The folks in the government who want to be able to freely and constantly be able to monitor you are the same ones who have "black" budgets and classify documents for "national security" reasons.
Those are also the same people who's personal lives should be as transparant as glass. Nothing to point them out as anyone beyond the ordinary, but people with no way to hide a possible treason from their employers.
The country, as a whole, can have secrets. I, as a person, can have secrets. The government declares a secret and then treats it as such. I should do the same--if I have something I want kept secret, then I should simply not speak about it.
For a better retort: "The folks in the populace who decry any invasion of privacy are the same folks who pirate software and liberally cheat on their spouses." (using no more of a generalization than you did)
So, to sum up: if you believe in your own civil liberties, please do not attempt to curtail others'.
I believe in my civil liberties--but I do not believe that being watched and tracked by the government is a violation of them. I truley believe that if all of society is transparent, that no one will be able to abuse the systems.
I do not believe in an inaliable right to privacy in any form--and hence, I would be a hypocrite if I expresed an opinion that believed in one.
Something that we need to consider--in fact, the only thing worthy of public debate after Tuesday's attack--is our balance between Liberty and Security.
Often in the past we have traded security for liberty--for example, when we assigned blacks and women the right to vote, or when we allowed a new state to join the union. Each of these movements--and many others like them that are by far too numerous to list here--have helped create the impression that "civil liberties" are a absolute good in and of themselves. But down that road lies anarchy, if we travel it far enough.
What many liberals often forget, and their uneducated conservative oppoents are slow to mention, is that we have as often traded liberty for security. When we discarded the Articles of Confederation for the strong federal government of the Constitution, we traded liberty for security. When we joined the United Nations, we traded liberty for security. Every time we sign a new treaty, pass a new law, or apply the old law to a new thing, we are trading the liberty of Americans for the security of Americans--and not always the same Americans.
In this brave new world of the 21st century, we will have choices to make as a nation. Do we trade the freedom of disposable e-mail address and anonymous soapboxes for the security of accountability? Do we trade the security of childhoods free from terrorism for the liberty of invisible travel?
These choices, and many more, should be discussed in a rational, national conversation--one as free from empty rhetoric and petty politics as possible. Richard Stallman was eloquent, but the message above is neither free from empty rhetoric nor petty politics. To wit:
WHY are civil liberties important? Of course they're threatened in the wake of this terrorism--but so is the security of the nation. To win the argument in favor of personal liberty over national security, it is necessary to state and defend the reasons why civil liberties are more important--not simply state their moral superiority as some assumed point.
Also... unelected president? Hardly. Geroge W. Bush was just as elected as any other president we've ever had. The popular vote has NEVER mattered, only the votes of the Electoral College. This was true when George Washington was chosen more than two hundred years ago, and this was true when George W. Bush was chosen just last year.
Is there any way to have a "EULA" type thing from the USER instead of the company? Could we take legal action in the same way they can if we violate thier EULA?
IANAL, but...
An EULA is a contract, worded by the company and agreed to you by you. If they state in the EULA to not do something, and they do, you can file suit and win--and any ambiguous wording in the EULA will be decided against them.
Plus, if you've got the cash you can take them to court and challenge the validity of the EULA yourself. Such legal activities aren't reccommended to anyone without oodles of money--enough money to hire real lawyers, and not IANAL'd Slashdot posters!
1) Buy used, and tell 'em to keep their OEM license.
2) Buy parts directly, build what you don't have, and sell the extra 999 you're not going to use.
Apple's an OS maker--but they're their *own* OEM. No one complains about their preinstalled OS, just like no one complains that Palm sells Palm OS equipped handhelds, no one complains about the X-Box having MS software on it, and no one complains when their VCR works.
"no one," of course, exempts the Open Source Zealots who do complain about this, and every other faucet of bundled hardware.
Also, doesn't anyone think its strange that the FBI happened to find the rental car with Manuals, Notes, Videos, Names and a Koran (spelling) on the back seat?
Er, no.
The entire country was outraged by this. People called in anything that they knew was suspicious--including people who would never do anything with the FBI even the pres was shot.
And as for the spelling--"Koran" is as correct as "Quar'an" or any other spelling. The original's in arabic, and even if there is a *preferred* spelling, there isn't a *correct* spelling.
You lot will never get proper revenge for this because the hi-jackers are already dead. They were prepared to kill themselves for the cause and their plan has worked. If Bin Laden and/or the Taliban are responsible, then they will kill themselves (and probably take others with them) before being caught.
I'm not that interested in revenge. I'm interested in making this never happen again. The fact that the only sure way to have this never happen again coincides with revengs is merely a fringe benefit.
- If you ban all hand-luggauge on planes, they'll hide it up their asses
Try it. A metal object would still set off the metal dectors, and a plastic knife would most likely break.
- If you ban asses, they'll use their bare hands to break peoples necks.
That's not as easy as it is in movies, y'know. If it was, you'd see it a lot more in police reports.
- If you separate the pilots cabins, they'll train for years as pilots real, join the airline and strike when the time comes (like EgyptAir).
