believe what you will even if it were perfectly safe I am not risking my ass in jail to get high and if I knew who you were and you did smoke pot I would just love to turn you in. Hell I knew people who went to jail for extremely small ammounts of marajuana.
"Your constitution has been made a joke by new powers."
Which would those be exactly? I don't really get much out of your post.
If you want to argue about the nature of the constitution then by all means make sure that you have your thinking cap on because I really am well versed in this subject. Email would be just fine for this perhaps
it's been very well documented via standardized tests that majuana damages the ability of the higher order brain functions over the long term. Not to mention the brain lesions.
The fact of the matter is that drugs don't have miracle properties that allow them to magically give you anything you want for absolutely nothing. There are trade offs. These plants use these effects as toxins to prevent predators and other organisms that would like to sample them. It's an evolutionary defense mechanism.
"Why would being into drugs indicate not having a brain?"
doing something that is harmful deliberately and on a major level that has a endorphin fueled negative cycle is stupid
"Not having read the article I can't tell if you're talking about dangerous drugs, or some of the more useful drugs many governments ban."
Virtually all reacreational drugs are dangerous.
"I would agree someone is dumb if they use tobacco, alcohol, or opiates since they don't really offer anything useful and cause physical harm, but marijuana and the psychedelics are very useful and safe when used by smart people."
Yeah and all the completely, permanently brain damaged people are all just in your imagination. Yeah right.
"Also, I don't know if I was the only one who caught this, but when Capn' Scott's father was giving his speech, about Seeking out new life and new civilizations, he corrected Kirk's gramatical error from the orignal series...'to boldly go' is a dangling participle. It was spoken properly in the speech 'to go boldly'"
"Specifically, is it bearable on a new iBook? When I tried 10.04 on a new iBook it was like running Windows 2000 on a Pentium 133 (DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME KIDS!) If they have the windowing optimized enough to run on an iBook I may just part with $1500 this week!"
Or you can get a decent PC for the exact same price and run something that dosn't match your sofa.
"You're going to try it out a little? Better not say "a lot" or "I might even use it full time," or Linus will revoke your charter."
There isn't much chance of that happening. Linux really has a the advantage of being theoretically in constant development for decades. OSX will be gone the minute the company loses interest
Re:This has been going on for 30 years
on
Morals and Layoffs
·
· Score: 0
"So if we get laid off, are we not more, not less, likely to find similar work quickly? "
Depends if there are massive ammounts of people with approximately the same skill set then it could be a problem
"And if - again, as Katz himself says, and most of us understood when we signed on to our jobs - "Tasks and missions are temporal, the people employed to execute them highly disposable. Work and workers are both flexible and expendable." "
to my mind that really isn't the basic idea of employment. Don't go into it thinking that you will be fired or quit rapidly.
"...then doesn't that imply that we knew damn well what we were getting into when we signed on? And that we signed on anyways? "
most people don't know when job actions will be occuring
"My employer owes me what it agreed to when I signed my offer of employment. I owe it what I agreed to when I signed that letter. "
I can follow
"Nothing less, nothing more. "
and if not that's what unions are for
"If my employer chooses to pay me large bonuses, that's its prerogative. If I choose to work long hours to get a project done, that's my prerogative. Usually there's a
link between the two. Sometimes there's not. "
ok
"But there's a difference between rights - outlined above - and obligations. We're obliged to do only that we agreed to do. We owe each other nothing after that."
I believe in ethical actions. If there is something you can do then do it and make someone's life better as a result.
Re:What corporate republic?
on
Morals and Layoffs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Please explain how an obligatory ID or any other mean of identification is fascism?"
Essentially people take liberty away a little at a time. However I think that such things are superfluous(sp) because we already have things like SSNs and driver's liscences.
"If you enjoy society's benefits such as the protection by the law enforcement agencies"
With many, many police and law enforcement agencies extremely open to corruption I really don't think this is much of a benefit. In fact all the police do is clean up after the mess happens and get a bunch of relatively non violent and non threatening people put in a situation of being living corpses and slowly go mad.
In fact they don't even *have* to protect you. I beleive I remember some case where a family sued the police department (Californian I believe) for negligence due to a murderer killing one of the family. They got off scott free becuase it was determined that that is not the domain of the police.
