anybody elses. Foe fact that you keep avoiding is that in this case my opinion is backed by the many documents that the united states is currently functioning on in at least one branch entirely. That there should be justice in the judicial system, doesn't strike me as a biased opinion but I'm flawed in that area I guess and just like the people who defend those documents, think that people should be charged only with the crimes that they can be reasonably accused of committing. That the crime they are being charged with should have some merit and be r