Your first viable tactic. However, it's can be defeated by any number of tactics, including forced American citizenship or just standard security background checks.
- You can step up security at your airports to stop bombs in the luggage, but they'll put bombs on the plane at their own airports.
Er, "they" don't have airports. If they do, they're a country we can glass. Also, even *if* a pre-loaded airbomb was sent, it'd be almost out of fuel by the time it gets here--and the bomb wouldn't get past the first airport, with top-to-bottom checks now required.
- You can't circle your cities with fighters for ever, and you can't expect people to live with having SAMs aimed at them whenever they fly, just waiting to fire if the plane goes of course.
Actually, air defense is something that can and will happen, probably with a slightly stepped up budget from now on.
And if the SAM isn't aimed all the time, it's not that difficult to aim & fire them at a plane--it's what the weapon was designed for, after all.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Israel invavded lebanon in the early 1970's - eer heard of beirut ?
They invaded the golan heights, the west bank etc all soverign territory of another nation - they started the mess they are in and they are the cause of it.
Every contry that has ever existed has "invaded the soverign territory of another nation." It's how they get security. If anything, Israel has shown restraint in carving out their ancestral homeland. A hundred years ago, they would have simply killed anyone who didn't leave.
A few more examples of US freedom and democracy in action for you BTW
Seems more like examples of cold war politics, to me.
American foreign policy is one of hypocrisy. This country needs to PROVE it is the Bastion of freedom for all from opression - the bright ans shining light of democracy and peace - ACTIONS speak louder than words.
You're right, we do. No matter how many times we do, someone doubts us and we have to proove it again.
instead of bombing people this is what we do - support the palestnian resoltion to throw israel out of the Lebanese posessions - give them back the country they had stolen from them with US support - only then will the world begin to believe we are on the side of right.
Bull. If we followed that rule, the world would descend into barbarism. Countries die and are re-built all the time. It's the way the world works, and in the special case of the Jewish People, they deserved their original homeland the Romans took from them back.
PS You are obviously in middle school - i dont mean that as an insult - so i suggest a bit of history might be worth reading - if you are not in middle school god help us all - this country has a short memory for the past. Actually, this country just prefers to let its politicians handle foriegn policy for the most part--its citizens have more important things to do, like raise children and watch grass grow.
I'm also not "obviously in middle school." I'm a married adult, under 25 as you said. I disagree with my gov't on a lot of things... but I let them do the job that they were hired to do. There are factors and things that I am not privy to, and so I don't always understand why.
One more thing--Iraq was our ally right up until their invasion of Kuwait. When they did that, they became our enemy as quickly as Canada would if they invaded our country.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
just fixed the slashdot prefs to allow contacting me. Should work.
dagondge&nycap,rr,com
:) slashcode sure is fun. Don't forget to de-obfuscate it.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
thanks. I'll keep looking for an online version, but when I get some free cash I'll buy a copy.
Re:Support for Israel is the right thing to do
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Please don't forget that ISLAM does not equal terrorism, any more than christianity equals intolerance or judaism equals money-grubbing.
It's a much more basic fact, and one that we knew for years before the cold war messed it all up.
Democracies Good.
Tyranny Bad.
Democracy and Tyrrany cannot coexist.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
When you post this sort of shit have the balls to use a name and email address - no im not muslim but this is the sort of simple minded and feeble crap that leads to these sort of events, this country has stodd by when Israel invaded palestine in the 70's, stood by when the friendly Shah was overthrown in, ignored Serbian mass murder, ignored Indonesian mass murder in East
Timor, etc etc
Hmm....
Israel was attacked, and has had genocide declared against it. (Plus we as Western Civilzation owe them a debt or two, thanks to the Nazis.)
Shah who?
I distincly recall going to war in Serbia, and Milosivec is on trial today thanks to us.
And the last time we went to Polynasia the entire friggin' region told us to butt out.
We'd leave the middle east alone, too, save for two real simple facts:
1: it's important to our economy that the area trade with us.
2: We have very close alies (Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia) who want us there to help.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
Can you provide some quotes? A reference to an online translation (or rewording, or retelling, or paraphrasing in Englsih) of the Quran / Koran / "that holy book" ?
The Islamic Faith was just as militant as Christianity, and struck out on a wave of conquest that was stopped by barbarians in Spain, of all places. More recently, we've seen Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and the Taliban--all of which are violent anti-USA folk. We're faced with religious muslims telling us that their faith is one of peace and respect, and muslim countries showing us that it isn't.
We're also faced with Christan leaders telling us that Christianity is a religion of forgiveness, but Christian countries falling into hate.
The difference is, of course, that I can go and study the bible. I can download the KJV translation into my palm for free. I have yet to see even one printed copy of the Koran--not even a "this is what it says" chapter by chapter. I desperatly want to know and study the word of God--but until I can see it for myself, I can't elevant Islam over my own dreams by catagorizing it as the word of God.
Please respond, even if off slashdot. I read all responses to my posts, and I *will* follow and read any link you give me.