"and the military they must be able to identify you as a citizen."
Why the hell does the military have to have to know that I am a citizen? I don't travel abroad and I don't plan to travel to Afghanistan any time soon so they don't have to worry about my safety.
"Security of the individual seems to be taking a very solid backseat to the security of the institutions that are supposed to be providing security for the individual."
As of yet they havn't totally overstepped their bounds. That's what a good lawyer is for.
"Every institution seems to eventually forget that their strength comes from the people underneath, be it a company or a government."
It comes from a lack of thinking about basic logic. Companies and governments are two entirely different areas.
"Laws should spring forth from society and not be sent down from above."
We fixed this problem. It's called a democratic republic. Please read the history of the United States in depth first. (Hint I read more than most).
"As well as a company's employees should work to better a company rather than having a company as a shelter from poverty. "
The question I ask is why? Why would I care that company X is going to make extra billions because of my labor? Really why would I care if I was a measely voluenteer? Unless they are some humanitarian organization I really can't justify that. And rather unfortunately people need money to survive. So really I guess you could say people should care more about thier actions in a company if they are getting compensation. But then there is the balance of what is fair or not. All very interesting.
"We have forgotten that the relationship of larger institutions and the individual is a symbiotic one."
Depends on what their aim is. Governments have a responsibility to the people. However companies are basically groups that do not have such concerns. In fact in the early days of the United States there were a great deal of animosity towards the "rabble" in terms of what people thought should be allowed and such. That is business thinking and largely it died out in terms of a national agenda. No matter what people tell you eventually someone has to be responsible to someone.
"Hey, get used to it. I'm not going to waste my time and energy prolonging the inevitable. If we don't lose our civil liberties today, we'll lose them tomorrow. Yeah,it sucks, but there's nothing you can really do."
It's called a law suit. That's what the ACLU and the supreme court are for. It is *not* inevitable.
Being blind really ruines most of your life. At least from what I am able to determine. Generally I can't see how you can do anything but stay on disability without some really magical help
" just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon."
yeah whatever go ahead and do that. Personally any stupid middle easterner who does that is just being deluded. I guess they have to face the fact that they just don't have any real power to have any but a really shitty life, loser job, and a country that almost no one fears.
If that's all you have to celebrate then fine. But realize it will take something much larger and kill many more people before the US leaves your loser ass alone.
What ever happened to slashdot a while back? And why don't they number posts for each story. A number like that is useless.
Re:burried missile silos?
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 0
"The original target was actually the white house, they were picked up on radar, and air control ordered them to change paths, they then did a 270 degree turn and dropped below radar before hitting the pentagon"
so in theory once they were in the air they were home free?
the argument
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
"This is the crux of a very difficult debate. Which should the government focus on: Protecting us, or protecting our civil liberties? In cases like this, there's not really a way to do both. "
Be actually vigilant. It seems really silly that there isn't some kind of way to determine say if a plane is hijacked. I imagine this: have a deadman's switch of sorts that needs a personal key/access code tied to various vital functions of the pilot like blood pressure/eeg reedings and a voice access code. If the pilot gets bumped off then no go. Or if the physical code is stolen it's a no go.
As far as catching people I believe there are certain risks. Personally I see unfortunate parallels between actions of Adolf Hitler with his reasoning of using emergency actions and what could happen if they actually did half the stuff the radicals are calling for.
"'ve been stunned by the number of people bitching about how the US is going to become a police state, how their liberties have been taken away because they can't carry Smith & Wesson onto the plane, etc. "
My personal opinion guns don't really matter if the government wants to do you in. It's just a matter of unmbers. You could have an ak-47 and it still wouldn't do you any good if they want you dead.
"It's a difficult balance, and some people will always be upset at where the scales fall. For now, let's just accept what protection our government is trying to give us, and complain about it later after we've eliminated whatever threat has caused this"
My personal big beef is that people claim that this "is our Pearl Harbor" and "an act of War" unfortunately I don't buy that. Essentially what you are dealing with is a non-state sponsored activity done buy a group of essentially religious fanatics. That is hardly a good thing.
