Well, I'd think that for security you'd want to prevent any routine access to the cockpit. If terrorists simply booked the front row of seats (for leg room) and attacked as the pilot was walking through the door, they could gain access.
The idea of a remotely controlled door doesn't seem much different that having people use a code, it's a bit faster, but more error-prone. Six of one...
From the moment a plane pulls away from the airport, the pilots, imho, should be locked away from any passenger hijinks. And yes, this does mean all relief pilots would have to be in the cockpit all along, and they'd need a private washroom.
I think the idea of a plain-clothes air-marshall armed with frangible (will break into pieces instead of penetrating the cabin walls) would really help this... provided they were told that rescuing the whole plane is a priority, over saving individuals, so that they stayed hidden as long as there was a chance that things would end peacefully (to keep the terrorists from smoking him out and killing him.)
Heh, your responses would seem to indicate that you're right.
It does look like Bush wants a war, for various reasons, and the people are happy giving it to him.
I doubt there's a conspiracy in the music industry, but if these people are where they are because of business savy, I bet they're fairly good at reading the political climate and avoiding sensitive issues.
I still think you're a lot more likely to have issues if you allow people to rush the pilot when they think there's an error, than if you lock them off and only have to deal with the odd suicide pilot.
But there is a halfway measure...
Give both sides of the plane the ability to contact the ground. Have the door open to a code, which the air-traffic control can provide if they think the plane is being hijacked. I think removing the ability of passengers, hijackers or not, to storm the flight crew will be the correct response a vast majority of the times.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 2
Yeesh, and you tried to call me for weasel words.
So far your stated opinion has been practically nonexistant, yet you berate me for both taking no actions and taking a strong stand on the issue.
No matter what you want to say, the smallest of NATO countries and complete US-vassal isn't going to come into Bush's consideration on this issue. I doubt your legislators could find Canada on a map, much less care for our support.
When Canada has nukes and threatens to launch them, then I might consider us directly responsible. Until then, it's all in Bush's hands. Anything else you say is just trying to cover your collective asses.
"Your country supports Bush in ways much more meaninful than I could ever do"
If my country supports Bush, then at best (assuming he cares what we say) it still puts me twice as far from anyone noticing what I say, as you are. Quit berating me and do something yourself.
"And remember, if you want to make a difference, it'll take something stronger than words."
Yes, if I was to have a hope of changing Bush's mind, it would.
I'm pretty sure the only thing that'll get through to him is another attack like this. For which he'll doubtlessly retaliate and stir up even more anti-US sentiment, endlessly.
"You get all the advantages of the policy, AND the ablility to act righteous and pissed off."
Ahhh, gotcha. Your country rapes and pillages, then tosses us some scraps. For that, we're as guilty, moreso in fact, you seem to think.
"And on an issue which you feel so strongly about that you broke a law of a different country and threatened assassination!"
Oh, yawn. If I go to Amsterdam and smoke pot, are you going to say I broke the US's laws? Really, the point is moot, even if I did do something which might have violated your laws if I were in the US, I'm not.
Might have, I say, because no matter how you slice it, I didn't say I'd kill Bush. Technically, I just said the only support he'd get would be full-metal jacketed, which doesn't preclude him not getting any support at all. But, ignoring any technicalities, my support for his downfall is conditional on his acting like a rabid animal and using weapons of mass destruction.
Remember this, a conditional threat isn't a threat unless the conditional is met.
Bah, nevermind.
You'll never accept an iota of responsibility, while trying to blame me and everyone else except your president.
Go off to your pep rally now. I'm sure the president needs your support, after all, genocide is really tiring.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 2
My government has a slightly better track record at listening to citizens than yours, and I still don't see that the opinions of NATO countries matters much to Bush, he's not very bright, a jingoist war-monger, and prone to snap-decisions.
As long as my country doesn't prepare to use nukes, why would I take action against them?
"You certainly had a proposal on how to deal with Bush. Have you considered threatening your own government instead?"
That's like saying "You were prepared to fight the Nazis, why not kill some aid-workers?"
Bush is the one with the button, Bush should be the target of those who wish to stop the potential use of nukes.
"Trust me, my current opposition as an individual to nukes REALLY won't change anything."
That's why I think removing Bush is a valid solution, if he looks likely to do something really stupid.
As yet another protester, he'd ignore you. The guy basically cheated his way into office, your fellow countrymen don't mean anything to him unless you're rich. If you want to make a difference, it'll take something stronger than words.
I know you won't do anything, but it's funny hearing how you're so against nukes, yet you support Bush, and wouldn't do anything to him even if he announced a plan to use them.
There's a reason that much of the world associates US citizens with their government's foreign policy. It's really easy for you to speak again it, as long as that doesn't involve actually doing anything. As long as you accept that, you'll be a target for every two-bit religious nutcase with an axe to grind, and somewhat, rightly so.
The comments about preventing the passengers from rushing the cockpit is silly.
For starters, how is anyone going to know? Do you want people to rush the cockpit anytime an airplane has been ordered to circle the airport before landing?
Then, what's the chance that in 300 passengers, who are barely screened, that you'll get a terrorist. Compare that to the chance that the carefully screened pilot will be, and that either the rest of the cockpit crew will be, or that he can overwhelm them.
You can't rule out the flight crew going crazy, but the odds are much lower.
Besides, any provision for the crew removing a terrorist pilot would also allow for the terrorists in the crew to remove the rightful pilot.
A steel door may have some flaws, and not prevent all problems, but I don't see how it prevents other security measures.
I don't think any airline pilot will ever voluntarily hand over controls to the aircraft, regardless of what's happening to passengers, or what threats/promises are made. The possible consequences are way too ghastly.
