They do work pretty well, covering approx a 1/2 acre area without too much trouble.
I dunno... We got one six weeks ago and have mixed feelings. On one hand, the dead mosquitoes certainly do accumulate inside the trap. On the other, there are still plenty of suckers outside in the air. Tried changing the chemical attractant — we are right on the border of their "map" for deciding, which attractant to use — and things improved a little, but we still get plenty of bites.
Maybe, I should get a second one — and use the other attractant in it, but these devices aren't cheap to buy and even more expensive to keep running...
What this means is that your comm supplier is the one who also does the decryption, so they have complete access to everything. The recent stories about the close ties between government security agencies and the comm companies show that this would be no security at all.
Actually, there would be quite a bit of security against non-governmental attackers and those working for foreign governments.
And while it is the governmental ones that scare us for having a potential for abuse, it is those others that have done actual damage to millions of computers and hurt millions of people already — through spamming, identity theft, and spying.
I, for one, would've been glad to be rid of those, even if Uncle Sam's fishing expeditions remain a threat.
Oh, yes, when running out of arguments, switch to personal insults. Sorry, it does not work like that — if you make an argument, you can't demand the opponent looks up the supporting facts for it, no. You have to dig those up yourself. Also known as "put up or shut up". You posted several times since I asked you for evidence of Saddam's trial being a show one — and not once were you able to present any such evidence. I can only conclude, you don't have any — but aren't man enough to admit it.
It wasn't a question of various little intricacies but a question of whether extrajudicial killings are acceptable
They are acceptable — depending on the motivation. When the alternative to killing is letting the target escape, killing is justified. When the alternative means detaining the target in Gitmo and having to explain your clueless supporters, why the Gitmo population is growing instead of shrinking, then no, killing is not justified in that case. Not by any ethical standard.
Oh I see. So it's okay when Bush "has to" but when Obama deems he has to it's a completely different thing?
Exactly. The ultimate goal is to get rid of those guys, so if killing is the only reasonable way to achieve the goal, then it is Ok for the Commander to order the killing. But if the reason Commander prefers the killing over capture is pure politics, then the Commander is acting unethically. When, in addition to being unethical, his choice also deprives US of the intelligence the target could've provided under skillful interrogation, the Commander is also being border-line treasonous.
Seriously though, you're a lost cause, you can't look things up because you prefer to stay blind to reality
Oh, more insults and more demands, that your opponent does the research for you. Did you skip the high-school debating exercises or something?
It is remarkable, that they put up such a fight. It is sad, that they had to... It is encouraging, that the gag-order was not indefinite.
I can see, why this sort of procedure — including the gag-order — may be justified in some cases. But it is so easy to abuse, I'm not sure, the benefits we are getting are worth the risk we are taking.
If the humanity back then had today's ways of organizing and raising awareness, these potentially dangerous means of agriculture — meant solely to enrich the farmers at the expense of the consumers' health — would've been banned long ago.
Hunting and gathering are the only responsible way to get sustenance. Oh, wait, no — hunting is evil too. Gathering only!
Yes, this is the attitude of people, who weren't bothered by Gitmo under Bush. And I understand it.
What I do not understand is, how could people, who loudly protested Bush's extrajudicial detentions of suspected terrorists, are now Ok with Obama's extrajudicial killings of the same people...
Saddam's was because there was no hope of a fair trial.
In other words, you don't have any evidence showing it to not have been fair... Got it.
Keep telling yourself that.
I don't need to. You accused me of posting "lies" but remain unable to identify a single one. Must be the Illiberal style of arguing or something...
As I said, stop lying. He didn't switch. This was already happening under Bush.
No, actually. Obama did switch. And people with better attention-spans than yours did notice. Bush used drones, when that was the only way to get the target. Obama uses them all the time — because he does not want to get stuck with "inconvenient prisoners" — Osama bin Laden being only the most (in)famous among them.
Bush didn't have to start a war in Afghanistan and Iraq
The war — maybe. But we were talking about the extrajudicial killings, which Bush ordered only when he had to, but Obama orders all the time. Simply to avoid putting new detainees at Gitmo. Wouldn't look good to Code Pink, ya know...
mess that Bush created
This is not the place to go for an overall Obama vs. Bush comparison. But on the particular matter of extrajudicial detentions vs. extrajudicial killings Bush wins hands down.