All these people have something in common: they don't think like a computer. It doesn't occur to them that searching for data is easier if everything is in plain text, or that organizing your files into directories makes them easier to archive and find later, or that removing all the pretty colors and fonts and complicated layouts would make it easier for others to read what they've written. They're just here to have fun.
The reverse is also true, y'know. Most UIs need to be redesigned (hence Luna and Aqua) because they weren't made to work with someone who thinks like a person. Specifically a business person.
Y'know, someone where the trash is emptied regularly, where chatting is a way of life, and where things are filed long-term, but they're also kept short-term on the desk--not because they're filed there, but because they stay there because you *haven't* filed them.
The ideal would actually be the best of both worlds. Filters that can convert an e-mail attachment at a single command. A switch to filter out your "buddy's" preferences. And a way to have files you open and don't "file" head to the desktop, where they're periodically "saved" as a backup.
I'm not sure how a kamakazi pilot gets labeled as cowards either. The people who did this did it out of a blind sense of complete and utter patriotism. They were willing to die and kill thousands for what they believed in and the result, massive massive tradgedy.
Here at Slashdot, we allow people to be anonymous, but we label them as cowards. The terrorist organization that did this is the ULTIMATE anonymous coward--a well-organized group that struck us militarily, and yet does not have the wherewithall to face us on an open field.
Furthermore, the friggin' WTC is *not* a military target. If they wanted to blow up a NYC skyscraper, I can name a whole bunch that would be a lot better...
(hmm, where to start--how about the Stock Market itself, or maybe the UN building... or maybe even one of the slew of US federal buildings in the area. The WTC is a target of terror, just like the Statue of Liberty.)
Personally, I think that peopole who hijack and airline filled with civilians and use it for war are just plain ol' sick. It's like hiding behind a crowd in a battlefield--it's an act of cowardice.
Sure, they have *reason* to be afraid, but that doesn't make them not cowards.
BTW, I'm all for glassing the homes of whomever did this and whatever place on earth is helping them do it. I think it's time to take off the kid gloves and do to the Mideast what we did to Germany and Japan.
These were special submersible carriers. They're just about useless now with the advent of sonar, but sonar WASN'T THAT PREVALENT during WWII.
These things also only had sea-voyage time of one mission--they were useless for regular fleet battles, as the planes had to be fueled ahead of time.
Three planes, with detachable wings, fit into a large watertight tube, and there was a slingshot in the front.(like every other carrier uses, and like the *first* carriers, which were just battleships with launch ramps attached to the guns)
I don't recall if they were the only ships used in the attack, but I do know that they were a primary sneak-attack weapon--and they weren't effectivly used ever again in the war. (The Jappanese Navy had bigger problems in mind.)
Please note that I never claimed that "all Japaneese carriers" were submarines. I said that they used "submersible carriers." I'm now quoting my source as the history channel, and if you care to rise above the level of a flame, you can go look it up yourself.
Another theory is that they had decided that carriers were the way to win the war, but they couldn't get rid of all the battleships that were taking up so many resources, and had the support of all the old-timers. Having them sunk could have been a convenient way to achieve many goals at once.
This is sheer bunk. For several engagements, the Pacific Fleet bungled with fighting primarily only with airplanes. Plus, in a war you want every man and ship you can--that's why we were building so many, and by having so many is how we won the war.
As for a radar detection... The Jappanese airstrikes were launched by submersible carriers (they used a tube & detactchable wings, 3 planes to a sub) to get their planes within striking distance.
It's most likely that the US forces thought Japan *couldn't reach* pearl harbor, and that even if they did regular patrols would have given them more than enough warning.
those responsible for OKC were subjected to the fullest extent of the law. Tim McVeigh was killed, and his accomplice faces life in prison. There was no organization beyond them that we could find.
If McVeigh had been an alien terrorist, and was hiding in a country that refused to extradite him, an act of war to bring him to justice would have been appropriate.
If McVeigh had been part of the rogue breakaway state of Michigain, which had declared a "jihad" against the US, that rogue state would have been invaded and conqured very quickly.
But we states don't rebel in the US--they just play politics, and let the rest of us get on with our lives instead of engaging in terrorism.
Sheesh. Parent is hardly a troll. Nostradamus's prophecies are *always* vauge, and the quoted one is errie.
"In the City of God there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb."
Two brothers = Word Trade Center, falling, *right before* the Pentagon ("fortress") was attacked.
This goes from "interesting" to "damn scary" if one of three things happens: George W either declares war or dies, or Osama Bin Laden is captured and blamed for this.
Re:Willing to suffer the consequences???
on
DivX;) Goes Legit
·
· Score: 1
I don't know where you read about the history of the "Revolutionary Sit-In", but in my history books George Washington led a whole lot of men with guns attempting to kill anyone who tried to enforce those legal consequences.
And those people who were enforcing the consequences were the British Army. Anyone who had any property back in England most likely lost it, and the British Army treated the Revolutionaries like "not even colonials."
It's fair to compare the revolution to a riot--and no one should complain when the national guard (army) gets called in to quell it.