But, I think those pilots will bargain with the terrorists, offering to fly to a specific airport, or communicate with negotiators on the ground.
You can't pass up the possibility that the terrorist might not want to kill everyone, but the risk of thousands dead means you can't take any chances.
It's not flamebait, it's an opinion. Way to call for censorship.
"You can't prevent parents from talking to their kids about religion."
I didn't claim to be able to.
But the fact that it's impossible to totally stop pedophila and child abuse doesn't mean we don't try.
"So I can see that a religious parent might feel angry if they were forced to bring up their child an atheist or an agnostic."
Yup. And I'm sure a molestor would be upset that he couldn't indulge.
As an aside, you don't "bring a child up athiest", you simply don't bring them up religious and they end up athiest. Athiesm isn't a codified set of beliefs, it's the freedom from religion.
"To people with strong views on religion, there are no 'neutral' positions."
True, but why are the views of an adult more important that the safety of a child?
I think the age of majority should be based on compotency, and privellage should come with responsibility.
If someone can be sent to war, it's criminal if they can't also vote, drink, etc.
And we all know at least one 16-year old who is more mature than many 30-year olds. Why should they be given less responsibility?
But, in the absence of a better system, and instead of explaining my views on the current one, I thought I'd suggest the use of the system in place. Its replacement, while important, isn't a necessary part of the reform I suggested.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 2
"'Stand against them' and 'assassinate' are very different things for those of us who don't think in black & white."
Nukes are a somewhat black & white thing, they deserve stronger reactions than economic sanctions do.
"What actions are you taking, right now, to prevent that? Are you unwilling to stand against your own country's activities?"
I don't think that if Canada totally opposed the US's use of nukes, that it would really change anything.
I try to make a difference, but there's not a lot I can do other than try to influence people's opinions and hope that it spreads to people who can stop Bush from making a big mistake.
I however am not blindly supportive of someone until the make a fatal mistake, I set limits and what I'm willing to have done in my name, and even if I'm powerless to stop it, I'll let it be known that I do not support it.
Islam, like all religions, seeks to push something distasteful and potentially dangerous on children too young to know any better.
Sounds in many ways like pedophilia...
Religion should be dealt with like sex, perfectly allowable for anyone to do anything they want, as long as it is consented to by all participants, and those participants are over the age of minority.
The US armed forces were badly integrated. There are a lot of problems, women can't share facilities, so they get private areas. This leads to 5-10 women having an area meant for 50, and other injustices.
Similarly, the "equal" women aren't assigned a lot of the tough or dangerous jobs.
This leads to resentment, the men do harder work, and have less perks.
But, the worst part of this is that the women who are pulling their weight never get credit for it, because there are so many who coast by with cushy jobs and quarters.
US society isn't terribly equal in many ways this means that proper armed-forces integration will have a ton of problems.
It's not the fault of the women, and honestly, most of them probably are doing their best, but it really has gone downhill since integration.
I've seen a few firewire drive enclosures that run IDE HDs, one-per controller, so they're all masters, and all seperated from everything else.
They're pretty zippy, and because the drive is 3rd-party, you can put in the fastest drive you can find.
The same drives released as SCSI could be released as Firewire, the same as they could release them as IDE. The reason they don't, more than performance, if that people with SCSI systems will pay a premium.
It's like hardcover/paperback. Some people will pay anything to have 'it' right now.
Re: Religion is the direct enemy
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
Ouch. But thanks. Yeah, I did flub a bit there.
"instead of 99% of them being false, it's more likely that 100% are false"
Right, if they aren't linked, the probability isn't either. Like if you flip 99 heads, the next one is no more likely to be heads, or tails, than the first.
Of course, this assumes an unbiased coin. And I was tying to say that but it didn't come out right. If all religions you have examined are flawed, then it might be worth seeing if they are linked. Such as checking a coin producing 99 heads, before accepting it as a statistical longshot.
"it is a disservice to automatically presume otherwise."
Yes, bad again. I was seeing in Code Shark the echos of everyone similar I'd talked to, and did attribute to him things which may not be accurate.
"But, remove the 'for which there is no direct evidence' statement. If there is direct evidence, it does not negate the burden of proof - just simplifies/minimizes it."
Good point.
"I think you have just missed the mark. One inconsistency proves that there are errors."
Well, I was trying to show that it's easy to prove there's a problem with the statments "God is omnipotent" and "God directed the creation of the bible". But, I realize that only some sects believe the later.
But, if the two statements were linked "God is omnipotent and directed the writing of the bible" would a single error not disprove that?
The root of a lot of my problems with it is that I didn't want to just say "No, YOU prove that he exists", I wanted to explain why it fell upon him to do so. Oh well, lofty intentions...:)
"Reading this, I am ashamed I did not state this in any of my posts above this. WELL SAID!!!"
Thank you. I'm just annoyed I didn't think of such a concise summary years ago.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 2
"I cannot imagine where I ever got the idea that things might turn into a shouting match. Oh wait, it's the unceasing use of ad hominem attacks rather than actual debate!"
When I attack you as an inbred, twinkie-eater, it's not debate. I know that. It's my way of having fun at your expense. Anyone who opens by calling me a fuckwad should expect nothing less.
The debate is where I explain what I believe and spell out my reasons. Note the lack of "fuckwad" when I do so.
"The fact that you keep attempting to cast me as supporting nukes is vexing, also."
"And remember, in your response, I do not support nukes in this situation, stop acting and arguing as if I do!"
The whole point of this is that if you support a politician in their (possible) use of nukes, or are unwilling to stand against them, then you might as well support nukes.
Any blanket statement that you support Bush is tantamount to supporting any actions he might take.