Actually, Milosevic died in jail awaiting trial — after defending himself for five years. One can argue, that that is evidence of a show-trial — which failed to convict and so the evil whoever poisoned the prisoner.
But that's conspiracy theories.
That one worked well because he [Slobodan Milosevic] was tried by an impartial court more capable of administering justice. That's why it [the trial of Saddam Hussein] was a show trial.
Yeah, sure, a prisoner dying in custody after successfully defending himself for five years sure shows the court's "capability of administering justice". Yet, I fail to see, how the trial of Milosevic, whatever its merits, makes the trial of Hussein a "show trial".
but I challenge you to point out a single "lie" in my comment.
I already did.
No, you did not. Simply stating: "it is lies" does not make it so. You have to point a particular statement, that's not true. And then you have to demonstrate, I knew it was not true, when I wrote it — otherwise it would not be a lie, but a mistake. But everything I wrote in my "highly moderated" post was perfectly true.
Go see how many people died as a result of Bush's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Oh, Bush had to conduct a war. If you count those dead, then you can't beat FDR on the number of victims anyway. But we were talking about the "war" on terror — and how Obama, in order to avoid extrajudicial detentions switched to extrajudicial killings. And how he is getting away with it. To paraphrase certain Florida prosecutor, Obama is killing them not because he has to, but because he wants to — with your consent and approval.
Hussein was beheaded by hanging after a show trial.
He was convicted by a court of law in his own country. I have no idea, why you choose to call it a "show trial". It was not any more such, than the trial of George Zimmerman (to put us back on topic).
Bush was the one who started the drone programme
Sure. And he used the drones to get the guys, catching whom would've been too difficult or risky. But he did try to catch those, whom he could — if only so that they can be interrogated — but quite possibly also so that they have a chance to clear themselves.
It reads like a bunch of pro-Republican lies because most of it just isn't true.
It may be "pro-Republican", but I challenge you to point out a single "lie" in my comment.
More people innocent and guilty died under Bush's orders than Obamas
And your source for these fascinating statistics is?..
Do I really need to explain this to a 21st century American? Ok... Here goes: Try him. In a court of law. Some people aren't bothered by the apparent illegalities of the War on Terror, and if you are one of them, then you would not understand, what I'm talking about.
But if you did protest Bush's extrajudicial detentions of the accused terrorists in Gitmo, you should be even louder protesting Obama's extrajudicial killings of the same people.
What Zimmerman did is the opposite of self defense: he assaulted the innocent teenager.
Prosecution tried to prove just that in court and failed. Do you know something, they do not, or are you just repeating the unsubstantiated allegations you heard on TV?
Yes, bin Laden. Really. It was a military operation, but bin Laden was not resisting. There was no need to kill him. An elderly man with health problems, he was not armed and posed no threat personally. One of his wives charged the SEALs to defend him and was calmly shot in the leg — not killed. The same helicopter, that carried Bin Laden's body, could've carried him out alive just as well. He was executed not because of any danger to the Americans, but because the President ordered it.
Bush would have killed him too.
Bush would've killed him, if it were the only way to get rid of him, sure. But, given an opportunity to capture the scumbag alive, Bush would've gone for it, no doubt — if only for the intelligence value... Unfortunately, the outcry over detaining people in Guantanamo has made the other option far more palatable for the cynical (like Obama) and their short-attention span supporters (like yourself).
Hussein was delivered to justice only because the air strike on the Presidential Palace in Baghdad on 19 March 2003, which was intended to kill him, missed.
Sure. Because at that point he was still the Commander of the enemy military and thus a perfectly legitimate target. But when Marines were dispatched to take him out of his rathole, they were not ordered to kill him on sight. Unlike the SEALs dispatched for Osama bin Laden.
I noticed that Hussein's heinous sons didn't get "delivered to justice".
Because those two gentlemen actively resisted capture. There was a firefight — and the two died with arms in their hands.
