Man portable nuclear devices were/are about. There are also nuclear ARTILLERY rounds as well. To make one of those man-portable all you have to do is rig the detonation device to a manual timer or suicide button and throw that in your car or backpack.
See, it's comments like that that let people know you're going by hearsay rather than actual evidence. The 155mm nuclear artillery shell weighed 855 pounds and was 4.5 feet long. If you have a guy that can carry a backpack with that in it, you don't NEED a nuke-- just send that big bastard in with a club to SMASH the base like Gojira!
I just erased a paragraph that I wrote on how to actually get the bomb INSIDE the base you want to detonate it in... it is very easy to do, and trivial to figure out, but since I am in the military, it might be a bad idea if I were to spell it out for someone who was going to actually do it. Suffice to say it is easy for you, or anyone else to get on to 99.5% of all US military bases for the purposes of destroying things.
Please. You sound like a fresh E-2 who's taken all his security training completely seriously. As if any of that is actually secret knowledge! Generally it's as easy as cramming into a cab in Class A's with a bunch of other guys rolling in from a bar. The SP's guarding the gate on a saturday night won't think twice about letting you in if you're young, in uniform, and looking either drunk or asleep. Likewise, it's obviously easy to get in if you're a cab driver with a military passenger. I could go on, but I don't feel the need to reproduce information that is obvious after a couple day's observation.
Looks like the joining point of two different datasets. The blacked out area is hemmed by zig-zagging north-south and east-west lines on the right and straight lines following Colorado hwy 115 on the left. Unless there's big national secrets at Cheyenne Shadows Golf Club, I'd say the "incomplete data" theory is most likely.
I do know that law enforcement has a problem with fortified houses and bunkers. They're illegal in lots of places.
This is, unfortunately, absolutely true. Let's hear it for "proactive policing"! Naturally these laws are only meant to give our beloved law enforcers the leverage necessary to keep all those nasty bikers from building forts in otherwise peaceful neighborhoods. Never mind the fact that it's now essentially illegal in many places to build a house too sturdy to break into, or in some cases even own a house built in the 50's with ATOMIC WAR in mind. No, it's more important for the fat, lazy cops to be able to simply arrest "violent bikers" for bricking up their downstairs windows than to actually catch them in the act of being violent.
During the cold war, Senator Joseph McCarthy called anyone who challenged him a communist, devistating the reputations of many innocent people.
Minor nitpick: Senator McCarthy, though he was indeed a jackass blowhard, had no real relation to the House Committee on Unamerican Activities. He was only concerned with self-proclaimed communists working in the State Department. At a time when organised communism in most of the world had essentially positioned itself as a foe of the united states, these concerns could be considered valid. It was only the morons on the HCUA that were accusing actors and writers, and demanding that people name names*.
* A darkly amusing demand, as it pretty much exactly mirrored Stalin's methodology of "name five traitors we can send to the gulag or we'll send you to the gulag".
Riddle me this, Batman : when does 'got arrested' ever come off your personal life record?
As in when a prospective employer says 'have you ever been arrested?'
Answer : never. If the charges get dropped you can always say 'Yes, but... ' and then fill in the rest of the story about how 'bad cop' or 'violated my rights' or whatever, but the employer checks the 'got arrested' box and you don't get hired.
There isn't a state in the union where an employer can legally ask if you've been arrested before. Convictions and pending charges, yes. Arrests not resulting in conviction, absolutely not, for exactly the resons you outline above.
Oh, you mean like President Bush, who visited Nashville, TN a month ago and had ALL THE MAJOR HIGHWAYS CLOSED going into the city, causing headaches and other problems? Who the fuck is he to do such a thing without the consensus of all the million+ people that rely upon those roads for travel to get to work inside the city?
He's the president of the united states. They do it all the time, and always have (e.g. the Clinton haircut at LAX uproar). Permission to do to is tacitly granted by their election. If you want it changed, elect someone who promises to not let the Secret Service block roads for his motorcade, or alternately, overthrow the US government.