"but I do know that as a country, we have gone out of our way to NOT assassinate leaders of other countries."
I know. And you (as a country) have gone out of your way to destroy armies of conscripts, just to save the life of one leader who often only holds power through direct threat of violence.
"So until Canada declares war on the US, your comments must be taken as threats of assassination."
Now who's using the weasel words. Listen, if killing one nut-job would save them from nuking innocents, I don't care if you call it an act of war or an act of cabbage, it's still justified.
"If using deadly force against innocents was likely to result in fewer total civilian casualties in the end, would you do it?"
Depends. And honestly, it does.
"If using force against innocents in a different country which would result in 100,000 deaths would likely save 100,000 civilian casualities in your own country, would you do it?"
I have no special love for citizens of my country over those of another, but depending on circumstance, I might weigh the "innocence" of both sides.
Now, this assumes there's a war going on, or something like that. And for the hell of it, I'll use Afghanistan and the USA for an example.
If the citizens actively hate and are trying to get rid of their government, yet are unable, like those of Afghanistan, I might give them more weight.
If the citizens of the USA are backing a leader who was bent on genocide, I wouldn't give them as much weight.
Now, honestly, I don't think the average US citizen would support violent reprisals on a civilian population, and I hope the government isn't planning it. I hope that most people would fight their own country, if needed, to stop that kind of travesty.
So I probably wouldn't trade one group of people for another, unless the numbers were overwhelming, or one of those groups seemed less than innocent.
This comes back to my complete disregard for the sanctity of leaders. If one person could be killed, to stop their violence towards many, I think it would be justified.
If Osama had a button he was about to press to set off a nuke in an American city, I'd support having someone blow him away. But I can't very well hold that opinion without supporting the same consequences for the same crime, if someone else were the perpetrator.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 2
"No, I just realized there's no way I'm ever going to convince you otherwise."
Of course not, you never even said why you disagree. And the point of discussion (at least for most people) isn't to brow-beat someone into their point of view, but to explain why another viewpoint makes sense.
Your picture indicates though that you can't imagine anything other than a shouting match to determine who was right.
If you'll notice, I took time to explain something when asked, you on the other hand didn't. Likely because you haven't actually examined what you believe and why, probably because you were simply told what to believe and you've never questioned it.
Tis okay. Don't bother with any more cute pictures, or excuses.
"that's EXACTLY the argument I'd use."
Then you'd be clueless. There's no way the deaths of thousands warrant the deaths of hundreds of thousands, or than one innocent dying justifies killing other innocents.
Not that I'm saying you wouldn't use the argument, or even that you wouldn't sway a bunch of droolers with it, but it wouldn't be a rational argument.
Now it's pretty clear why you never explain your opinions. If you can't, don't. But don't waste time by making up excuses for it.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 2
Heh, I'm not saying I'm always consistent, but honestly, the programming thing is why I use more parens than I need.
And yeah, usually only USians call themselves American, but it's sort of a shame because it's not terribly accurate.
I guess it's fairly clear why, I used USian, you used "citizen of the USA", neither sounds very clear or easy to say.
Re:The views of a Muslim in NY
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you.
"I agree that religion is [so far] unprovable [...] creation, etc"
Well, yes. The actual fact that religion exists (that people believe it, and such) is a given.
But, the faith bits, like god... Not only is god unprovable, but untestable. It's not like someone will say "My god will produce miracle X if I do Y" and then attempt Y, so there's no way you can do a test for god.
"I don't think science has done a good enough job proving anything that I am likely to change my mind."
Well, that's kinda the crux of it. Has religion proved anything either, or does it just claim to have the answer?
The fact that science is a process by which you prove things and I can follow the process, proving for myself, leads me to support most scientific discoveries.
To me "science" (scientists, researchers, the scientific method, etc) has done an excellent job of proving things, such that I am very likely to re-examine my beliefs if I find them contrary to established scientific wisdom.
Now sure, "science" doesn't claim to have an answer to the question of "what was first", it's only attempting to answer "what was before the bits we know" over and over, going farther back. Because of this, it can't claim to have the ultimate answer.
Even when (if) a unified-theory is presented and accepted, it won't provide all answers to all questions, merely a toolbox for figuring them out.
For example, Intel's pentium data-sheets in the mid 90s described exactly how the chip worked (unified theory) but nowhere in those documents did they describe Quake... (My generation uses lame game analogies instead of sports analogies.:)
If you need "the ultimate answer", you have to turn to something unproven, like religion. The only question is if you need someone's unproven answer to the ultimate questions, or if you're content to go through life knowing that some things aren't answered.
"I'm not sure anyone is raised "entirely without religion." What I mean is -- to me "religion" is more like "tradition" if you catch my drift."
Sort of. Even though tradtion, to me, means authentic meals, songs, etc.
Religion is the specific set of beliefs that deal with morality/death/afterlife and can't be proven, or explained in an earthly context. (For example, I don't believe people should kill, not because God says not to, but because it's a nasty thing to take something (life) from someone else, and it also doesn't produce a stable society if everyone does it. I don't need a religion to explain why I don't run around killing and cheating, etc)
"I didn't even set foot in a church until I was 15,"
I was in one fairly often, with friends, grandparents, etc.
"my Dad explained that the lure of churches can be in the activities for kids. At the time I took it as a warning to be careful."
Mine said a bit more "Don't believe everything you hear", but he didn't just say it in a church context.
"Because I have a relationship with God I do indeed have a different perspective on death than you."
Heh, I'm sure.
But, doesn't it bug you to be told something ("god exists") and yet be told that while there isn't any proof, you had better just accept it?
"and therefore it really is OVER for them."