Now, bin Laden was not resisting. One of his wives charged the SEALs and was calmly shot in the leg — not killed. SEALs are professionals and would not just kill a human being willy-nilly. But they follow orders. Why did Obama order them to kill, not capture bin Laden, even though the same helicopter, that carried his body, could've just as well carried him out alive, is on the President's conscience.
That you defend him — is on yours.
I'd rather they come after them with a drone than with an invasion
Sure. And it is legal too, no problem there. But when it is done to simply stop the flow of new detainees into Gitmo (to fulfill, someday, Obama's 2007 electoral promise), then it becomes rather unethical, does not it? Because capture and detention (even if indefinite) is much better, than fiery death from the sky for both the subject and his family. If you had no problem with Gitmo detentions, then, fine. I don't blame you for accepting Obama's doctrine. But if you were among the media-whipped crowds condemning Bush for the mere detentions, then you can not be true to yourself, if you don't condemn Obama in even stronger terms for the extra-judicial killings of the same people.
We don't actually need to establish causation for the purposes of this discussion. The correlation is quite sufficient to make Zimmerman's claim of being attacked more believable — people seeing Trayvon's angelic 12 year-old photos may be doubting Zimmerman's claim. That the "angelic" used marijuana, would've painted a more complete picture of the supposed victim...
Instigating a confrontation that you could easily avoid does not entitle you to claim the right to use lethal force
Nothing explicitly entitles to the right to self-defense. It is a natural right. Zimmerman could've lost it, if he assaulted Martin first. But a mere verbal "instigating a confrontation" — and there is no evidence, he has done even that — does not deprive one of the self-defense right.
Nor does being a racist, before you ask...
given that GZ was in fact armed at the time, TM would have had the legal right to beat GZ to death were that to have happened around here.
Here in the US, the 2nd Amendment allows citizens to walk around armed — and millions choose to exercise that right every day. Are you saying, all such people can be legally beaten to death where you live? Wow... Or was that simply the depth of your understanding of the legal issues?
given the reported facts, his life was not in danger and he had no reason to think so
You must have your own facts, then... According to evidence presented at trial, Zimmerman had wounds consistent with both being punched in the face and being hit against the pavement.
That's certainly enough to fear death or serious injury.
Studies show that violence can occur more often among people who use marijuana regularly, rather than those who use it occasionally or not at all. It is unclear why this is the case, but it may be because people with violent tendencies can also have a range of other psychosocial problems and are therefore more likely to use marijuana. marijuana is also part of the illegal drug market, which may increase the chances of violence occurring in some social interactions.
- continued following TM, even when instructed by 911 operators not to.
I keep hearing this bit about "being instructed by the 911 operator" from people as if it mattered — and I just don't get it. Why would following a person against anybody's advice (not a lawful order, advice), deprive one from the right to self-defense?
Oh, how typical of Illiberals to withdraw the inconvenient facts, when appealing to passionate, rather than rational... The link you gave us is surprisingly — for an article about a criminal case — devoid of the details, like what was the actual charge, for example... Thankfully, other reporters are still doing their job (which is to inform, rather than agitate the toiling masses). Here, for example, we find that the 20 years come from three counts of aggravated assault. The article also explains, why the jury did not buy neither the "self-defense" argument (which Zimmerman used successfully) nor the "stand your ground" argument (which Zimmerman did not use):
But a jury agreed with prosecutors that the law didn't apply because she left during the argument, got a gun and returned to confront him [emphasis mine], WJXT reported.
Oh, there most certainly are issues! Because Gitmo was made into such a hot potato during the previous presidency, the current President, evidently, banned putting new detainees in there... Guess, which of the two alternatives to such detentions did he pick? Right, kill them on the spot — no judge, no jury.
That his supporters, after condemning Bush for the mere detentions, are a-Ok with the extra-judicial killings, is really telling any observer everything one needs to know about their attention spans. That the President is ordering the killings for political expediency (so as not to be blamed for Gitmo's existance much), never mind the possibility, however slight, that a few of them are innocent, is telling the same observer about his values and morals. That he does it despite the intelligence value destroyed by each killing, expands nicely on his priorities.
To sum up: the "village idiot" and "Constitution-shredder" Bush presided over Milosevic and Hussein being delivered to justice. Harvard-educated lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Obama presided over bin Laden and Qaddafi shot on the spot...
