What is it with this mental illness, that it befell even the Slashdot editors? Maybe, they should be sent to the same ESL class, that I went through, to know their own first (and, I suspect, only) language?
Can bloggers protect their sources, like "traditional media" journalists can?
In that case, anyone can avoid (or much delay) testifying on anything, by posting online something semi-relevant to the case and, having thus become a blogger, refuse to testify...
When Pentagon tried this idea...
on
Idea Stock Exchange
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
When Pentagon tried this to help predict the outcomes of and details of conflicts, terrorist acts, etcaetera, the project went down in flames amid accusations of "trading in blood and destruction" and similar nonsense.
The idea is not entirely dead yet, and so the opposition continues its histerical "criticism" of it...
When the federal government supports little enclaves of backwoods people [...] you pave the way for government sponsored [emphasys mine -mi] bigotry and disunity within the country as a whole.
Now, now. Where do the emphasysed parts come from? The talk is not about whether the government should support or sponsor, but whether or not it should interfere. "Live and Letting Live" is the motto, not the illiberal "Live and Force Others to Live Like You".
Although I'm sure, other BSDs are comparable, I find FreeBSD quite inspiring. Much of the code is, actually, a pleasure to read, thanks in part to the famous style(9) manual:-)
No kidding, some other people's source in comparision sometimes feels like a child's homework essay next to a master's printed novel.
Well trained horses usually won't, probably due to trust.
I suspect, you never rode much...
It is totally different to be terrified, wanting to turn and run away, but not being able to do anything about it, and just keep right on walking forward.
You are attaching a human emotion to an animal. A common mistake.
Regardless, even if the horse were horrified, if its suffering can reduce or eliminate the suffering of a human, than it is ethical for us to use it.
And always was. Think, again, about the lab mice, cats that are bread for future doctors and nurses to study internal organs, and dogs and pigs used to clear out minefields...
So no, they [remote and local controls of an animal -mi] are not the same thing.
They are... Pinching an elephant with a nail (common practice), or pulling a horse's reigns is no different from remotely controlling the creatures via things implanted or otherwise attached to them. Technically -- different. Ethically -- no.
I cant see being trapped in a body that you are not in control of, but can still feel, must be the punishment in some level of hell.
I can't make my body do a somersault. A saddled horse can neither kick off the rider nor spit our the reigns. An elephant will charge into battle solely because its guide controls him. A camel may die in the desert, because its rider made a mistake or "pushed the envelope" deliberately (see "Lawrence of Arabia")...
Humans have used animals in many aspects of life — including warfare — for thousands of years (heck, we continue eating them!). And we have often excercised immediate control of their bodies too. Pentagon is trying to replace the immediate control with remote, because the technology allows that. There is certainly nothing newly unethical about it.
and I still know its wrong to light cats on fire and throw them into my history profs front lawn
Yes, because this pains the animal needlessly. But if an animal's pain can reduce or eliminate the pain of a human (think lab mice or mine-searching dogs and pigs), then it should be done. No questions about it.
If you disregard ethics, you disregard a great deal of what makes us human.
Oh, please, spare the grandstanding. Nobody is "disregarding ethics" — the question is, whether it is ethical or not. And it seems to me, that it is.
From the very beginning, the Constitution only guaranteed, what the government can not take away. Any attempts to guarantee giving something material are wrong — citizens (including the politicians' favorite "most vulnerable" ones) are supposed to be taking care of themselves.
And yes, this includes the similarly misguided "Guaranteed Housing Ammendment" circulated on New York streets...
ImageMagick's API is notoriously unstable and new releases don't even bother with backwards compatibility. Once in a while, even the command line options change between releases breaking existing scripts (such as ImageIndex, for example).
If you wish to write your own programs using a powerful image-processing library, you will, most likely, prefer the fork of ImageMagick called GraphicsMagick.
For reasons that I don't understand, the Christian and Muslim worlds seem to have flip-flopped regarding the dominance of religion vs. rational thought somewhere in the past 200-500 years.
Whereas Christianity leaves "Ceasar's to Ceasar" thus separating itself from government, Islam prescribes particular social and governmental order via Sharia.
The government invented by the Prophet was pretty progressive for the times and thus helped Islamic society(ies) advance then. Eventually, the European world has caught up with something even better, however, and — unbound by the scripture in that regard — was able to take advantage of it.
This — the insistance on the letter of the Sharia law — is what really handicaps some Islamic countries, IMHO. Some of them (like Indonesia) seem to have found a way to get out of this shackles, so there is hope yet...
Even if you play nice, your boss can still be a bastard!
What's so bastardly? They don't owe you a job... The progress of humanity did not need you there anymore either — it is great, that you improved the thing to be so simple, now go and improve something else. Thank you!
Luckily for the rest of us, our government is not nearly as xenophobic.