That's what I feel for everyone who died.
"And I'm praying that the world might understand that God is in control of what ultimately happens to all of us."
What would lead us to that belief though?
Understand that your words inherently carry no more weight than those of someone from a conflicting religion, or perhaps those of an athiest.
You're the only person I believe when they say they found religion as an adult, many people say it, but upon examination, were raised religious, waffled a bit, and came back.
Can you see the connection, in my eyes, between telling your children about religion as if it exists, and them not questioning it?
I don't really have a problem with spirituality (which I define as individual religion) if a person decides it's okay, on their own. My issue with it is when people raise their kids without a choice, and bring them into a controlling organization with a hierarchy of often corrupt people.
If religion is your way of getting through the day, well it's odd imho, but better than friends of mine who use vodka, so I can accept it.
But when some pope|priest|etc starts handing down orders, that's when it starts looking like a cult, and when parents raise their children in this apparant cult, it starts to look like brain washing.
So my problem isn't religion, it's the way people use religion.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 2
Obviously for no decent reason.
Just remember, if you sit passively by, or worse, actively support him, and he does something really stupid, you bear some of the responsibility for that.
Also the idea is that extreme actions justify extreme responses. If he threatens to kill millions, he should be removed in any way possible. If he simply wants to carpet bomb a few camps without seeing if they're full of the guilty people, maybe it only justifies a few political demonstrations, etc. All actions in the proper context.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 2
Do they change the meaning of the expression?
Actually, I tend to over-use parens because I program and you might want to toss a modifier on the end of that, such as/2, or something, and it's easier to not have to go back and add something at each end later.
But, that asside, I don't think Americans are stupid. I just think that some (most?) Americans now have the stupid idea of rallying behind Bush, regardless of what he does. I think now, more than ever, you need to examine what he's doing.
On Monday, people would have bitched like crazy about Carnivore, on Wednesday they rolled over and accepted it... What's next?
btw, are you a South American perhaps? From Brazil maybe? Or did you mean US-American?
Well, I think you can do things in any language that make it harder to read, regardless of the skill of the developer.
For instance, put a space around entire concepts
Instead of "x/y+r^2" do "x/y + r^2", it's like using paragraph breaks in english text.
And then there's regexps, they're built on small parts, but when you get into something complicated (like removing c++ and c style remarks, in the same expression) it starts to look at little greek. This is, imho, because the same series of characters, in a slightly different order, can mean something else.
Like how [abc^] is a|b|c, but [^abc] is !(a|b|c). Combine that with a really long expression, especially when you're using $1 type reference to things you already found.. Ugh.
(\/\/|\/*) Really, what does that do?
But, that can be aided incredibly by how you write it as well, especially with the x (?) flag, to let you use whitespace (in Perl, at any rate).
Anyways, a bit OT, but I needed to gripe.:)
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 2
I insulted everyone who called for me to be reported to the secret service, as if my simply preferring Bush dead, to a bunch of innocent Afghanis dead, was some huge threat to national security. It's pathetic, "use some law to shut him up, he said something I didn't want to hear!"
"most of us in this thread DO NOT support nuclear force"
If you're not willing to stop it, then your statement against it is a little empty. You mean, you might vote against him next time if he uses nukes? Wow! What a strong political statement!
"You threatened his life"
No, you don't seem to grasp this. I said I'd prefer to kill him than let him use nukes. To threaten him would require me saying I WAS going to do something, which I did not.
Which leads into...
"(And your weasily "It was conditional" doesn't make it ok, it makes you weasily.)"
Umm, no. Weasily would be if I said it, but then tried to say I didn't mean it. I do mean it.
If I say "I'd kill you if you broke into my house in the middle of the night" that's a conditional, but isn't actually a threat.
Trust me on this one, it's a statement of my willingness to defend myself in case of attack, not a desire to hunt you down and kill you. "You" is even implied as a generic.
Ditto with Bush. If he died tomorrow and Cheney replaced him, and decided to push the button, I'd want someone to shoot him before he did it.
I'm not backing down on my original statement. I'd prefer Bush gorily dead before I want him to attack innocent people, especially with a nuke which would kill many and introduce the likelihood of nuclear retaliation.
But, as long as he stays rational, then he's okay.
That is just like saying I'd shoot someone (Canadians are allowed guns, just not pistols, and Shotguns are the recommended home defense weapon anyways) for breaking into my house, but if they didn't break in, I wouldn't shoot them.
The conditional isn't a bad thing, it simply means that I'm capable of evaluating a situation and acting differently as it warrants. If you don't understand conditionals, you must react in the same way to everything that happens.
"Your answer spoke for itself."
Of course. That's why it was my answer.
Well, I'll assume you agree, because you are very willing to call me on things you don't agree with.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 2
Well, that's my feeling, and yours...
And I don't even think Dubya should be assasinated, unless he reaches for the big red button.
Actually, the people on here are over-reacting, it's *not* illegal, even in the USA, to express an opinion that the president should be killed, it's only illegal to threaten him...
The problem is that it's easy for the SS and the courts to interpret a joke or an opinion as a threat, and they're likely to drag you off and break knuckles to question you.
Well, as long as you don't threaten the president with DeCSS, the MPAA won't be after you as well, and they're the ones who really trample of civil rights and intrude into other counties. Well, them and Scientologists.
Hell, my parent post was already modded to -1, so I'll go all the way and say that scientologists are parasites anyways and should be dealt with as such.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'd think that for security you'd want to prevent any routine access to the cockpit. If terrorists simply booked the front row of seats (for leg room) and attacked as the pilot was walking through the door, they could gain access.
