Under your definition George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other founding fathers were "terrorists." With out those terrorists, you would not have this constitution you seem to value so much.
Several people have responded to my post by pointing to GW while at the same time forgetting why GW took up arms in the first place. The American Revolutionaries had no representation, or had you forgotten "taxation without representation?"
...I do not feel that any action should be taken against him for raising revolution, which he has the right to do in this nation.
If the majority of the people in this country decide that the government needs a major overhaul, they have a mechanism for enacting change. The original colonists had no such mechanism--they were subject to British law, and that was that. Anyone who takes up arms against America today will quickly find out exactly what we have the NSA, FBI, CIA, Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard for.
You missed the point. Remember the slogan "taxation without representation"? We've got a democracy now. We did not then. I suggest you revisit your fourth grade history book.
"People can rant and rave on the Internet all they want, but when they cross the line of calling people to action to violently overthrow the Constitution of the United States, they have a problem," said McLaughlin.
That would be correct. The United States of America is all for free speech. It's also a democracy, where you can elect a new government to install new laws if you disagree with the current state of affairs. Elected officials (who presumably represent a majority of the populace) will eventually populate the group responsible for interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court. Therefore, in a theoretical sense (before you start screaming about corporate america owning the politicians), the people do control the government.
By ignoring the political route and espousing the virtues of a violent overthrow, you have now entered the realm of "terrorist" or "freedom fighter." In a country where the freedom of speech is guaranteed in the very Constitution you want to do away with, you are more than likely to be considered a terrorist. And frankly, I would agree with that assessment.
Here's a suggestion: if you don't like the system and don't feel like changing the system, take your bombs and move to Columbia or the middle east.
It sounds from the article like they're a lot closer to something like the loader that Ripley drove in the movie Aliens than they are to a mobile infantry solution. i.e. bulky, slow and clumsy but hellaciously strong. It's going to be a long haul to refine this stuff to the high degree of dexterity needed for the applications they have in mind. But it sounds cool--good luck to them!
Why don't we just attach some laser beams to the heads of some sharks? The sharks are in the water, the lasers are in the water...BAM, we've got the Hydrogen!
C'mon people! All I want is some frickin' sharks with lasers on their heads! Is that too much to ask?
Emitting only heat and water as byproducts of power generation, the NexaTM power module allows OEM products to be used in indoor environments and other locations not possible with conventional power sources such as internal combustion engine generators.
Assuming you stored the water byproduct in a bottle, this begs the question...
If you found a mouse in the bottle, would you get a free beer?
Having correctly pointed out that US foreign policy has caused misery, suffering and death to millions elsewhere in the world, you seem horrified that a couple of those people are ready to give as good as they get.
By this logic, it is perfectly acceptable for the US to take the baton back and erase Afghanistan. We and the Taliban have agreed to disagree about this tragedy. From Yahoo news:
The Taliban's secretive leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, broke his silence Friday by insisting neither bin Laden nor Afghanistan (news - web sites) was capable of planning such sophisticated operations.
``Training of pilots is the work of a running government,'' he said in a statement read by his ambassador to neighboring Pakistan in Islamabad. ``Osama has no pilots, and where did he train them? In Afghanistan there is no such possibility for the training.''
But significantly, the statement by the Taliban's leader -- who rarely gives interviews, has never been filmed or photographed and has met just two non-Muslims in his entire life -- failed to condemn the U.S. attacks or even sympathize with relatives of the victims.
The Taliban are liars, and very, very stupid for thinking anyone believes them. We carry the bigger stick, and we disagree with the policy of destroying the WTC and killing thousands of innocents as a way to make a point. Therefore, we are justified in nuking them out of existance--because we can.
Actually, maybe erasing every one of these ideoligical bastards isn't such a bad idea.
The US can stop these attacks. But it is not by further war. A truly amazing president, like Nixon, must realise that this is a conflict in which the US must understand it's own actions and change it's behaviour.
Too late. Sure we pulled out of Vietnam before any real resolution was reached. Do you recall what public sentiment was like here in America during that war? American citizens burning American flags in the streets. Organized protests against our own foreign policy. Our own soldiers, who didn't have any fucking say in why they were there, verbally assaulted on their return.
Do you think that things might have been a bit different if North Vietnam had managed to smuggle a few dozen Viet Cong into Manhatten and blown up the Empire State Building with 5,000 Average Joe's inside?
It sounds like we may be seeing useable electrical-line LANs soon, but this obviously doesn't solve the 'last mile' problem.
It doesn't solve the first mile problem either. All it works for is LANs.
The problem with using the grid to serve the internet to homes is the transition from transmission lines to distribution lines. The stepdown transformers really muck up data transmission.
At a recent Distribution Automation convention in San Diego, one company touted a technology for using the grid as a WAN. Their stuff wasn't bothered by transformers. The drawback: max speed was 1 bit per second.