If we killed off all the health insurance companies
Thank you for finally admitting, this was the goal from the onset. I mean, your leader had to lie through his fine teeth telling us the opposite, but we, greedy Capitalists, could see straight through it all along.
adopt something like the Canadian system
Been there, done that. USSR had the "Canadian" system — and it sucked royally. The only reason Canada's is better, is because Canada is generally richer, than the USSR was — because it is otherwise Capitalist. If you think, arguing with an insurance company is bad, wait 'till you have to talk to a government bureaucrat.
Wherever Socialism gets implemented in earnest, people lose both — the prosperity and the human rights. Oh, and there are also mass-murders usually... Not only will your healthcare be bad, everything else will too.
Oh, and the civil rights — whatever they are worth — are deteriorating even faster on his watch too: TSA is ever more inquisitive, the people Bush used to merely detain are now simply killed. Hunting for a sole teenager with one pistol, the government locked down the entire town and the literal jackboots were throwing people out of their houses at gunpoint.
So, you chose "civil rights" over prosperity and are quickly losing both. I would've laughed at you, if your choice did not affect me as well...
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno... We got one six weeks ago and have mixed feelings. On one hand, the dead mosquitoes certainly do accumulate inside the trap. On the other, there are still plenty of suckers outside in the air. Tried changing the chemical attractant — we are right on the border of their "map" for deciding, which attractant to use — and things improved a little, but we still get plenty of bites.
Maybe, I should get a second one — and use the other attractant in it, but these devices aren't cheap to buy and even more expensive to keep running...
Actually, there would be quite a bit of security against non-governmental attackers and those working for foreign governments.
And while it is the governmental ones that scare us for having a potential for abuse, it is those others that have done actual damage to millions of computers and hurt millions of people already — through spamming, identity theft, and spying.
I, for one, would've been glad to be rid of those, even if Uncle Sam's fishing expeditions remain a threat.
Oh, yes, when running out of arguments, switch to personal insults. Sorry, it does not work like that — if you make an argument, you can't demand the opponent looks up the supporting facts for it, no. You have to dig those up yourself. Also known as "put up or shut up". You posted several times since I asked you for evidence of Saddam's trial being a show one — and not once were you able to present any such evidence. I can only conclude, you don't have any — but aren't man enough to admit it.
They are acceptable — depending on the motivation. When the alternative to killing is letting the target escape, killing is justified. When the alternative means detaining the target in Gitmo and having to explain your clueless supporters, why the Gitmo population is growing instead of shrinking, then no, killing is not justified in that case. Not by any ethical standard.
Exactly. The ultimate goal is to get rid of those guys, so if killing is the only reasonable way to achieve the goal, then it is Ok for the Commander to order the killing. But if the reason Commander prefers the killing over capture is pure politics, then the Commander is acting unethically. When, in addition to being unethical, his choice also deprives US of the intelligence the target could've provided under skillful interrogation, the Commander is also being border-line treasonous.
Oh, more insults and more demands, that your opponent does the research for you. Did you skip the high-school debating exercises or something?
I can see, why this sort of procedure — including the gag-order — may be justified in some cases. But it is so easy to abuse, I'm not sure, the benefits we are getting are worth the risk we are taking.
If the humanity back then had today's ways of organizing and raising awareness, these potentially dangerous means of agriculture — meant solely to enrich the farmers at the expense of the consumers' health — would've been banned long ago.
Hunting and gathering are the only responsible way to get sustenance. Oh, wait, no — hunting is evil too. Gathering only!
What I do not understand is, how could people, who loudly protested Bush's extrajudicial detentions of suspected terrorists, are now Ok with Obama's extrajudicial killings of the same people...
In other words, you don't have any evidence showing it to not have been fair... Got it.
I don't need to. You accused me of posting "lies" but remain unable to identify a single one. Must be the Illiberal style of arguing or something...
No, actually. Obama did switch. And people with better attention-spans than yours did notice. Bush used drones, when that was the only way to get the target. Obama uses them all the time — because he does not want to get stuck with "inconvenient prisoners" — Osama bin Laden being only the most (in)famous among them.