I can't say for sure, but having a engineer's mind I can tell you it probably won't work with anything else. See, the only thing the cards need to communicate is a number from 0 to 7. Putting in a full mag-stripe or bar code reader to communicate three bits of data would be a colossal waste of money.
It's true though. I had a law professor (business law) tell me that the law is designed so that you are always breaking it at any given time. Then the authorities enforce the law when they feel it is required or they want to "throw the boook at you".
Exactly. On the local level it's even called "proactive policing". I find the fact that the have the utter brass balls to call it proactive the most astounding thing. They're effectively admitting that they're trying to arrest people before any real crime has been committed. And, of course, Joe Public thinks this is a grand idea. Arrest criminals before they commit crimes? Super! Never mind that they have to define a whole raft of nebulous illegal "pre-crime" acts to do it-- they'll only use those "precursor crimes" to arrest bad guys, right? Now quotas for Sky Marshals? Ah, just like the old days of Uncle Joe Stalin, where the local bosses had to name five names of political enemies a month, and if he could only come up with four, he would be number five.
No, the reason "guilt and innocence" are incorrect is because those are the terms used for criminal trials, and civil trials result in a verdict of "liable" or "not liable". The burden of proof being "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" has nothing to do with it.
At least the store gets something, and their inventory is kept up to date. Shoplifting fails on both counts, there.
Actually, the processing costs them more than they get, and internal shrinkage and spoilage generally already have the inventory buggered way beyond what a little shoplifting could do. No, it's sad but true, stealing a 25 cent pack of washers would actually be better for them financially.
Huh? Around here, it just so happens that the lack of sunlight at night cools the surface of the earth, so miraculously, just pumping air from outside to the inside results in a living unit that gets cooler too. Just as miraculously, if you keep the temperature of said living unit cool during the day when the sun is shining, it doesn't take a lot of energy to make it cool after the sun sets.
In very hot climates, nighttime doesn't result in significantly cooler temps. The "miracle" of thermodynamics dictates that when the sun heats up millions of tons of dirt and rock, that material stays hot even after the sun has gone away. By morning you're lucky if the air has cooled to 80 degrees. What this means is that your air conditioning system has to run 20-22 hours a day to keep the living space cool.
the State (meaning the government at some level) requires that one to be the sole monopoly provider. Numerous regulations, restrictions, licensing and mandates prevent competition.
I don't believe that's why. I think it's because it's simply not practical to have 2 (or N) parallel network infrastructures.
That is the reason why, but "practicality" is the given reason it's legislated so. Do you really think the only reason the giant behemoth that was the old AT&T didn't roll through those few areas controlled by GTE and other non-bell 'LECs, was that it would be impractical to have two competing sets of copper pairs on the pole? No, the reason we only have one of each set of utility infrastructure is because the government decrees it.
What little I did find supported the "90th percentile" assertion.
Citation please.
(eye roll)
You're kidding, right? First you tell me I'm wrong and I should find out how wrong by using Google, and then when I say what little is available on Google says I'm right, you demand citations? Well fine, here you go, ya' lazy bum:
Freedom in the World 2006 (Freedomhouse): one of 49 countries scoring 1-1 (Political Rights-Civil Liberties) out of 192 total. Not proof of 90th opercentile, but consistent with it nonetheless.
This combined index shows the US falling one notch short of the highest possible score with 1-1-2 (only 19 countries out of 196 scored highest, 1-1-1), but the one "ding" bringing the US down out of the top is from the Reporters Without Borders ranking, where they're still pissed that the US Army doewsn't want to schlep bonehead reporters around through a war giving away sensitive operational info to al jazeera over satcom video phones.
I've already noticed that about 60% of posts are conspiracy theories about shutting him up..
we know nothing about the charges, and generally in high profile arrests there is a lag time between the actual arrest and the announcement of charges to the relevant media.
No doubt. I wonder what the slashdot headline would have been if he'd been arrested on the way to the toilet...