What I fear is that some people are going to convince the president that we should just invade and raze any county's populace who dosn't toe the line. I also believe that any serious attack on people carrying on activities which most of their religion consider sarcred will descend the country into millions of tit for tat squabbles. Quite frankly these guys could have really done something a great deal worse.
For example the conspiracy theorist's favorites like anthrax being spewed out of a truck at rush hour in times square. Or the ever popular nuke in a briefcase senario.
I guarantee that is what would happen within at least 5 years of any serious nonthoughtful unilateral action against a blanket group. This has to be a precision strike against one man or a handful of men. Preferably in some sort of trial where he at least has an attempt at justice. I believe that there would be overwhelming evidence to convict Bin Ladin quite handily.
the loss of the suprise factor
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: -1
and the funny thing is that never again can a person use the stupid gay sex link again and have it fool anyone. Oh the joy when I saw that
"1. Maybe they didn't know it was intending to crash...just fly over. Also, is it wise to hit a plane witha missle when its currently over a heavily populated area? I think the wreckage of a plane exploding midair over residental areas would be alot more damage then letting it crash into the pentagon. "
I don't know the order of magnatude calculations for that but I guess it could seem plausible. I was going on the assumption that they wanted to protect the building and it's inhabitants. Presumably they could have taken it out a couple of thousand feet above and then all you have to have to wory about is falling debris. However I would agree that a low level detonation of an explosive ballistic object could when combined with the exploding airplane could have caused worse problems.
"2. The terrorist supposedly told the passengers they also had a bomb. It seems that for the 3 planes that hit the passengers probably didn't know they were going on a crash course, and were told they would not be harmed. Given that they were probably hoping for the best. Supposedly the 4th plane crashed in PA b/c the passengers DID find out they would be screwed either way."
Slashdot Mirror
believe what you will even if it were perfectly safe I am not risking my ass in jail to get high and if I knew who you were and you did smoke pot I would just love to turn you in. Hell I knew people who went to jail for extremely small ammounts of marajuana.
pps no
"What, a goatse.cx link? Fucking hardly."
forget it taht little joke is dead in the water
I'm over 19 does that mean I should have smoked till my lungs filled with tar? No.
decent PC is a perfectly good assesment whearas with Machintoy systems I can think of only bad things.
"Your constitution has been made a joke by new powers."
Which would those be exactly? I don't really get much out of your post.
If you want to argue about the nature of the constitution then by all means make sure that you have your thinking cap on because I really am well versed in this subject. Email would be just fine for this perhaps
it's been very well documented via standardized tests that majuana damages the ability of the higher order brain functions over the long term. Not to mention the brain lesions.
The fact of the matter is that drugs don't have miracle properties that allow them to magically give you anything you want for absolutely nothing. There are trade offs. These plants use these effects as toxins to prevent predators and other organisms that would like to sample them. It's an evolutionary defense mechanism.
"Why would being into drugs indicate not having a brain?"
doing something that is harmful deliberately and on a major level that has a endorphin fueled negative cycle is stupid
"Not having read the article I can't tell if you're talking about dangerous drugs, or some of the more useful drugs many governments ban."
Virtually all reacreational drugs are dangerous.
"I would agree someone is dumb if they use tobacco, alcohol, or opiates since they don't really offer anything useful and cause physical harm, but marijuana and the psychedelics are very useful and safe when used by smart people."
Yeah and all the completely, permanently brain damaged people are all just in your imagination. Yeah right.
"Hey, i wont get to see it for months, quit complaining... Saturday, pshh."
what country is this Bulgaria?
"Also, I don't know if I was the only one who caught this, but when Capn' Scott's father was giving his speech, about Seeking out new life and new civilizations, he corrected Kirk's gramatical error from the orignal series...'to boldly go' is a dangling participle. It was spoken properly in the speech 'to go boldly'"
Any real links to that one?
"Specifically, is it bearable on a new iBook? When I tried 10.04 on a new iBook it was like running Windows 2000 on a Pentium 133 (DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME KIDS!) If they have the windowing optimized enough to run on an iBook I may just part with $1500 this week!"