The idea of a remotely controlled door doesn't seem much different that having people use a code, it's a bit faster, but more error-prone. Six of one...
From the moment a plane pulls away from the airport, the pilots, imho, should be locked away from any passenger hijinks. And yes, this does mean all relief pilots would have to be in the cockpit all along, and they'd need a private washroom.
I think the idea of a plain-clothes air-marshall armed with frangible (will break into pieces instead of penetrating the cabin walls) would really help this... provided they were told that rescuing the whole plane is a priority, over saving individuals, so that they stayed hidden as long as there was a chance that things would end peacefully (to keep the terrorists from smoking him out and killing him.)
Heh, your responses would seem to indicate that you're right.
It does look like Bush wants a war, for various reasons, and the people are happy giving it to him.
I doubt there's a conspiracy in the music industry, but if these people are where they are because of business savy, I bet they're fairly good at reading the political climate and avoiding sensitive issues.
I still think you're a lot more likely to have issues if you allow people to rush the pilot when they think there's an error, than if you lock them off and only have to deal with the odd suicide pilot.
But there is a halfway measure...
Give both sides of the plane the ability to contact the ground. Have the door open to a code, which the air-traffic control can provide if they think the plane is being hijacked. I think removing the ability of passengers, hijackers or not, to storm the flight crew will be the correct response a vast majority of the times.
Yeesh, and you tried to call me for weasel words.
So far your stated opinion has been practically nonexistant, yet you berate me for both taking no actions and taking a strong stand on the issue.
No matter what you want to say, the smallest of NATO countries and complete US-vassal isn't going to come into Bush's consideration on this issue. I doubt your legislators could find Canada on a map, much less care for our support.
When Canada has nukes and threatens to launch them, then I might consider us directly responsible. Until then, it's all in Bush's hands. Anything else you say is just trying to cover your collective asses.
"Your country supports Bush in ways much more meaninful than I could ever do"
If my country supports Bush, then at best (assuming he cares what we say) it still puts me twice as far from anyone noticing what I say, as you are. Quit berating me and do something yourself.
"And remember, if you want to make a difference, it'll take something stronger than words."
Yes, if I was to have a hope of changing Bush's mind, it would.
I'm pretty sure the only thing that'll get through to him is another attack like this. For which he'll doubtlessly retaliate and stir up even more anti-US sentiment, endlessly.
"You get all the advantages of the policy, AND the ablility to act righteous and pissed off."
Ahhh, gotcha. Your country rapes and pillages, then tosses us some scraps. For that, we're as guilty, moreso in fact, you seem to think.
"And on an issue which you feel so strongly about that you broke a law of a different country and threatened assassination!"
Oh, yawn. If I go to Amsterdam and smoke pot, are you going to say I broke the US's laws? Really, the point is moot, even if I did do something which might have violated your laws if I were in the US, I'm not.
Might have, I say, because no matter how you slice it, I didn't say I'd kill Bush. Technically, I just said the only support he'd get would be full-metal jacketed, which doesn't preclude him not getting any support at all. But, ignoring any technicalities, my support for his downfall is conditional on his acting like a rabid animal and using weapons of mass destruction.
Remember this, a conditional threat isn't a threat unless the conditional is met.
Bah, nevermind.
You'll never accept an iota of responsibility, while trying to blame me and everyone else except your president.
Go off to your pep rally now. I'm sure the president needs your support, after all, genocide is really tiring.
My government has a slightly better track record at listening to citizens than yours, and I still don't see that the opinions of NATO countries matters much to Bush, he's not very bright, a jingoist war-monger, and prone to snap-decisions.
As long as my country doesn't prepare to use nukes, why would I take action against them?
"You certainly had a proposal on how to deal with Bush. Have you considered threatening your own government instead?"
That's like saying "You were prepared to fight the Nazis, why not kill some aid-workers?"
Bush is the one with the button, Bush should be the target of those who wish to stop the potential use of nukes.
"Trust me, my current opposition as an individual to nukes REALLY won't change anything."
That's why I think removing Bush is a valid solution, if he looks likely to do something really stupid.
As yet another protester, he'd ignore you. The guy basically cheated his way into office, your fellow countrymen don't mean anything to him unless you're rich. If you want to make a difference, it'll take something stronger than words.
I know you won't do anything, but it's funny hearing how you're so against nukes, yet you support Bush, and wouldn't do anything to him even if he announced a plan to use them.
There's a reason that much of the world associates US citizens with their government's foreign policy. It's really easy for you to speak again it, as long as that doesn't involve actually doing anything. As long as you accept that, you'll be a target for every two-bit religious nutcase with an axe to grind, and somewhat, rightly so.
"Hijackers in the cockpit"
The comments about preventing the passengers from rushing the cockpit is silly.
For starters, how is anyone going to know? Do you want people to rush the cockpit anytime an airplane has been ordered to circle the airport before landing?
Then, what's the chance that in 300 passengers, who are barely screened, that you'll get a terrorist. Compare that to the chance that the carefully screened pilot will be, and that either the rest of the cockpit crew will be, or that he can overwhelm them.
You can't rule out the flight crew going crazy, but the odds are much lower.
Besides, any provision for the crew removing a terrorist pilot would also allow for the terrorists in the crew to remove the rightful pilot.
A steel door may have some flaws, and not prevent all problems, but I don't see how it prevents other security measures.
I think you're both half right...
I don't think any airline pilot will ever voluntarily hand over controls to the aircraft, regardless of what's happening to passengers, or what threats/promises are made. The possible consequences are way too ghastly.
But, I think those pilots will bargain with the terrorists, offering to fly to a specific airport, or communicate with negotiators on the ground.
