It's rather sad that you get modded as a troll for pointing out the fact that the Government (both state, federal and local) makes more off of a gallon of gas than the oil companies do.
It's just to politically convenient to blame them for 'obscene profits' (can I get a definition of 'obscene profits' from someone other than "I'll know it when I see it"? because their profit margin is quite low compared to most other goods people buy) when due to governmental restrictions on drilling (that in effect allow China to drill closer off of the Florida coast (at the invitation of Cuba) than US companies)... the American oil companies have largely been reduced to scapegoated haulers of oil from foreign nations.
When you throw Buddhists and Quakers and the Amish, or even the Mormons, into the "I support genocide!" boat, you've actually lost touch with reality. At least saying "Catholics" is excusable because you can go "zomg crusades".
I must admit that I throw them in deliberately just in case someone makes an argument such as yours (can you tell I've had this argument before?).
I'd be careful throwing Mormons into that exclusionary group though as there is always the Mountain Meadows massacre to consider and while not widely known (despite the movie September Dawn) does fall into the category of members of a faith committing violent acts in the name of their faith which I am talking about.
Yes... there are always the Crusades to point the finger at... but lest start with your example... should the Mormon faith still be blamed for the Mountain Meadows massacre? Maybe... but for how long? They haven't exactly been repeat offenders have they?
Nor have the Catholics exactly tried to reclaim the holy land (in response to previous Muslim incursions and violence I might add) lately... nor have they blown themselves up on busses nor hijacked airliners.
In the case of both the Catholics and the Mormons... the majority of their violence is behind them in the past and they have moved beyond it and worked very hard to try not to go down such a path again.
Yes... an argument can be made for the IRA of not that long ago... and I don't want to sound like I am diminishing them or the horrors they unleashed... but they were a small, isolated group in an isolated geographical location... those acting in the name of Islam and either successfully carrying out successful attacks or being stopped before they can make good on their plans tend to come from anywhere in the world and with a wide range of backgrounds and experiences.
To simply say X has done Y in the past is a pointless argument as you are unlikely to find any person or any group (especially one that is fairly easy to join) with a spotless past... instead you need to judge them on their more recent history and how they and their members act today... as well as how the group responds if persons claiming to be members of it commit horrible acts in their name.
Strangely enough... we don't see similar numbers of attacks from Catholics, Buddhists, Mormons, Quakers, Amish, Jews, Zoroastrians or even Atheists.
No, those groups seem to prefer acts of genocide accomplished with organized armies. Much more civil, clearly. And much more peaceful, too. Oh, how much those savage Muslims have yet to learn.
That might be a valid point if we were talking about extended history... say over the last 1000 years or 2... but then the Zoroastrians haven't exactly been involved in much genocide or mass murder... nor have members of other faiths been explicitly acting in the name of their faith to kill in the same numbers as people claiming to be Muslims... especially in recent memory.
More so... of those groups who you have accused of such acts... notice something? They aren't acting that way today are they? Sure there are a few minor bad apples (the same can be said for any group of sufficient size)... they are not however acting in such numbers which is the key here... nor is there an overriding pattern which can be seen for hundreds of years...take the Barbary Pirates for one quick example.
If you'd really like to count... I'd take a look at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ a site that actually has a running count of the number of terror attacks world wide since 9/11... as of the writing of this post we are at 11,140.
And how do we define a terror attack? Is it when you cluster bomb urban areas? Is it dropping nuclear bombs? Supporting brutal paramilitaries? Blockading food and medicine transports?
"Nyeh, the US is the biggest purveyor of terrorism in history. I know you want to say it, so why don't you?"
Even if you don't believe the above assumed quote... you have little understanding of warfare do you?
Terrorism is generally defined as a violent act committed by non-state actors against other either state actors, non-state actors or the state itself to try to coerce by terror.
What's the difference between that and oh say... dropping a nuclear bomb or other emotional charges you make?
Simple... the desired outcome and the method of achieving it.
It has long been a convention of warfare that explicitly targeting civilian populations violates the rules of warfare... in fact such a deliberate act is even considered a war crime... why then is it acceptable to drop bombs on a civilian center? Historically it's been done to eliminate targets of interest that the opposition has located there (weapon stockpiles, factories, etc). Do note that hiding behind civilians is also considered a war crime.
Believe it or not the US has a long history of doing so (don't bother trying to come up with a single example in an attempt to disprove the rule (exceptions always unfortunately exist); I am speaking in generalities of history and warfare and not absolute rules.