The war — maybe. But we were talking about the extrajudicial killings, which Bush ordered only when he had to, but Obama orders all the time. Simply to avoid putting new detainees at Gitmo. Wouldn't look good to Code Pink, ya know...
This is not the place to go for an overall Obama vs. Bush comparison. But on the particular matter of extrajudicial detentions vs. extrajudicial killings Bush wins hands down.
But that's conspiracy theories.
Yeah, sure, a prisoner dying in custody after successfully defending himself for five years sure shows the court's "capability of administering justice". Yet, I fail to see, how the trial of Milosevic, whatever its merits, makes the trial of Hussein a "show trial".
No, you did not. Simply stating: "it is lies" does not make it so. You have to point a particular statement, that's not true. And then you have to demonstrate, I knew it was not true, when I wrote it — otherwise it would not be a lie, but a mistake. But everything I wrote in my "highly moderated" post was perfectly true.
Oh, Bush had to conduct a war. If you count those dead, then you can't beat FDR on the number of victims anyway. But we were talking about the "war" on terror — and how Obama, in order to avoid extrajudicial detentions switched to extrajudicial killings. And how he is getting away with it. To paraphrase certain Florida prosecutor, Obama is killing them not because he has to, but because he wants to — with your consent and approval.
He was convicted by a court of law in his own country. I have no idea, why you choose to call it a "show trial". It was not any more such, than the trial of George Zimmerman (to put us back on topic).
Sure. And he used the drones to get the guys, catching whom would've been too difficult or risky. But he did try to catch those, whom he could — if only so that they can be interrogated — but quite possibly also so that they have a chance to clear themselves.
It may be "pro-Republican", but I challenge you to point out a single "lie" in my comment.
And your source for these fascinating statistics is?..
Do I really need to explain this to a 21st century American? Ok... Here goes: Try him. In a court of law. Some people aren't bothered by the apparent illegalities of the War on Terror, and if you are one of them, then you would not understand, what I'm talking about.
But if you did protest Bush's extrajudicial detentions of the accused terrorists in Gitmo, you should be even louder protesting Obama's extrajudicial killings of the same people.
Prosecution tried to prove just that in court and failed. Do you know something, they do not, or are you just repeating the unsubstantiated allegations you heard on TV?
Bush would've killed him, if it were the only way to get rid of him, sure. But, given an opportunity to capture the scumbag alive, Bush would've gone for it, no doubt — if only for the intelligence value... Unfortunately, the outcry over detaining people in Guantanamo has made the other option far more palatable for the cynical (like Obama) and their short-attention span supporters (like yourself).
Sure. Because at that point he was still the Commander of the enemy military and thus a perfectly legitimate target. But when Marines were dispatched to take him out of his rathole, they were not ordered to kill him on sight. Unlike the SEALs dispatched for Osama bin Laden.
Because those two gentlemen actively resisted capture. There was a firefight — and the two died with arms in their hands.
Now, bin Laden was not resisting. One of his wives charged the SEALs and was calmly shot in the leg — not killed. SEALs are professionals and would not just kill a human being willy-nilly. But they follow orders. Why did Obama order them to kill, not capture bin Laden, even though the same helicopter, that carried his body, could've just as well carried him out alive, is on the President's conscience.
That you defend him — is on yours.
Sure. And it is legal too, no problem there. But when it is done to simply stop the flow of new detainees into Gitmo (to fulfill, someday, Obama's 2007 electoral promise), then it becomes rather unethical, does not it? Because capture and detention (even if indefinite) is much better, than fiery death from the sky for both the subject and his family. If you had no problem with Gitmo detentions, then, fine. I don't blame you for accepting Obama's doctrine. But if you were among the media-whipped crowds condemning Bush for the mere detentions, then you can not be true to yourself, if you don't condemn Obama in even stronger terms for the extra-judicial killings of the same people.
Perhaps, he should not. But even if he did pick up the fight (and there is no evidence, he did, actually), he is still entitled to defend himself.
Racists — and there is no evidence Zimmerman is one — are also entitled to self-defense.
I am wondering, when the government starts prosecuting the threatening and menacing online postings like your own.