How about foreign planes in our airspace? Airbus is also owned by foreign governments. Turning an airliner into an incidiary missile (again!) is even easier (by taking over its computer), than ship us a nuke.
This sound-bite does, indeed, make a good signature — as it explains your world-view. But it was uncalled for in this particular discussion and was quite off-topic. You intended it to provoke me into slipping into further off-topic defending Bush's administration and flaming you to crisp in the process, which makes it exactly, what I said it is — a flamebait.
Remember to logout... And do consider the pademelons.
Most military analysts would disagree. Control of ports and port security has always been a major national security issue.
"Military analysts" rarely have the slightest idea, what is involved in managing today's port. Thousands of tonns of cargo, hundreds of ships. As far as military is concerned, getting rid of all that is the safest route, of course...
Keeping it all in British hands is not acceptable to them either — just wait for another shoe bomber. Making it all American? Not after Timothy McVeigh and Jose Padila...
This is a spherical administration: They are a complete failure no matter which way you look at them.
If this is not a patent flamebait, I don't know, what is...
The issue is about what and who may be allowed into the country via the foreign-controlled ports.
"What and who may be allowed into the country" is not up to the port's operator. It is — and will remain — up to US Coast Guard, Customs, and other border-control officials.
If anything, you should be worried about the ports' current operator. They are from the same country as the Shoe Bomber...
These are fought by the Coast Guard and Customs — regardless, who is operating the ports.
If you are seriously concerned, you should be against the current ports' operator even more. While whether or not UAE citizens have ever attacked US remains unclear, the Shoe Bomber is a London-born British citizen...
Why does someone get such a benefit of doubt just because they are elected to a position?
Everyone does. Presumption of innocence, remember?
"Oh sure, he's just trying to improve america's image so people don't think we're being xenophobic."
You can't deny Bush's efforts in that direction. His speeches and directives were protecting Muslims and Arabs in this country since Sep 12, 2001. Heck, Michael Moore even made a movie about it...:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Why, then, did Judith Miller and her colleague go through such troubles recently?
In that case, anyone can avoid (or much delay) testifying on anything, by posting online something semi-relevant to the case and, having thus become a blogger, refuse to testify...
The idea is not entirely dead yet, and so the opposition continues its histerical "criticism" of it...
It is not worth the troubles of installing (and maintaining!) a database server, IMHO.
No kidding, some other people's source in comparision sometimes feels like a child's homework essay next to a master's printed novel.
Regardless, even if the horse were horrified, if its suffering can reduce or eliminate the suffering of a human, than it is ethical for us to use it.
And always was. Think, again, about the lab mice, cats that are bread for future doctors and nurses to study internal organs, and dogs and pigs used to clear out minefields...
They are... Pinching an elephant with a nail (common practice), or pulling a horse's reigns is no different from remotely controlling the creatures via things implanted or otherwise attached to them. Technically -- different. Ethically -- no.Was not the AT&T monster created out of desire to guarantee every American a telephone? I'd rather this part of history did not repeat itself...
Humans have used animals in many aspects of life — including warfare — for thousands of years (heck, we continue eating them!). And we have often excercised immediate control of their bodies too. Pentagon is trying to replace the immediate control with remote, because the technology allows that. There is certainly nothing newly unethical about it.
Yes, because this pains the animal needlessly. But if an animal's pain can reduce or eliminate the pain of a human (think lab mice or mine-searching dogs and pigs), then it should be done. No questions about it. Oh, please, spare the grandstanding. Nobody is "disregarding ethics" — the question is, whether it is ethical or not. And it seems to me, that it is.Sounds pretty trivial...
And yes, this includes the similarly misguided "Guaranteed Housing Ammendment" circulated on New York streets...
If you wish to write your own programs using a powerful image-processing library, you will, most likely, prefer the fork of ImageMagick called GraphicsMagick.
The government invented by the Prophet was pretty progressive for the times and thus helped Islamic society(ies) advance then. Eventually, the European world has caught up with something even better, however, and — unbound by the scripture in that regard — was able to take advantage of it.
This — the insistance on the letter of the Sharia law — is what really handicaps some Islamic countries, IMHO. Some of them (like Indonesia) seem to have found a way to get out of this shackles, so there is hope yet...
Go ahead, make Boeing's day...
Remember to logout... And do consider the pademelons.
Keeping it all in British hands is not acceptable to them either — just wait for another shoe bomber. Making it all American? Not after Timothy McVeigh and Jose Padila...
If this is not a patent flamebait, I don't know, what is...If anything, you should be worried about the ports' current operator. They are from the same country as the Shoe Bomber...
If you are seriously concerned, you should be against the current ports' operator even more. While whether or not UAE citizens have ever attacked US remains unclear, the Shoe Bomber is a London-born British citizen...
Whether or not such regulation makes sense (snort is open source) is irrelevant to your accusations of "double standard" and whatnot.
That said, the company being acquired — Sourcefire — may well have other products, more closely related to encryption.