Just a little perspective, before you get too harsh on those people who are still merely trying to avoid getting caught breaking unconstitutional laws.
There are exactly two ethically viable strategies for breaking the law: because you're revolting against the government as a whole and willing to die for your freedom (Am. Revolution, Civil war, etc.) and because you find one law detestable to the point where it should be struck down.
In the first case, you resist the army and police because you're abandoning the government that gave them authority over you. You cease to pay taxes, obey the officers, and do all that you can--up to and including murdering others and dying yourself--to get them gone.
In the second, you follow the commands of the officers of the law, because you *are* still subject to the law that lets the police arrest you. You keep paying your taxes, obeying the speed limit, and you welcome a trial as a chance to change the law.
If you do not fit one of these two profiles, you're a coward who just doesn't want the law to apply to them. You're not a revolutionary willing to die for your beliefs, and you're not a demonstrator with moral authority over the people prosecuting you.
You're just a punk coward who doesn't have the guts to stand up for what he believes, if he believes anything.
If you try and "avoid getting caught breaking unconsitutional laws", then you're a coward and a criminal. To change the law, you should get caught, and take the unconstitutional law all the way up to the branch of the gov't that can determine if a law is unconstitutional--the Supreme Court.
Had an american been brave enough to do this, we wouldn't have Dimitri in jail to be the martyr for this cause.
Re:The SSSCA is going to be passed - NOT.
on
DivX;) Goes Legit
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
That's right. They were "criminals" by the very act that declared our sovereignty from England.
They knew it, too. Every man who signed that paper, every member the governments who sent them there, and every last soldier and camp follower of the armies that fought for them, were ALL guily of treason to the English Crown.
If they had failed, they would have died for it--which means that what they fought to achieve was worth dying for.
Sometimes laws and rule are dead wrong on so many counts that it is the people's responsibility to remind those that govern that they are as such.
Correct. It is your right and duty to petiton the government for a redress of your greviances, and your option to break through civil disobedience what laws are passed who's punnishment is so grossly overdone that your action would still the hearts of righteous men (and women.)
But don't go forgetting that Ghandi, Washington, and King were all willing, and for a great portion did, suffer the legal consequences of their moral actions.
If you break the DMCCA or this SSSCA, you should be willing to risk suffering the consequences of breaking the laws. If you aren't, then you're not someone with moral high ground--you're just a punk who wants stuff for free.
Just because it's a "law" doesn't make it right or that it should even be allowed.
Not a laws are ethically or religiously correct. A lot of them aren't, even if most of them are. This is done to accomidate the various ethics and religons that rise and fall apart from a government; it's the flip side of the seperation of church and state.
As for "being allowed." We the people elected the lawmakers--every last person with a legal choice for go/no go for any law ever passed--and letting them make laws that conform or contradict our ethics is simply letting them do their jobs.
We should make it clear that we do not think they are doing their jobs correctly when they do things like this--but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't let them do their jobs.
Hey, I never said that they *should* be considered a church. I personally don't think that kids getting together for orgies and drugs should count as a "coven"*, nor should someone have the religious freedom with regards to satanism.
The gov't shouldn't make any law declaring "one true faith", but declaring some "not true at all faiths" isn't that far off--especially if they just let the "tyrrany of the majority" do it by peer pressure**.
____
*: I have many close friends who are devout wiccans, and some of which have actually gotten NYS recognition--but only after they proved that they were more than some punks getting together to rebel.
**: By this comment, I mean that the gov't should enforce the laws that protect any other body (like, oh, the laws that keep a church from being burnt, or a religious person losing their job because of their religion), but that they shouldn't provide special protection for smaller religions. The Catholic Church should have every protection from the state that Wicca or Atheism have.
In fact, a recognized monopoly is a business in a very peculiar position--in addition to making a profit for its stockholders, it has to look out for the good of the market so it isn't accused of abusing its monopoly power. (*cough* MICROSOFT *cough).
No corporation could *ever* gain enough power to defeat a government. If worst came to worst, the gov't would simply order the dissolution of the corp. If the corporation fled to a rival gov't, the local gov't could simply declare them enemies of the state, and thus make working with them (i.e., being their employee) an act of treason.
Worry about corps having undue political influence over the gov't's power, but not more power than the gov't.
If we allow Atheists, Unitarian Universalists, and Satansists (both real and "Gothic") religious protection, then we sure as heck should extend that to the CoS.
a "corporation" is a legal person that can bring suits, and works in the business world. It pays taxes, obeys the law, and is a real "thing."
a "non-profit corporation" is any artifical person that exists for some reason other than the profit of its shareholders. The most popular and well-known non-profits are charities, such as United Way, the Boy Scouts of America, and the Salvation Army. Non-charitable non-profits also exist, used often to manage something a business wants done (such as Java.)
Slashdot Mirror
The folks in the government who want to be able to freely and constantly be able to monitor you are the same ones who have "black" budgets and classify documents for "national security" reasons.