We don't actually need to establish causation for the purposes of this discussion. The correlation is quite sufficient to make Zimmerman's claim of being attacked more believable — people seeing Trayvon's angelic 12 year-old photos may be doubting Zimmerman's claim. That the "angelic" used marijuana, would've painted a more complete picture of the supposed victim...
Nothing explicitly entitles to the right to self-defense. It is a natural right. Zimmerman could've lost it, if he assaulted Martin first. But a mere verbal "instigating a confrontation" — and there is no evidence, he has done even that — does not deprive one of the self-defense right.
Nor does being a racist, before you ask...
Here in the US, the 2nd Amendment allows citizens to walk around armed — and millions choose to exercise that right every day. Are you saying, all such people can be legally beaten to death where you live? Wow... Or was that simply the depth of your understanding of the legal issues?
You must have your own facts, then... According to evidence presented at trial, Zimmerman had wounds consistent with both being punched in the face and being hit against the pavement.
That's certainly enough to fear death or serious injury.
And everybody knows, such power-tripping racists have no right to defend themselves...
Oh, but it does:
Oopsie...
As a matter of fact, it is not. (Not that there is any evidence, Zimmerman has done either, mind you. But even if he did...)
And before you even ask, being a "profiling racist" does not void one's right to self-defense either.
I keep hearing this bit about "being instructed by the 911 operator" from people as if it mattered — and I just don't get it. Why would following a person against anybody's advice (not a lawful order, advice), deprive one from the right to self-defense?
Oh, how typical of Illiberals to withdraw the inconvenient facts, when appealing to passionate, rather than rational... The link you gave us is surprisingly — for an article about a criminal case — devoid of the details, like what was the actual charge, for example... Thankfully, other reporters are still doing their job (which is to inform, rather than agitate the toiling masses). Here, for example, we find that the 20 years come from three counts of aggravated assault. The article also explains, why the jury did not buy neither the "self-defense" argument (which Zimmerman used successfully) nor the "stand your ground" argument (which Zimmerman did not use):
Oh, there most certainly are issues! Because Gitmo was made into such a hot potato during the previous presidency, the current President, evidently, banned putting new detainees in there... Guess, which of the two alternatives to such detentions did he pick? Right, kill them on the spot — no judge, no jury.
That his supporters, after condemning Bush for the mere detentions, are a-Ok with the extra-judicial killings, is really telling any observer everything one needs to know about their attention spans. That the President is ordering the killings for political expediency (so as not to be blamed for Gitmo's existance much), never mind the possibility, however slight, that a few of them are innocent, is telling the same observer about his values and morals. That he does it despite the intelligence value destroyed by each killing, expands nicely on his priorities.
To sum up: the "village idiot" and "Constitution-shredder" Bush presided over Milosevic and Hussein being delivered to justice. Harvard-educated lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Obama presided over bin Laden and Qaddafi shot on the spot...
Thank you for finally admitting, this was the goal from the onset. I mean, your leader had to lie through his fine teeth telling us the opposite, but we, greedy Capitalists, could see straight through it all along.
Been there, done that. USSR had the "Canadian" system — and it sucked royally. The only reason Canada's is better, is because Canada is generally richer, than the USSR was — because it is otherwise Capitalist. If you think, arguing with an insurance company is bad, wait 'till you have to talk to a government bureaucrat.
Wherever Socialism gets implemented in earnest, people lose both — the prosperity and the human rights. Oh, and there are also mass-murders usually... Not only will your healthcare be bad, everything else will too.
Your civil rights aren't worth very much, if you are too poor to enjoy them — and we are steadily getting poorer on the Nobel Prize Winner's watch. And there is no denying that — there are more Americans receiving government's food assistance today, than there are working the private sector.
Oh, and the civil rights — whatever they are worth — are deteriorating even faster on his watch too: TSA is ever more inquisitive, the people Bush used to merely detain are now simply killed. Hunting for a sole teenager with one pistol, the government locked down the entire town and the literal jackboots were throwing people out of their houses at gunpoint.
So, you chose "civil rights" over prosperity and are quickly losing both. I would've laughed at you, if your choice did not affect me as well...