One can only fear what happens when they upgrade to one of the new microsoft leases based licenses so when their link goes down and they can't contact microsofts license server the entire space station shuts down:)
The worst part is that whenever they upgrade a piece of hardware, they have to re-register with Microsoft. Since their comm is no longer working, they have to use Morse Code by blinking a flashlight out the window.
Had Kozmo settled out of court, there would have been no precedent set. However, a judgement was made. If they appeal and the ruling is confirmed, then precedent is set. If they do not appeal, precedent has still been set.
The less you send over the line the better. Imagine if the Quake 3 Arena server tried to do all of the work you--couldn't be done. Instead, it sends a stream of info & changes and lets your local engine do most of the work. Curl sounds like much the same thing (kind of like Flash, but with less overhead).
Frankly, I've never understood why you would want your client to do less. I didn't pay a couple grand for a dumb terminal.
One final thought: the applet is a good idea (presuming they can work out a more stable environment than most JVMs seem to be). The scripting part will be at the mercy of MS.
It's called inertia. If the same engine powers two cars, and everything between the two cars is equal, but one of the cars weighs twice as much, the lighter car will accelerate faster.
And why the hell was this post moderated as Off Topic?? Are moderaters that stupid?
...between paying to send up a satelite and paying to send up a human? I could hire the Space Shuttle to deliver a satelite into orbit for me. In doing so, I'm paying for my share of the cost of the hardware and the people to run it. If $20 million covers the expenses of getting this dude into space for a while, why not?
Getting things into space for profit has been standard practice for quite some time. This is just a slightly different angle.
Would you still feel this same way if I published your home phone & address against your wishes? How about if I asked if someone could please use this information to harrass you (literally) to death?
What if I published your credit card numbers or social security number? Have I commited a crime if I never used that info for identity theft? What if someone else did?
My point is, not all speech is protected. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is against the law. If I abuse you with 'fighting words' (following the Supreme Court's definition), you can legally beat my lights out.
Limitations do exist--its not 'all-or-nothing' as you would have us believe. My opinion in this particular case is that the court dropped the ball, and went with the letter of the law rather than the intent of the law.
I agree with your point! I wonder how the court would have ruled if I published a site with the justice's names, home addresses and phone numbers, and a scorecard for their maiming/killing.
MS is currently good at one thing: marketing. However, back in the day, they used to be good at two things: innovation & marketing. Remember, they created the first widely accepted and useable GUI for the PC with Windows 3.0. Your choices in 1989 were either a PC running Windows 3.0, or a Mac. The Mac was a better choice (you can still hear Apple people calling Windows 95 "Finder '89"), but Apple only did one thing well: innovation. For some reason, their upper brass forgot to take a marketing class, and their elitist approach alienated many hardware & software manufacturers.
So MS's biggest advantage was timing. When they began to create (and dominate) the PC desktop OS, they also made sure that no other company could make inroads (remember DR-DOS?). This has been their modus operandi from the beginning--the only thing that has changed is that they have decided to forego any further innovation.
By the way, you mention in your article:
Gates' astonishing arrogance -- lying to a federal judge comes to mind -- is much to blame for this change. But monomania isn't a crime.
No monomania isn't a crime, but lying to a federal judge is.
Slashdot Mirror
Under your definition George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other founding fathers were "terrorists." With out those terrorists, you would not have this constitution you seem to value so much.
Several people have responded to my post by pointing to GW while at the same time forgetting why GW took up arms in the first place. The American Revolutionaries had no representation, or had you forgotten "taxation without representation?"
If the majority of the people in this country decide that the government needs a major overhaul, they have a mechanism for enacting change. The original colonists had no such mechanism--they were subject to British law, and that was that. Anyone who takes up arms against America today will quickly find out exactly what we have the NSA, FBI, CIA, Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard for.
You missed the point. Remember the slogan "taxation without representation"? We've got a democracy now. We did not then. I suggest you revisit your fourth grade history book.
That would be correct. The United States of America is all for free speech. It's also a democracy, where you can elect a new government to install new laws if you disagree with the current state of affairs. Elected officials (who presumably represent a majority of the populace) will eventually populate the group responsible for interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court. Therefore, in a theoretical sense (before you start screaming about corporate america owning the politicians), the people do control the government.
By ignoring the political route and espousing the virtues of a violent overthrow, you have now entered the realm of "terrorist" or "freedom fighter." In a country where the freedom of speech is guaranteed in the very Constitution you want to do away with, you are more than likely to be considered a terrorist. And frankly, I would agree with that assessment.
Here's a suggestion: if you don't like the system and don't feel like changing the system, take your bombs and move to Columbia or the middle east.
It sounds from the article like they're a lot closer to something like the loader that Ripley drove in the movie Aliens than they are to a mobile infantry solution. i.e. bulky, slow and clumsy but hellaciously strong. It's going to be a long haul to refine this stuff to the high degree of dexterity needed for the applications they have in mind. But it sounds cool--good luck to them!
Those that do not learn from their past mistakes are doomed to repeat them, so now we properly dispose of our space trash.
C'mon people! All I want is some frickin' sharks with lasers on their heads! Is that too much to ask?