Those are also the same people who's personal lives should be as transparant as glass. Nothing to point them out as anyone beyond the ordinary, but people with no way to hide a possible treason from their employers.
The country, as a whole, can have secrets. I, as a person, can have secrets. The government declares a secret and then treats it as such. I should do the same--if I have something I want kept secret, then I should simply not speak about it.
For a better retort: "The folks in the populace who decry any invasion of privacy are the same folks who pirate software and liberally cheat on their spouses." (using no more of a generalization than you did)
Ain't the new Slashdot grand?
So, to sum up: if you believe in your own civil liberties, please do not attempt to curtail others'.
I believe in my civil liberties--but I do not believe that being watched and tracked by the government is a violation of them. I truley believe that if all of society is transparent, that no one will be able to abuse the systems.
I do not believe in an inaliable right to privacy in any form--and hence, I would be a hypocrite if I expresed an opinion that believed in one.
Something that we need to consider--in fact, the only thing worthy of public debate after Tuesday's attack--is our balance between Liberty and Security.
Often in the past we have traded security for liberty--for example, when we assigned blacks and women the right to vote, or when we allowed a new state to join the union. Each of these movements--and many others like them that are by far too numerous to list here--have helped create the impression that "civil liberties" are a absolute good in and of themselves. But down that road lies anarchy, if we travel it far enough.
What many liberals often forget, and their uneducated conservative oppoents are slow to mention, is that we have as often traded liberty for security. When we discarded the Articles of Confederation for the strong federal government of the Constitution, we traded liberty for security. When we joined the United Nations, we traded liberty for security. Every time we sign a new treaty, pass a new law, or apply the old law to a new thing, we are trading the liberty of Americans for the security of Americans--and not always the same Americans.
In this brave new world of the 21st century, we will have choices to make as a nation. Do we trade the freedom of disposable e-mail address and anonymous soapboxes for the security of accountability? Do we trade the security of childhoods free from terrorism for the liberty of invisible travel?
These choices, and many more, should be discussed in a rational, national conversation--one as free from empty rhetoric and petty politics as possible. Richard Stallman was eloquent, but the message above is neither free from empty rhetoric nor petty politics. To wit:
WHY are civil liberties important? Of course they're threatened in the wake of this terrorism--but so is the security of the nation. To win the argument in favor of personal liberty over national security, it is necessary to state and defend the reasons why civil liberties are more important--not simply state their moral superiority as some assumed point.
Also... unelected president? Hardly. Geroge W. Bush was just as elected as any other president we've ever had. The popular vote has NEVER mattered, only the votes of the Electoral College. This was true when George Washington was chosen more than two hundred years ago, and this was true when George W. Bush was chosen just last year.
Is there any way to have a "EULA" type thing from the USER instead of the company? Could we take legal action in the same way they can if we violate thier EULA?
IANAL, but...
An EULA is a contract, worded by the company and agreed to you by you. If they state in the EULA to not do something, and they do, you can file suit and win--and any ambiguous wording in the EULA will be decided against them.
Plus, if you've got the cash you can take them to court and challenge the validity of the EULA yourself. Such legal activities aren't reccommended to anyone without oodles of money--enough money to hire real lawyers, and not IANAL'd Slashdot posters!
One of two places:
1) Buy used, and tell 'em to keep their OEM license.
2) Buy parts directly, build what you don't have, and sell the extra 999 you're not going to use.
Apple's an OS maker--but they're their *own* OEM. No one complains about their preinstalled OS, just like no one complains that Palm sells Palm OS equipped handhelds, no one complains about the X-Box having MS software on it, and no one complains when their VCR works.
"no one," of course, exempts the Open Source Zealots who do complain about this, and every other faucet of bundled hardware.
how come no one ever calls it the "Apple Tax"
Simple. When you buy an Apple, you're choosing to buy the entire kit & kaboodle. Apple has never forced anyone else to use their OS.
MS has. Gateway, Compaq, HP, et al couldn't sell a consumer PC w/o Windows if they tried.
Also, doesn't anyone think its strange that the FBI happened to find the rental car with Manuals, Notes, Videos, Names and a Koran (spelling) on the back seat?
Er, no.
The entire country was outraged by this. People called in anything that they knew was suspicious--including people who would never do anything with the FBI even the pres was shot.
And as for the spelling--"Koran" is as correct as "Quar'an" or any other spelling. The original's in arabic, and even if there is a *preferred* spelling, there isn't a *correct* spelling.
You lot will never get proper revenge for this because the hi-jackers are already dead. They were prepared to kill themselves for the cause and their plan has worked. If Bin Laden and/or the Taliban are responsible, then they will kill themselves (and probably take others with them) before being caught.
I'm not that interested in revenge. I'm interested in making this never happen again. The fact that the only sure way to have this never happen again coincides with revengs is merely a fringe benefit.
- If you ban all hand-luggauge on planes, they'll hide it up their asses
Try it. A metal object would still set off the metal dectors, and a plastic knife would most likely break.
- If you ban asses, they'll use their bare hands to break peoples necks.