In this current war the enemy has made it a point to explicitly target civilians for no other purpose but to injur/kil them.
See the difference yet?
Of course not... you are so angry with the United States and it's policies that you are more keen to blame it and it's allies for crimes you perceive long ago than look at the state of the world today and see that while the United States has changed and left many of it's (algid) sins in the past... the enemy continues to be as barbaric as they have historically been.
In fact, why only count terror attacks? Surely all violent attacks should be tallied to see which religion produces most violence in this world.
Again you try to change the topic... if you want to run a tally based on violence from members of various religions denominations, by all means... do please use the measure I described in my first post... acts explicitly committed in the name of their religion.
I don't think anyone is denying the Oklahoma City bombing or any other terrorist attack (or attempted terrorist attack that was committed by non-Muslims... what you're forgetting is that there is a great number of attacks that are committed by Muslims who claim to be doing so in the name of their religion.
Strangely enough... we don't see similar numbers of attacks from Catholics, Buddhists, Mormons, Quakers, Amish, Jews, Zoroastrians or even Atheists.
If you'd really like to count... I'd take a look at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ a site that actually has a running count of the number of terror attacks world wide since 9/11... as of the writing of this post we are at 11,140... remind what group of people have recently used children or the mentally retarded as suicide bombers? Oh that that's right... those damn Catholics... no wait...
And remember... none of this discounts the fact that the vast vast vast majority of Muslims out there are peaceful... it only means that a terrorist act is more likely to be committed by one of them and no amount of crying from the ACLU, CAIR or even you is going to change that... only the members of Islam can do that for them by changing the way they preach and practice their faith as a group.
You are wrong... if that was true you'd think any built in app (all of which are signed) would be elevated automatically.
Instead signing the binary changes the prompt to say that the program is at least from a verified publisher... but still leaves it to you to decide if you want to elevate or not.
If you think it a hypocritical stance or a double standard you don't understand the standard very well.
Lets consider a simpler example... I am a gun owner who is very pro-gun and support the second amendment... does that mean I'm a hypocrite because I am all for the barring of certain people from legally owning firearms?
In this country we limit the rights of certain people... such as minors and felons, people who we as an ordered society have deemed either not yet mature enough to handle the responsibility or have shown themselves to be irresponsible through the commission (and conviction) of a very serious crime.
The same thing is seen when the United States (and others) try to stop other countries from developing/processing nuclear weapons. We don't do it arbitrarily and say "Nyeh, we want to be the only ones with the bomb"... instead we do it to generally unstable nations who are less likely to act responsibly with it.
> the supreme court is also the branch that has abused its power the least
Really? You should double check the Constitution with regards to the enumerated powers (you know, what the 10th amendment discusses) of SCOTUS... in fact they are the ones (not the constitution) that declared themselves the supreme arbiter of the constitution (see Marbury v. Madison).
Technically speaking... the scope of power SCOTUS has is in of itself unconstitutional... problem is that as things have evolved... in order to change things back... we'd either need a SCOTUS ruling (of them giving up their power) or a constitutional amendment... which could still in theory be ignored by them (see cases of how they have ignored the 10th amendment).
Funny... that's just what Apple was thinking in the mid to late 90's when Macs were most of what you saw in schools... what happend? Those folks ended up using PCs once they went on to college and real jobs.
Seriously... how long do you expect them to the language? The majority of VB6 application issues on modern OSes has less to do with the underlying OS and more to do with the way the application is written... same kind of issue we now see with UAC gripes in Windows Vista. Had the software been written properly in the first place (ie not requiring administrative permissions), many of the pains seen today would not be present.
More so anytime the playing field changes... tools and technologies have to change as well.
Can't install VB6 on Windows Vista? So throw it in a virtual machine. Despite the great backwards compatibility in newer versions of Windows... sometimes old apps just don't work and there are plenty of options that enable you to use the application.
Sure... a VM may not be ideal... but then it is far more so than VB6.
Then again there is a simple rule most software developers forget... YOU DON'T HAVE TO UPGRADE! So your tools only support NT4 but your want/need to run your core OS and other apps on Vista? Fine, virtualizes it!
Your argument is like saying "If you've ever read a book you can never write another book on a related subject as your insights would be contaminated by the earlier reads or through outright copies."