Or Xerox if you want to see a big comany that tried to change and botched it.
CmdrTaco: There is no Division 6. This is bullshit!
Comment deleted...
On a movie theatre facade: "Yahoo Serious is Young Einstein"
Lisa Simpson: "I know those words, but that sentance makes no sense to me!"
Emitting only heat and water as byproducts of power generation, the NexaTM power module allows OEM products to be used in indoor environments and other locations not possible with conventional power sources such as internal combustion engine generators.
Assuming you stored the water byproduct in a bottle, this begs the question...
If you found a mouse in the bottle, would you get a free beer?
Having correctly pointed out that US foreign policy has caused misery, suffering and death to millions elsewhere in the world, you seem horrified that a couple of those people are ready to give as good as they get.
By this logic, it is perfectly acceptable for the US to take the baton back and erase Afghanistan. We and the Taliban have agreed to disagree about this tragedy. From Yahoo news:
The Taliban's secretive leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, broke his silence Friday by insisting neither bin Laden nor Afghanistan (news - web sites) was capable of planning such sophisticated operations.
``Training of pilots is the work of a running government,'' he said in a statement read by his ambassador to neighboring Pakistan in Islamabad. ``Osama has no pilots, and where did he train them? In Afghanistan there is no such possibility for the training.''
But significantly, the statement by the Taliban's leader -- who rarely gives interviews, has never been filmed or photographed and has met just two non-Muslims in his entire life -- failed to condemn the U.S. attacks or even sympathize with relatives of the victims.
The Taliban are liars, and very, very stupid for thinking anyone believes them. We carry the bigger stick, and we disagree with the policy of destroying the WTC and killing thousands of innocents as a way to make a point. Therefore, we are justified in nuking them out of existance--because we can.
Actually, maybe erasing every one of these ideoligical bastards isn't such a bad idea.
The US can stop these attacks. But it is not by further war. A truly amazing president, like Nixon, must realise that this is a conflict in which the US must understand it's own actions and change it's behaviour.
Too late. Sure we pulled out of Vietnam before any real resolution was reached. Do you recall what public sentiment was like here in America during that war? American citizens burning American flags in the streets. Organized protests against our own foreign policy. Our own soldiers, who didn't have any fucking say in why they were there, verbally assaulted on their return.
Do you think that things might have been a bit different if North Vietnam had managed to smuggle a few dozen Viet Cong into Manhatten and blown up the Empire State Building with 5,000 Average Joe's inside?
It sounds like we may be seeing useable electrical-line LANs soon, but this obviously doesn't solve the 'last mile' problem.
It doesn't solve the first mile problem either. All it works for is LANs.
The problem with using the grid to serve the internet to homes is the transition from transmission lines to distribution lines. The stepdown transformers really muck up data transmission.
At a recent Distribution Automation convention in San Diego, one company touted a technology for using the grid as a WAN. Their stuff wasn't bothered by transformers. The drawback: max speed was 1 bit per second.
---
Why don't you just make ten louder?
To stay on-topic, nice post! :-)
---
The worst part is that whenever they upgrade a piece of hardware, they have to re-register with Microsoft. Since their comm is no longer working, they have to use Morse Code by blinking a flashlight out the window.
---
Had Kozmo settled out of court, there would have been no precedent set. However, a judgement was made. If they appeal and the ruling is confirmed, then precedent is set. If they do not appeal, precedent has still been set.
---
The Day the Earth Stood Still. I've seen Army of Darkness, but I missed the reference. (Damn! That's a good one, too!)
---
Perhaps this is how the Borg started out?
---
Frankly, I've never understood why you would want your client to do less. I didn't pay a couple grand for a dumb terminal.
One final thought: the applet is a good idea (presuming they can work out a more stable environment than most JVMs seem to be). The scripting part will be at the mercy of MS.
---
And why the hell was this post moderated as Off Topic?? Are moderaters that stupid?
---
Great. And I thought my last relationship was the only thing with no closure...
---
Getting things into space for profit has been standard practice for quite some time. This is just a slightly different angle.
---
What if I published your credit card numbers or social security number? Have I commited a crime if I never used that info for identity theft? What if someone else did?
My point is, not all speech is protected. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is against the law. If I abuse you with 'fighting words' (following the Supreme Court's definition), you can legally beat my lights out.
Limitations do exist--its not 'all-or-nothing' as you would have us believe. My opinion in this particular case is that the court dropped the ball, and went with the letter of the law rather than the intent of the law.
---
I bet they'd reconsider.
---
So MS's biggest advantage was timing. When they began to create (and dominate) the PC desktop OS, they also made sure that no other company could make inroads (remember DR-DOS?). This has been their modus operandi from the beginning--the only thing that has changed is that they have decided to forego any further innovation.
By the way, you mention in your article:
Gates' astonishing arrogance -- lying to a federal judge comes to mind -- is much to blame for this change. But monomania isn't a crime.
No monomania isn't a crime, but lying to a federal judge is.
---