That's not as easy as it is in movies, y'know. If it was, you'd see it a lot more in police reports.
- If you separate the pilots cabins, they'll train for years as pilots real, join the airline and strike when the time comes (like EgyptAir).
Your first viable tactic. However, it's can be defeated by any number of tactics, including forced American citizenship or just standard security background checks.
- You can step up security at your airports to stop bombs in the luggage, but they'll put bombs on the plane at their own airports.
Er, "they" don't have airports. If they do, they're a country we can glass. Also, even *if* a pre-loaded airbomb was sent, it'd be almost out of fuel by the time it gets here--and the bomb wouldn't get past the first airport, with top-to-bottom checks now required.
- You can't circle your cities with fighters for ever, and you can't expect people to live with having SAMs aimed at them whenever they fly, just waiting to fire if the plane goes of course.
Actually, air defense is something that can and will happen, probably with a slightly stepped up budget from now on.
And if the SAM isn't aimed all the time, it's not that difficult to aim & fire them at a plane--it's what the weapon was designed for, after all.
Israel invavded lebanon in the early 1970's - eer heard of beirut ?
They invaded the golan heights, the west bank etc all soverign territory of another nation - they started the mess they are in and they are the cause of it.
Every contry that has ever existed has "invaded the soverign territory of another nation." It's how they get security. If anything, Israel has shown restraint in carving out their ancestral homeland. A hundred years ago, they would have simply killed anyone who didn't leave.
A few more examples of US freedom and democracy in action for you BTW
Seems more like examples of cold war politics, to me.
American foreign policy is one of hypocrisy. This country needs to PROVE it is the Bastion of freedom for all from opression - the bright ans shining light of democracy and peace - ACTIONS speak louder than words.
You're right, we do. No matter how many times we do, someone doubts us and we have to proove it again.
instead of bombing people this is what we do - support the palestnian resoltion to throw israel out of the Lebanese posessions - give them back the country they had stolen from them with US support - only then will the world begin to believe we are on the side of right.
Bull. If we followed that rule, the world would descend into barbarism. Countries die and are re-built all the time. It's the way the world works, and in the special case of the Jewish People, they deserved their original homeland the Romans took from them back.
PS You are obviously in middle school - i dont mean that as an insult - so i suggest a bit of history might be worth reading - if you are not in middle school god help us all - this country has a short memory for the past.
Actually, this country just prefers to let its politicians handle foriegn policy for the most part--its citizens have more important things to do, like raise children and watch grass grow.
I'm also not "obviously in middle school." I'm a married adult, under 25 as you said. I disagree with my gov't on a lot of things... but I let them do the job that they were hired to do. There are factors and things that I am not privy to, and so I don't always understand why.
One more thing--Iraq was our ally right up until their invasion of Kuwait. When they did that, they became our enemy as quickly as Canada would if they invaded our country.
just fixed the slashdot prefs to allow contacting me. Should work.
dagondge&nycap,rr,com
:) slashcode sure is fun. Don't forget to de-obfuscate it.
thanks. I'll keep looking for an online version, but when I get some free cash I'll buy a copy.
Please don't forget that ISLAM does not equal terrorism, any more than christianity equals intolerance or judaism equals money-grubbing.
It's a much more basic fact, and one that we knew for years before the cold war messed it all up.
Democracies Good.
Tyranny Bad.
Democracy and Tyrrany cannot coexist.
When you post this sort of shit have the balls to use a name and email address - no im not muslim but this is the sort of simple minded and feeble crap that leads to these sort of events, this country has stodd by when Israel invaded palestine in the 70's, stood by when the friendly Shah was overthrown in, ignored Serbian mass murder, ignored Indonesian mass murder in East
Timor, etc etc
Hmm....
Israel was attacked, and has had genocide declared against it. (Plus we as Western Civilzation owe them a debt or two, thanks to the Nazis.)
Shah who?
I distincly recall going to war in Serbia, and Milosivec is on trial today thanks to us.
And the last time we went to Polynasia the entire friggin' region told us to butt out.
We'd leave the middle east alone, too, save for two real simple facts:
1: it's important to our economy that the area trade with us.
2: We have very close alies (Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia) who want us there to help.
Can you provide some quotes? A reference to an online translation (or rewording, or retelling, or paraphrasing in Englsih) of the Quran / Koran / "that holy book" ?
The Islamic Faith was just as militant as Christianity, and struck out on a wave of conquest that was stopped by barbarians in Spain, of all places. More recently, we've seen Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and the Taliban--all of which are violent anti-USA folk. We're faced with religious muslims telling us that their faith is one of peace and respect, and muslim countries showing us that it isn't.
We're also faced with Christan leaders telling us that Christianity is a religion of forgiveness, but Christian countries falling into hate.
The difference is, of course, that I can go and study the bible. I can download the KJV translation into my palm for free. I have yet to see even one printed copy of the Koran--not even a "this is what it says" chapter by chapter. I desperatly want to know and study the word of God--but until I can see it for myself, I can't elevant Islam over my own dreams by catagorizing it as the word of God.