"Nyeh, it.s not an original movie/song... they could have copied from this previous work that was similar. They shouldn't have made their own."
The issue of copying of code or misappropriating of IP is as old as both have been around... and is generally only relevant in very specific cases such as non-compete agreements and when a person has an extraordinary in-depth understanding of said IP, code or business practices.
Setup a virtual machine using whatever VM software you prefer, and then setup a script or other mechanism to whip out the existing VM and reload it from a hidden copy every interval so that if someone does screw something up... you just reload and boom, they are back.
Just make sure that your VM supports being run in full screen mode.
More than that really as they aren't giving you the code outright, they need to offer (in writing) to give it to you if you ask... from the sounds of it neither is happening here.
I thought it was an indicator of the paranoia of the content holders that refuse to let their pretties be broadcast in hi-def without some degree of onerous protection.
> What we're opposed to are the draconian enforcement and perpetual lengthening of copyright expiration.
Have you ever stop to consider when software covered under the GPL will actually become public domain and no longer be bound by the terms of the GPL?
Like it are not, all those extensions that benefit the (MP|RI)AA also end up benefiting the open source world as well, only the benefits to FOSS will be a little later in coming in theory.
Likely that will be part of the appeal... which remember hasn't even begun yet.
The sole reason the commutation happened when it did was because the court was not willing to delay the beginning of the jail time until after the appeal process had begun (not an unusual request). Had they been more willing, we likely would still see the full sentence in effect.
> That if it's a serious enough crime to impeach a couple Presidents, then it's a serious enough crime for Libby to do his time.
You are using two different standards, one criminal, one civil. Not to mention by that standard, Libby was treated similarly to both former presidents in that he risked losing his job and eventually did through his voluntary resignation.
Now then... on the criminal side of things... lets not forget that neither Clinton nor Nixon were ever criminally charged with perjury... however Clinton was charged with concept of court when he was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit (a form perjury) not two months after his acquittal by the Senate...... and as a result he lost his law license for 5 years, suspended from the SCOTUS bar, and paid a $90,000 fine... in a plea deal.
> allows him to continue to lie to protect Cheney and Bush.
Really? And here I thought it was Richard Armitage who had given the name, something that had been known from very early on and yet he was never charged with the release of her name... why? Because it wasn't illegal.
So... what lies are you claiming that Libby is engaging in to protect the POTUS and VPOTUS?
IIRC some Dells actually had the EULA in hardware, requiring your agreement during POST, effectively making it impossible for you to install another OS without agreeing.
Slashdot Mirror
It's rather sad that you get modded as a troll for pointing out the fact that the Government (both state, federal and local) makes more off of a gallon of gas than the oil companies do.
It's just to politically convenient to blame them for 'obscene profits' (can I get a definition of 'obscene profits' from someone other than "I'll know it when I see it"? because their profit margin is quite low compared to most other goods people buy) when due to governmental restrictions on drilling (that in effect allow China to drill closer off of the Florida coast (at the invitation of Cuba) than US companies)... the American oil companies have largely been reduced to scapegoated haulers of oil from foreign nations.
I must admit that I throw them in deliberately just in case someone makes an argument such as yours (can you tell I've had this argument before?).
I'd be careful throwing Mormons into that exclusionary group though as there is always the Mountain Meadows massacre to consider and while not widely known (despite the movie September Dawn) does fall into the category of members of a faith committing violent acts in the name of their faith which I am talking about.
Yes... there are always the Crusades to point the finger at... but lest start with your example... should the Mormon faith still be blamed for the Mountain Meadows massacre? Maybe... but for how long? They haven't exactly been repeat offenders have they?
Nor have the Catholics exactly tried to reclaim the holy land (in response to previous Muslim incursions and violence I might add) lately... nor have they blown themselves up on busses nor hijacked airliners.
In the case of both the Catholics and the Mormons... the majority of their violence is behind them in the past and they have moved beyond it and worked very hard to try not to go down such a path again.
Yes... an argument can be made for the IRA of not that long ago... and I don't want to sound like I am diminishing them or the horrors they unleashed... but they were a small, isolated group in an isolated geographical location... those acting in the name of Islam and either successfully carrying out successful attacks or being stopped before they can make good on their plans tend to come from anywhere in the world and with a wide range of backgrounds and experiences.
To simply say X has done Y in the past is a pointless argument as you are unlikely to find any person or any group (especially one that is fairly easy to join) with a spotless past... instead you need to judge them on their more recent history and how they and their members act today... as well as how the group responds if persons claiming to be members of it commit horrible acts in their name.