Private Eye Arrested in the Middle of Waste Dumping Scheme
Nope. I read some reports a while back, but have not done any research recently. You could try Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Freedom of Expression Exchange and Anti-Slavery International. If they don't have rankings now, most of them have at least within the recent past and the US sure hasn't been moving up the list.
Actually, I did google all that before replying-- googled extensively-- and there are very few comparative rankings available. What little I did find supported the "90th percentile" assertion.
Really, if you're going to disagree and suggest a way to find sources supporting your argument, you really ought to check that those sources exist, rather than just assuming you're right.
Duh, there are how many countries in the EU?
And if we add the old (white) commonwealth (Canada, Australia, New Zealand)?
(Not that I necessarily agree that an EU country is automaticaly better than the US on human rights grounds, but it's an arguable case - death penalties, inhuman prison system, imprisonment rates comparable to china...)
There are 25 EU member states. EU membership or no, are you aware of the abyssmal prison conditions in the former eastern bloc countries? They're working on it, but they're definitely worse than US prisons. Right there you have fairly solid reason to drop 8 or 9 EU states below the US on human rights, and that's just what I know off the top of my head. Add back Australia, New Zealand, Canada, maybe a couple others... and you're right about at 20. Like I said, 90th percentile is not a bad estimate.
You can't judge the relative quality of human rights until you actual look at how it is applied. The US is nowhere near "better than 90%.
Actually, out of the 200-plus nations on the planet, I think you'd have a hard time finding any ranking system that puts more than 20 of them above the US. I think there's an argument to be made that only making the 90th percentile is not good enough for a nation like the US, but I think the actual figure is accurate.
For goodness sake stop distributing their music! Find the legitimate free music out there and start a grassroots movement!
That course of action is fine if your one's only objection is the oligopoly that is the RIAA member companies. If one objects to the current state of copyright law, then destroying the RIAA by not only not buying their music, but also making copies in direct defiance of copyright law is more in keeping with one's beliefs.
Was it in return of the Jedi where Luke talks to the Droid Eye at the entry door of Jabba's palace?
[comic book guy voice]
No, it was R2-D2 and C-3PO at the door to Jabba's palace in Return of the Jedi. Luke, being the most powerful Jedi ever, was able to simply open the door and walk in.
[/comic book guy voice]
True, however if you were to assume that the current political power balance was to continue then the judge could kiss any hopes of moving to the Supreme Court goodbye.
There are over 800 federal judges. SCOTUS has a vacancy maybe once every 5-10 years. The vast majority of federal judges have absolutely no expectation whatsoever of nomination to the supreme court.
I think (s)he was referring to confidentiality measures. An attorney must take adequate measures to ensure client confidence (including locking away the client files). You hadn't mentioned the dead-bolt before.
(shrug). Doesn't make the "OMG U R guilty of B&E, dood" poster any less an idiot, unfortunately.
Iused to enter a military base by just flicking my wallet open, sometimes it would be a photo of my wife that I was flashing at them but I was driving a car that they knew and they were not looking that closely. I did mean to show my ID but I often made a mistake that I did not realise until later. I have several cards and photos in the windowed section of my wallet and sometimes got it wrong but I was never stopped for that. Sometimes they would do the routine mirrors under the car bit and look under the bonnet etc. but the two never happened together.
Back when I was on active duty in the army, we were working at an installation run by the air force that required picture badges to enter. The air force SP woulod take your badge, look at the picture, look at the badge, look back at the picture, then look back at you and hand you your badge before waving you in. Every single person enetering went through this. On more than one occasion, my roommate and I got our badges switched back in the barracks, and not once did the mutton-head checking badges catch it. This wouldn't be such a big deal if my roommate and I looked anything alike, but I'm a tall, clean shaven, skinny white boy and he was a big, barrel-shaped black man with a mustache. More often than not, those guys manning the gates are asleep on their feet.
Which is why I wouldn't really consider those things to be 'short of a gun'.