Or you can get a decent PC for the exact same price and run something that dosn't match your sofa.
"You're going to try it out a little? Better not say "a lot" or "I might even use it full time," or Linus will revoke your charter."
There isn't much chance of that happening. Linux really has a the advantage of being theoretically in constant development for decades. OSX will be gone the minute the company loses interest
"So if we get laid off, are we not more, not less, likely to find similar work quickly? "
Depends if there are massive ammounts of people with approximately the same skill set then it could be a problem
"And if - again, as Katz himself says, and most of us understood when we signed on to our jobs - "Tasks and missions are temporal, the people employed to execute them highly disposable. Work and workers are both flexible and expendable." "
to my mind that really isn't the basic idea of employment. Don't go into it thinking that you will be fired or quit rapidly.
"...then doesn't that imply that we knew damn well what we were getting into when we signed on? And that we signed on anyways? "
most people don't know when job actions will be occuring
"My employer owes me what it agreed to when I signed my offer of employment. I owe it what I agreed to when I signed that letter. "
I can follow
"Nothing less, nothing more. "
and if not that's what unions are for
"If my employer chooses to pay me large bonuses, that's its prerogative. If I choose to work long hours to get a project done, that's my prerogative. Usually there's a
link between the two. Sometimes there's not. "
ok
"But there's a difference between rights - outlined above - and obligations. We're obliged to do only that we agreed to do. We owe each other nothing after that."
I believe in ethical actions. If there is something you can do then do it and make someone's life better as a result.
"Please explain how an obligatory ID or any other mean of identification is fascism?"
Essentially people take liberty away a little at a time. However I think that such things are superfluous(sp) because we already have things like SSNs and driver's liscences.
"If you enjoy society's benefits such as the protection by the law enforcement agencies"
With many, many police and law enforcement agencies extremely open to corruption I really don't think this is much of a benefit. In fact all the police do is clean up after the mess happens and get a bunch of relatively non violent and non threatening people put in a situation of being living corpses and slowly go mad.
In fact they don't even *have* to protect you. I beleive I remember some case where a family sued the police department (Californian I believe) for negligence due to a murderer killing one of the family. They got off scott free becuase it was determined that that is not the domain of the police.
"and the military they must be able to identify you as a citizen."
Why the hell does the military have to have to know that I am a citizen? I don't travel abroad and I don't plan to travel to Afghanistan any time soon so they don't have to worry about my safety.
I don't get the point.
"Security of the individual seems to be taking a very solid backseat to the security of the institutions that are supposed to be providing security for the individual."
As of yet they havn't totally overstepped their bounds. That's what a good lawyer is for.
"Every institution seems to eventually forget that their strength comes from the people underneath, be it a company or a government."
It comes from a lack of thinking about basic logic. Companies and governments are two entirely different areas.
"Laws should spring forth from society and not be sent down from above."
We fixed this problem. It's called a democratic republic. Please read the history of the United States in depth first. (Hint I read more than most).
"As well as a company's employees should work to better a company rather than having a company as a shelter from poverty. "
The question I ask is why? Why would I care that company X is going to make extra billions because of my labor? Really why would I care if I was a measely voluenteer? Unless they are some humanitarian organization I really can't justify that. And rather unfortunately people need money to survive. So really I guess you could say people should care more about thier actions in a company if they are getting compensation. But then there is the balance of what is fair or not. All very interesting.
"We have forgotten that the relationship of larger institutions and the individual is a symbiotic one."
Depends on what their aim is. Governments have a responsibility to the people. However companies are basically groups that do not have such concerns. In fact in the early days of the United States there were a great deal of animosity towards the "rabble" in terms of what people thought should be allowed and such. That is business thinking and largely it died out in terms of a national agenda. No matter what people tell you eventually someone has to be responsible to someone.
"What corporate republic? "
companies don't run the show of every citizen
"Right now it's turning into a "you'll start carrying an ID or you'll cry and carry an ID" republic."
Over my dead body. They will never get the kind of response they want and they sure as hell won't create a fasciast state. We have a constitution
"Hey, get used to it. I'm not going to waste my time and energy prolonging the inevitable. If we don't lose our civil liberties today, we'll lose them tomorrow. Yeah,it sucks, but there's nothing you can really do."