Please respond, even if off slashdot. I read all responses to my posts, and I *will* follow and read any link you give me.
All these people have something in common: they don't think like a computer. It doesn't occur to them that searching for data is easier if everything is in plain text, or that organizing your files into directories makes them easier to archive and find later, or that removing all the pretty colors and fonts and complicated layouts would make it easier for others to read what they've written. They're just here to have fun.
The reverse is also true, y'know. Most UIs need to be redesigned (hence Luna and Aqua) because they weren't made to work with someone who thinks like a person. Specifically a business person.
Y'know, someone where the trash is emptied regularly, where chatting is a way of life, and where things are filed long-term, but they're also kept short-term on the desk--not because they're filed there, but because they stay there because you *haven't* filed them.
The ideal would actually be the best of both worlds. Filters that can convert an e-mail attachment at a single command. A switch to filter out your "buddy's" preferences. And a way to have files you open and don't "file" head to the desktop, where they're periodically "saved" as a backup.
Too bad we'll never get that ideal.
I'm not sure how a kamakazi pilot gets labeled as cowards either. The people who did this did it out of a blind sense of complete and utter patriotism. They were willing to die and kill thousands for what they believed in and the result, massive massive tradgedy.
Here at Slashdot, we allow people to be anonymous, but we label them as cowards. The terrorist organization that did this is the ULTIMATE anonymous coward--a well-organized group that struck us militarily, and yet does not have the wherewithall to face us on an open field.
Furthermore, the friggin' WTC is *not* a military target. If they wanted to blow up a NYC skyscraper, I can name a whole bunch that would be a lot better...
(hmm, where to start--how about the Stock Market itself, or maybe the UN building... or maybe even one of the slew of US federal buildings in the area. The WTC is a target of terror, just like the Statue of Liberty.)
Personally, I think that peopole who hijack and airline filled with civilians and use it for war are just plain ol' sick. It's like hiding behind a crowd in a battlefield--it's an act of cowardice.
Sure, they have *reason* to be afraid, but that doesn't make them not cowards.
BTW, I'm all for glassing the homes of whomever did this and whatever place on earth is helping them do it. I think it's time to take off the kid gloves and do to the Mideast what we did to Germany and Japan.
Yes, they were. (Ever watch the history channel?)
These were special submersible carriers. They're just about useless now with the advent of sonar, but sonar WASN'T THAT PREVALENT during WWII.
These things also only had sea-voyage time of one mission--they were useless for regular fleet battles, as the planes had to be fueled ahead of time.
Three planes, with detachable wings, fit into a large watertight tube, and there was a slingshot in the front.(like every other carrier uses, and like the *first* carriers, which were just battleships with launch ramps attached to the guns)
I don't recall if they were the only ships used in the attack, but I do know that they were a primary sneak-attack weapon--and they weren't effectivly used ever again in the war. (The Jappanese Navy had bigger problems in mind.)
Please note that I never claimed that "all Japaneese carriers" were submarines. I said that they used "submersible carriers." I'm now quoting my source as the history channel, and if you care to rise above the level of a flame, you can go look it up yourself.
Another theory is that they had decided that carriers were the way to win the war, but they couldn't get rid of all the battleships that were taking up so many resources, and had the support of all the old-timers. Having them sunk could have been a convenient way to achieve many goals at once.
This is sheer bunk. For several engagements, the Pacific Fleet bungled with fighting primarily only with airplanes. Plus, in a war you want every man and ship you can--that's why we were building so many, and by having so many is how we won the war.
As for a radar detection... The Jappanese airstrikes were launched by submersible carriers (they used a tube & detactchable wings, 3 planes to a sub) to get their planes within striking distance.
It's most likely that the US forces thought Japan *couldn't reach* pearl harbor, and that even if they did regular patrols would have given them more than enough warning.
those responsible for OKC were subjected to the fullest extent of the law. Tim McVeigh was killed, and his accomplice faces life in prison. There was no organization beyond them that we could find.
If McVeigh had been an alien terrorist, and was hiding in a country that refused to extradite him, an act of war to bring him to justice would have been appropriate.
If McVeigh had been part of the rogue breakaway state of Michigain, which had declared a "jihad" against the US, that rogue state would have been invaded and conqured very quickly.
But we states don't rebel in the US--they just play politics, and let the rest of us get on with our lives instead of engaging in terrorism.
Sheesh. Parent is hardly a troll. Nostradamus's prophecies are *always* vauge, and the quoted one is errie.
"In the City of God there will be a great thunder, Two brothers torn apart by Chaos, while the fortress endures, the great leader will succumb."
Two brothers = Word Trade Center, falling, *right before* the Pentagon ("fortress") was attacked.
This goes from "interesting" to "damn scary" if one of three things happens: George W either declares war or dies, or Osama Bin Laden is captured and blamed for this.
I don't know where you read about the history of the "Revolutionary Sit-In", but in my history books George Washington led a whole lot of men with guns attempting to kill anyone who tried to enforce those legal consequences.