You can't pass up the possibility that the terrorist might not want to kill everyone, but the risk of thousands dead means you can't take any chances.
Instead of seeing the attack as a Pearl Harbour, why not see it as a Titanic.
It would be deadly stupid, bordering on criminal, to build anymore building that couldn't be totally evacuated in an emergency in under five minutes.
I don't think that I implied athiesm is belief in nothing, I said it was the freedom from religion.
IMHO, religion entails a belief in a higher power, and belief in a higher power is a religion (of one, perhaps).
I don't see anything about athiesm that precludes a variety of views in other areas.
It's not flamebait, it's an opinion. Way to call for censorship.
"You can't prevent parents from talking to their kids about religion."
I didn't claim to be able to.
But the fact that it's impossible to totally stop pedophila and child abuse doesn't mean we don't try.
"So I can see that a religious parent might feel angry if they were forced to bring up their child an atheist or an agnostic."
Yup. And I'm sure a molestor would be upset that he couldn't indulge.
As an aside, you don't "bring a child up athiest", you simply don't bring them up religious and they end up athiest. Athiesm isn't a codified set of beliefs, it's the freedom from religion.
"To people with strong views on religion, there are no 'neutral' positions."
True, but why are the views of an adult more important that the safety of a child?
Yeah, it is. If I was king for a day ...
I think the age of majority should be based on compotency, and privellage should come with responsibility.
If someone can be sent to war, it's criminal if they can't also vote, drink, etc.
And we all know at least one 16-year old who is more mature than many 30-year olds. Why should they be given less responsibility?
But, in the absence of a better system, and instead of explaining my views on the current one, I thought I'd suggest the use of the system in place. Its replacement, while important, isn't a necessary part of the reform I suggested.
"'Stand against them' and 'assassinate' are very different things for those of us who don't think in black & white."
Nukes are a somewhat black & white thing, they deserve stronger reactions than economic sanctions do.
"What actions are you taking, right now, to prevent that? Are you unwilling to stand against your own country's activities?"
I don't think that if Canada totally opposed the US's use of nukes, that it would really change anything.
I try to make a difference, but there's not a lot I can do other than try to influence people's opinions and hope that it spreads to people who can stop Bush from making a big mistake.
I however am not blindly supportive of someone until the make a fatal mistake, I set limits and what I'm willing to have done in my name, and even if I'm powerless to stop it, I'll let it be known that I do not support it.
Islam, like all religions, seeks to push something distasteful and potentially dangerous on children too young to know any better.
Sounds in many ways like pedophilia...
Religion should be dealt with like sex, perfectly allowable for anyone to do anything they want, as long as it is consented to by all participants, and those participants are over the age of minority.
You sound a little ignorant...
The US armed forces were badly integrated. There are a lot of problems, women can't share facilities, so they get private areas. This leads to 5-10 women having an area meant for 50, and other injustices.
Similarly, the "equal" women aren't assigned a lot of the tough or dangerous jobs.
This leads to resentment, the men do harder work, and have less perks.
But, the worst part of this is that the women who are pulling their weight never get credit for it, because there are so many who coast by with cushy jobs and quarters.
US society isn't terribly equal in many ways this means that proper armed-forces integration will have a ton of problems.
It's not the fault of the women, and honestly, most of them probably are doing their best, but it really has gone downhill since integration.
I've seen a few firewire drive enclosures that run IDE HDs, one-per controller, so they're all masters, and all seperated from everything else.
They're pretty zippy, and because the drive is 3rd-party, you can put in the fastest drive you can find.
The same drives released as SCSI could be released as Firewire, the same as they could release them as IDE. The reason they don't, more than performance, if that people with SCSI systems will pay a premium.
It's like hardcover/paperback. Some people will pay anything to have 'it' right now.
Ouch. But thanks. Yeah, I did flub a bit there.
:)
"instead of 99% of them being false, it's more likely that 100% are false"
Right, if they aren't linked, the probability isn't either. Like if you flip 99 heads, the next one is no more likely to be heads, or tails, than the first.
Of course, this assumes an unbiased coin. And I was tying to say that but it didn't come out right. If all religions you have examined are flawed, then it might be worth seeing if they are linked. Such as checking a coin producing 99 heads, before accepting it as a statistical longshot.
"it is a disservice to automatically presume otherwise."
Yes, bad again. I was seeing in Code Shark the echos of everyone similar I'd talked to, and did attribute to him things which may not be accurate.
"But, remove the 'for which there is no direct evidence' statement. If there is direct evidence, it does not negate the burden of proof - just simplifies/minimizes it."
Good point.
"I think you have just missed the mark. One inconsistency proves that there are errors."
Well, I was trying to show that it's easy to prove there's a problem with the statments "God is omnipotent" and "God directed the creation of the bible". But, I realize that only some sects believe the later.
But, if the two statements were linked "God is omnipotent and directed the writing of the bible" would a single error not disprove that?
The root of a lot of my problems with it is that I didn't want to just say "No, YOU prove that he exists", I wanted to explain why it fell upon him to do so. Oh well, lofty intentions...
"Reading this, I am ashamed I did not state this in any of my posts above this. WELL SAID!!!"
Thank you. I'm just annoyed I didn't think of such a concise summary years ago.
"I cannot imagine where I ever got the idea that things might turn into a shouting match. Oh wait, it's the unceasing use of ad hominem attacks rather than actual debate!"
When I attack you as an inbred, twinkie-eater, it's not debate. I know that. It's my way of having fun at your expense. Anyone who opens by calling me a fuckwad should expect nothing less.
The debate is where I explain what I believe and spell out my reasons. Note the lack of "fuckwad" when I do so.
"The fact that you keep attempting to cast me as supporting nukes is vexing, also."