It's called a law suit. That's what the ACLU and the supreme court are for. It is *not* inevitable.
Being blind really ruines most of your life. At least from what I am able to determine. Generally I can't see how you can do anything but stay on disability without some really magical help
" just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon."
any confirmation?
"I respect them by dancing on the street."
yeah whatever go ahead and do that. Personally any stupid middle easterner who does that is just being deluded. I guess they have to face the fact that they just don't have any real power to have any but a really shitty life, loser job, and a country that almost no one fears.
If that's all you have to celebrate then fine. But realize it will take something much larger and kill many more people before the US leaves your loser ass alone.
Ok done ranting now.
What ever happened to slashdot a while back? And why don't they number posts for each story. A number like that is useless.
"The original target was actually the white house, they were picked up on radar, and air control ordered them to change paths, they then did a 270 degree turn and dropped below radar before hitting the pentagon"
so in theory once they were in the air they were home free?
"This is the crux of a very difficult debate. Which should the government focus on: Protecting us, or protecting our civil liberties? In cases like this, there's not really a way to do both. "
Be actually vigilant. It seems really silly that there isn't some kind of way to determine say if a plane is hijacked. I imagine this: have a deadman's switch of sorts that needs a personal key/access code tied to various vital functions of the pilot like blood pressure/eeg reedings and a voice access code. If the pilot gets bumped off then no go. Or if the physical code is stolen it's a no go.
As far as catching people I believe there are certain risks. Personally I see unfortunate parallels between actions of Adolf Hitler with his reasoning of using emergency actions and what could happen if they actually did half the stuff the radicals are calling for.
"'ve been stunned by the number of people bitching about how the US is going to become a police state, how their liberties have been taken away because they can't carry Smith & Wesson onto the plane, etc. "
My personal opinion guns don't really matter if the government wants to do you in. It's just a matter of unmbers. You could have an ak-47 and it still wouldn't do you any good if they want you dead.
"It's a difficult balance, and some people will always be upset at where the scales fall. For now, let's just accept what protection our government is trying to give us, and complain about it later after we've eliminated whatever threat has caused this"
My personal big beef is that people claim that this "is our Pearl Harbor" and "an act of War" unfortunately I don't buy that. Essentially what you are dealing with is a non-state sponsored activity done buy a group of essentially religious fanatics. That is hardly a good thing.
What I fear is that some people are going to convince the president that we should just invade and raze any county's populace who dosn't toe the line. I also believe that any serious attack on people carrying on activities which most of their religion consider sarcred will descend the country into millions of tit for tat squabbles. Quite frankly these guys could have really done something a great deal worse.
For example the conspiracy theorist's favorites like anthrax being spewed out of a truck at rush hour in times square. Or the ever popular nuke in a briefcase senario.
I guarantee that is what would happen within at least 5 years of any serious nonthoughtful unilateral action against a blanket group. This has to be a precision strike against one man or a handful of men. Preferably in some sort of trial where he at least has an attempt at justice. I believe that there would be overwhelming evidence to convict Bin Ladin quite handily.
and the funny thing is that never again can a person use the stupid gay sex link again and have it fool anyone. Oh the joy when I saw that
"1. Maybe they didn't know it was intending to crash...just fly over. Also, is it wise to hit a plane witha missle when its currently over a heavily populated area? I think the wreckage of a plane exploding midair over residental areas would be alot more damage then letting it crash into the pentagon. "
I don't know the order of magnatude calculations for that but I guess it could seem plausible. I was going on the assumption that they wanted to protect the building and it's inhabitants. Presumably they could have taken it out a couple of thousand feet above and then all you have to have to wory about is falling debris. However I would agree that a low level detonation of an explosive ballistic object could when combined with the exploding airplane could have caused worse problems.
"2. The terrorist supposedly told the passengers they also had a bomb. It seems that for the 3 planes that hit the passengers probably didn't know they were going on a crash course, and were told they would not be harmed. Given that they were probably hoping for the best. Supposedly the 4th plane crashed in PA b/c the passengers DID find out they would be screwed either way."
I guess bluffing would explain that.