And those people who were enforcing the consequences were the British Army. Anyone who had any property back in England most likely lost it, and the British Army treated the Revolutionaries like "not even colonials."
It's fair to compare the revolution to a riot--and no one should complain when the national guard (army) gets called in to quell it.
Just a little perspective, before you get too harsh on those people who are still merely trying to avoid getting caught breaking unconstitutional laws.
There are exactly two ethically viable strategies for breaking the law: because you're revolting against the government as a whole and willing to die for your freedom (Am. Revolution, Civil war, etc.) and because you find one law detestable to the point where it should be struck down.
In the first case, you resist the army and police because you're abandoning the government that gave them authority over you. You cease to pay taxes, obey the officers, and do all that you can--up to and including murdering others and dying yourself--to get them gone.
In the second, you follow the commands of the officers of the law, because you *are* still subject to the law that lets the police arrest you. You keep paying your taxes, obeying the speed limit, and you welcome a trial as a chance to change the law.
If you do not fit one of these two profiles, you're a coward who just doesn't want the law to apply to them. You're not a revolutionary willing to die for your beliefs, and you're not a demonstrator with moral authority over the people prosecuting you.
You're just a punk coward who doesn't have the guts to stand up for what he believes, if he believes anything.
If you try and "avoid getting caught breaking unconsitutional laws", then you're a coward and a criminal. To change the law, you should get caught, and take the unconstitutional law all the way up to the branch of the gov't that can determine if a law is unconstitutional--the Supreme Court.
Had an american been brave enough to do this, we wouldn't have Dimitri in jail to be the martyr for this cause.
That's right. They were "criminals" by the very act that declared our sovereignty from England.
They knew it, too. Every man who signed that paper, every member the governments who sent them there, and every last soldier and camp follower of the armies that fought for them, were ALL guily of treason to the English Crown.
If they had failed, they would have died for it--which means that what they fought to achieve was worth dying for.
Sometimes laws and rule are dead wrong on so many counts that it is the people's responsibility to remind those that govern that they are as such.
Correct. It is your right and duty to petiton the government for a redress of your greviances, and your option to break through civil disobedience what laws are passed who's punnishment is so grossly overdone that your action would still the hearts of righteous men (and women.)
But don't go forgetting that Ghandi, Washington, and King were all willing, and for a great portion did, suffer the legal consequences of their moral actions.
If you break the DMCCA or this SSSCA, you should be willing to risk suffering the consequences of breaking the laws. If you aren't, then you're not someone with moral high ground--you're just a punk who wants stuff for free.
Just because it's a "law" doesn't make it right or that it should even be allowed.
Not a laws are ethically or religiously correct. A lot of them aren't, even if most of them are. This is done to accomidate the various ethics and religons that rise and fall apart from a government; it's the flip side of the seperation of church and state.
As for "being allowed." We the people elected the lawmakers--every last person with a legal choice for go/no go for any law ever passed--and letting them make laws that conform or contradict our ethics is simply letting them do their jobs.
We should make it clear that we do not think they are doing their jobs correctly when they do things like this--but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't let them do their jobs.
Hey, I never said that they *should* be considered a church. I personally don't think that kids getting together for orgies and drugs should count as a "coven"*, nor should someone have the religious freedom with regards to satanism.
The gov't shouldn't make any law declaring "one true faith", but declaring some "not true at all faiths" isn't that far off--especially if they just let the "tyrrany of the majority" do it by peer pressure**.
____
*: I have many close friends who are devout wiccans, and some of which have actually gotten NYS recognition--but only after they proved that they were more than some punks getting together to rebel.
**: By this comment, I mean that the gov't should enforce the laws that protect any other body (like, oh, the laws that keep a church from being burnt, or a religious person losing their job because of their religion), but that they shouldn't provide special protection for smaller religions. The Catholic Church should have every protection from the state that Wicca or Atheism have.
In fact, a recognized monopoly is a business in a very peculiar position--in addition to making a profit for its stockholders, it has to look out for the good of the market so it isn't accused of abusing its monopoly power. (*cough* MICROSOFT *cough).
No corporation could *ever* gain enough power to defeat a government. If worst came to worst, the gov't would simply order the dissolution of the corp. If the corporation fled to a rival gov't, the local gov't could simply declare them enemies of the state, and thus make working with them (i.e., being their employee) an act of treason.
Worry about corps having undue political influence over the gov't's power, but not more power than the gov't.
Now now, they CoS is a church like any other.
:(
If we allow Atheists, Unitarian Universalists, and Satansists (both real and "Gothic") religious protection, then we sure as heck should extend that to the CoS.
Of course, they "should" also play nice, too.
a "corporation" is a legal person that can bring suits, and works in the business world. It pays taxes, obeys the law, and is a real "thing."
:)
a "non-profit corporation" is any artifical person that exists for some reason other than the profit of its shareholders. The most popular and well-known non-profits are charities, such as United Way, the Boy Scouts of America, and the Salvation Army. Non-charitable non-profits also exist, used often to manage something a business wants done (such as Java.)
I believe a church is something different.