"And remember, in your response, I do not support nukes in this situation, stop acting and arguing as if I do!"
The whole point of this is that if you support a politician in their (possible) use of nukes, or are unwilling to stand against them, then you might as well support nukes.
Any blanket statement that you support Bush is tantamount to supporting any actions he might take.
"but I do know that as a country, we have gone out of our way to NOT assassinate leaders of other countries."
I know. And you (as a country) have gone out of your way to destroy armies of conscripts, just to save the life of one leader who often only holds power through direct threat of violence.
"So until Canada declares war on the US, your comments must be taken as threats of assassination."
Now who's using the weasel words. Listen, if killing one nut-job would save them from nuking innocents, I don't care if you call it an act of war or an act of cabbage, it's still justified.
"If using deadly force against innocents was likely to result in fewer total civilian casualties in the end, would you do it?"
Depends. And honestly, it does.
"If using force against innocents in a different country which would result in 100,000 deaths would likely save 100,000 civilian casualities in your own country, would you do it?"
I have no special love for citizens of my country over those of another, but depending on circumstance, I might weigh the "innocence" of both sides.
Now, this assumes there's a war going on, or something like that. And for the hell of it, I'll use Afghanistan and the USA for an example.
If the citizens actively hate and are trying to get rid of their government, yet are unable, like those of Afghanistan, I might give them more weight.
If the citizens of the USA are backing a leader who was bent on genocide, I wouldn't give them as much weight.
Now, honestly, I don't think the average US citizen would support violent reprisals on a civilian population, and I hope the government isn't planning it. I hope that most people would fight their own country, if needed, to stop that kind of travesty.
So I probably wouldn't trade one group of people for another, unless the numbers were overwhelming, or one of those groups seemed less than innocent.
This comes back to my complete disregard for the sanctity of leaders. If one person could be killed, to stop their violence towards many, I think it would be justified.
If Osama had a button he was about to press to set off a nuke in an American city, I'd support having someone blow him away. But I can't very well hold that opinion without supporting the same consequences for the same crime, if someone else were the perpetrator.
"No, I just realized there's no way I'm ever going to convince you otherwise."
Of course not, you never even said why you disagree. And the point of discussion (at least for most people) isn't to brow-beat someone into their point of view, but to explain why another viewpoint makes sense.
Your picture indicates though that you can't imagine anything other than a shouting match to determine who was right.
If you'll notice, I took time to explain something when asked, you on the other hand didn't. Likely because you haven't actually examined what you believe and why, probably because you were simply told what to believe and you've never questioned it.
Tis okay. Don't bother with any more cute pictures, or excuses.
"that's EXACTLY the argument I'd use."
Then you'd be clueless. There's no way the deaths of thousands warrant the deaths of hundreds of thousands, or than one innocent dying justifies killing other innocents.
Not that I'm saying you wouldn't use the argument, or even that you wouldn't sway a bunch of droolers with it, but it wouldn't be a rational argument.
Now it's pretty clear why you never explain your opinions. If you can't, don't. But don't waste time by making up excuses for it.
Heh, I'm not saying I'm always consistent, but honestly, the programming thing is why I use more parens than I need.
And yeah, usually only USians call themselves American, but it's sort of a shame because it's not terribly accurate.
I guess it's fairly clear why, I used USian, you used "citizen of the USA", neither sounds very clear or easy to say.
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you.
:)
"I agree that religion is [so far] unprovable [...] creation, etc"
Well, yes. The actual fact that religion exists (that people believe it, and such) is a given.
But, the faith bits, like god... Not only is god unprovable, but untestable. It's not like someone will say "My god will produce miracle X if I do Y" and then attempt Y, so there's no way you can do a test for god.
"I don't think science has done a good enough job proving anything that I am likely to change my mind."
Well, that's kinda the crux of it. Has religion proved anything either, or does it just claim to have the answer?
The fact that science is a process by which you prove things and I can follow the process, proving for myself, leads me to support most scientific discoveries.
To me "science" (scientists, researchers, the scientific method, etc) has done an excellent job of proving things, such that I am very likely to re-examine my beliefs if I find them contrary to established scientific wisdom.
Now sure, "science" doesn't claim to have an answer to the question of "what was first", it's only attempting to answer "what was before the bits we know" over and over, going farther back. Because of this, it can't claim to have the ultimate answer.
Even when (if) a unified-theory is presented and accepted, it won't provide all answers to all questions, merely a toolbox for figuring them out.
For example, Intel's pentium data-sheets in the mid 90s described exactly how the chip worked (unified theory) but nowhere in those documents did they describe Quake... (My generation uses lame game analogies instead of sports analogies.
If you need "the ultimate answer", you have to turn to something unproven, like religion. The only question is if you need someone's unproven answer to the ultimate questions, or if you're content to go through life knowing that some things aren't answered.
"I'm not sure anyone is raised "entirely without religion." What I mean is -- to me "religion" is more like "tradition" if you catch my drift."
Sort of. Even though tradtion, to me, means authentic meals, songs, etc.
Religion is the specific set of beliefs that deal with morality/death/afterlife and can't be proven, or explained in an earthly context. (For example, I don't believe people should kill, not because God says not to, but because it's a nasty thing to take something (life) from someone else, and it also doesn't produce a stable society if everyone does it. I don't need a religion to explain why I don't run around killing and cheating, etc)
"I didn't even set foot in a church until I was 15,"
I was in one fairly often, with friends, grandparents, etc.
"my Dad explained that the lure of churches can be in the activities for kids. At the time I took it as a warning to be careful."
Mine said a bit more "Don't believe everything you hear", but he didn't just say it in a church context.