I cannot even begin to imagine what sort of hierarchy would place a gun above (say) a knife, but below a car, a bomb, and a 5 gallon gas can for the purposes of this discussion. Price? Availability? Ease of use? Effectiveness? A gun beats each of them all in one way or another.
Those things that you mention are used in different kinds of violence and have their own enforcement. They also don't fit well in the context of the discussion, being crime. Bombs aren't that commonly used in say robbery's (other than in the movies, or maybe ). In the middle-east you could make a case for gun carrying as a defense against suicide bombers, that didn't work so well in england though and that was the police. I also think that you should be hard pressed to find many cases where someone was held up with the threat of being hit by a car. Nor would carrying a gun be much deterrence to a hit-and-run driver.
Your own words: "All that I am getting at is that it's awfully easy to go on a violent rampage with a gun...One person just can't accomplish that kind of violence with any kind of weapon short of a gun."
We're not talking about robbery. We're not even talking about the suitability of a gun towards thwarting a "violent rampage" by car. I was addressing your assertion that no weapon "short of a gun" is suitable for the purpose of going on a violent rampage.
Slashdot Mirror
Please. You sound like a fresh E-2 who's taken all his security training completely seriously. As if any of that is actually secret knowledge! Generally it's as easy as cramming into a cab in Class A's with a bunch of other guys rolling in from a bar. The SP's guarding the gate on a saturday night won't think twice about letting you in if you're young, in uniform, and looking either drunk or asleep. Likewise, it's obviously easy to get in if you're a cab driver with a military passenger. I could go on, but I don't feel the need to reproduce information that is obvious after a couple day's observation.
Looks like the joining point of two different datasets. The blacked out area is hemmed by zig-zagging north-south and east-west lines on the right and straight lines following Colorado hwy 115 on the left. Unless there's big national secrets at Cheyenne Shadows Golf Club, I'd say the "incomplete data" theory is most likely.
* A darkly amusing demand, as it pretty much exactly mirrored Stalin's methodology of "name five traitors we can send to the gulag or we'll send you to the gulag".
I can't say for sure, but having a engineer's mind I can tell you it probably won't work with anything else. See, the only thing the cards need to communicate is a number from 0 to 7. Putting in a full mag-stripe or bar code reader to communicate three bits of data would be a colossal waste of money.
No, the reason "guilt and innocence" are incorrect is because those are the terms used for criminal trials, and civil trials result in a verdict of "liable" or "not liable". The burden of proof being "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" has nothing to do with it.
You're kidding, right? First you tell me I'm wrong and I should find out how wrong by using Google, and then when I say what little is available on Google says I'm right, you demand citations? Well fine, here you go, ya' lazy bum:
Index of Economic Fredom (WSJ/Heritage Foundation): 9th out of 157
Freedom in the World 2006 (Freedomhouse): one of 49 countries scoring 1-1 (Political Rights-Civil Liberties) out of 192 total. Not proof of 90th opercentile, but consistent with it nonetheless.
This combined index shows the US falling one notch short of the highest possible score with 1-1-2 (only 19 countries out of 196 scored highest, 1-1-1), but the one "ding" bringing the US down out of the top is from the Reporters Without Borders ranking, where they're still pissed that the US Army doewsn't want to schlep bonehead reporters around through a war giving away sensitive operational info to al jazeera over satcom video phones.
Private Eye Arrested in the Middle of Waste Dumping Scheme
Really, if you're going to disagree and suggest a way to find sources supporting your argument, you really ought to check that those sources exist, rather than just assuming you're right.
No, it was R2-D2 and C-3PO at the door to Jabba's palace in Return of the Jedi. Luke, being the most powerful Jedi ever, was able to simply open the door and walk in.
[/comic book guy voice]
Your own words: "All that I am getting at is that it's awfully easy to go on a violent rampage with a gun...One person just can't accomplish that kind of violence with any kind of weapon short of a gun."
We're not talking about robbery. We're not even talking about the suitability of a gun towards thwarting a "violent rampage" by car. I was addressing your assertion that no weapon "short of a gun" is suitable for the purpose of going on a violent rampage.