"Because I have a relationship with God I do indeed have a different perspective on death than you."
Heh, I'm sure.
But, doesn't it bug you to be told something ("god exists") and yet be told that while there isn't any proof, you had better just accept it?
"and therefore it really is OVER for them."
That's what I feel for everyone who died.
"And I'm praying that the world might understand that God is in control of what ultimately happens to all of us."
What would lead us to that belief though?
Understand that your words inherently carry no more weight than those of someone from a conflicting religion, or perhaps those of an athiest.
You're the only person I believe when they say they found religion as an adult, many people say it, but upon examination, were raised religious, waffled a bit, and came back.
Can you see the connection, in my eyes, between telling your children about religion as if it exists, and them not questioning it?
I don't really have a problem with spirituality (which I define as individual religion) if a person decides it's okay, on their own. My issue with it is when people raise their kids without a choice, and bring them into a controlling organization with a hierarchy of often corrupt people.
If religion is your way of getting through the day, well it's odd imho, but better than friends of mine who use vodka, so I can accept it.
But when some pope|priest|etc starts handing down orders, that's when it starts looking like a cult, and when parents raise their children in this apparant cult, it starts to look like brain washing.
So my problem isn't religion, it's the way people use religion.
Obviously for no decent reason.
Just remember, if you sit passively by, or worse, actively support him, and he does something really stupid, you bear some of the responsibility for that.
Also the idea is that extreme actions justify extreme responses. If he threatens to kill millions, he should be removed in any way possible. If he simply wants to carpet bomb a few camps without seeing if they're full of the guilty people, maybe it only justifies a few political demonstrations, etc. All actions in the proper context.
Do they change the meaning of the expression?
/2, or something, and it's easier to not have to go back and add something at each end later.
Actually, I tend to over-use parens because I program and you might want to toss a modifier on the end of that, such as
But, that asside, I don't think Americans are stupid. I just think that some (most?) Americans now have the stupid idea of rallying behind Bush, regardless of what he does. I think now, more than ever, you need to examine what he's doing.
On Monday, people would have bitched like crazy about Carnivore, on Wednesday they rolled over and accepted it... What's next?
btw, are you a South American perhaps? From Brazil maybe? Or did you mean US-American?
Well, I think you can do things in any language that make it harder to read, regardless of the skill of the developer.
:)
For instance, put a space around entire concepts
Instead of "x/y+r^2" do "x/y + r^2", it's like using paragraph breaks in english text.
And then there's regexps, they're built on small parts, but when you get into something complicated (like removing c++ and c style remarks, in the same expression) it starts to look at little greek. This is, imho, because the same series of characters, in a slightly different order, can mean something else.
Like how [abc^] is a|b|c, but [^abc] is !(a|b|c). Combine that with a really long expression, especially when you're using $1 type reference to things you already found.. Ugh.
(\/\/|\/*) Really, what does that do?
But, that can be aided incredibly by how you write it as well, especially with the x (?) flag, to let you use whitespace (in Perl, at any rate).
Anyways, a bit OT, but I needed to gripe.
I insulted everyone who called for me to be reported to the secret service, as if my simply preferring Bush dead, to a bunch of innocent Afghanis dead, was some huge threat to national security. It's pathetic, "use some law to shut him up, he said something I didn't want to hear!"
...
"most of us in this thread DO NOT support nuclear force"
If you're not willing to stop it, then your statement against it is a little empty. You mean, you might vote against him next time if he uses nukes? Wow! What a strong political statement!
"You threatened his life"
No, you don't seem to grasp this. I said I'd prefer to kill him than let him use nukes. To threaten him would require me saying I WAS going to do something, which I did not.
Which leads into
"(And your weasily "It was conditional" doesn't make it ok, it makes you weasily.)"
Umm, no. Weasily would be if I said it, but then tried to say I didn't mean it. I do mean it.
If I say "I'd kill you if you broke into my house in the middle of the night" that's a conditional, but isn't actually a threat.
Trust me on this one, it's a statement of my willingness to defend myself in case of attack, not a desire to hunt you down and kill you. "You" is even implied as a generic.
Ditto with Bush. If he died tomorrow and Cheney replaced him, and decided to push the button, I'd want someone to shoot him before he did it.
I'm not backing down on my original statement. I'd prefer Bush gorily dead before I want him to attack innocent people, especially with a nuke which would kill many and introduce the likelihood of nuclear retaliation.
But, as long as he stays rational, then he's okay.
That is just like saying I'd shoot someone (Canadians are allowed guns, just not pistols, and Shotguns are the recommended home defense weapon anyways) for breaking into my house, but if they didn't break in, I wouldn't shoot them.
The conditional isn't a bad thing, it simply means that I'm capable of evaluating a situation and acting differently as it warrants. If you don't understand conditionals, you must react in the same way to everything that happens.
"Your answer spoke for itself."
Of course. That's why it was my answer.
Well, I'll assume you agree, because you are very willing to call me on things you don't agree with.
Well, that's my feeling, and yours...
And I don't even think Dubya should be assasinated, unless he reaches for the big red button.
Actually, the people on here are over-reacting, it's *not* illegal, even in the USA, to express an opinion that the president should be killed, it's only illegal to threaten him...
The problem is that it's easy for the SS and the courts to interpret a joke or an opinion as a threat, and they're likely to drag you off and break knuckles to question you.
Well, as long as you don't threaten the president with DeCSS, the MPAA won't be after you as well, and they're the ones who really trample of civil rights and intrude into other counties. Well, them and Scientologists.
Hell, my parent post was already modded to -1, so I'll go all the way and say that scientologists are parasites anyways and should be dealt with as such.