That might be a valid point if we were talking about extended history... say over the last 1000 years or 2... but then the Zoroastrians haven't exactly been involved in much genocide or mass murder... nor have members of other faiths been explicitly acting in the name of their faith to kill in the same numbers as people claiming to be Muslims... especially in recent memory.
More so... of those groups who you have accused of such acts... notice something? They aren't acting that way today are they? Sure there are a few minor bad apples (the same can be said for any group of sufficient size)... they are not however acting in such numbers which is the key here... nor is there an overriding pattern which can be seen for hundreds of years...take the Barbary Pirates for one quick example.
"Nyeh, the US is the biggest purveyor of terrorism in history. I know you want to say it, so why don't you?"
Even if you don't believe the above assumed quote... you have little understanding of warfare do you?
Terrorism is generally defined as a violent act committed by non-state actors against other either state actors, non-state actors or the state itself to try to coerce by terror.
What's the difference between that and oh say... dropping a nuclear bomb or other emotional charges you make?
Simple... the desired outcome and the method of achieving it.
It has long been a convention of warfare that explicitly targeting civilian populations violates the rules of warfare... in fact such a deliberate act is even considered a war crime... why then is it acceptable to drop bombs on a civilian center? Historically it's been done to eliminate targets of interest that the opposition has located there (weapon stockpiles, factories, etc). Do note that hiding behind civilians is also considered a war crime.
Believe it or not the US has a long history of doing so (don't bother trying to come up with a single example in an attempt to disprove the rule (exceptions always unfortunately exist); I am speaking in generalities of history and warfare and not absolute rules.
In this current war the enemy has made it a point to explicitly target civilians for no other purpose but to injur/kil them.
See the difference yet?
Of course not... you are so angry with the United States and it's policies that you are more keen to blame it and it's allies for crimes you perceive long ago than look at the state of the world today and see that while the United States has changed and left many of it's (algid) sins in the past... the enemy continues to be as barbaric as they have historically been.
Again you try to change the topic... if you want to run a tally based on violence from members of various religions denominations, by all means... do please use the measure I described in my first post... acts explicitly committed in the name of their religion.
I don't think anyone is denying the Oklahoma City bombing or any other terrorist attack (or attempted terrorist attack that was committed by non-Muslims... what you're forgetting is that there is a great number of attacks that are committed by Muslims who claim to be doing so in the name of their religion.
Strangely enough... we don't see similar numbers of attacks from Catholics, Buddhists, Mormons, Quakers, Amish, Jews, Zoroastrians or even Atheists.
Why is that do you think?
Funny you mentioned the DC Sniper case... forget the leaders name have we? John Allen Muhammad. Just another lone Muslim killer eh? Seems to be a whole lot of them: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/07/31/myth-of-the-lone-muslim-killer/
If you'd really like to count... I'd take a look at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ a site that actually has a running count of the number of terror attacks world wide since 9/11... as of the writing of this post we are at 11,140... remind what group of people have recently used children or the mentally retarded as suicide bombers? Oh that that's right... those damn Catholics... no wait...
And remember... none of this discounts the fact that the vast vast vast majority of Muslims out there are peaceful... it only means that a terrorist act is more likely to be committed by one of them and no amount of crying from the ACLU, CAIR or even you is going to change that... only the members of Islam can do that for them by changing the way they preach and practice their faith as a group.
My /. has a short memory... this was exactly what the old 2600 case over DeCSS was about.
Just to name a few off the top of my search results:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020445.php
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22835_Jawa_Report_Video_Censored_by_YouTube&only
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/06/youtube-goes-dhimmi-part-two/
> Because conformity is a very hard thing to overcome.
I think you picked the wrong word there... compatibility, not conformity is what people want.
You are wrong... if that was true you'd think any built in app (all of which are signed) would be elevated automatically.
Instead signing the binary changes the prompt to say that the program is at least from a verified publisher... but still leaves it to you to decide if you want to elevate or not.
For more info on the kinds of UAC prompts that exists see: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/25/accessible-uac-prompts.aspx
If you think it a hypocritical stance or a double standard you don't understand the standard very well.
Lets consider a simpler example... I am a gun owner who is very pro-gun and support the second amendment... does that mean I'm a hypocrite because I am all for the barring of certain people from legally owning firearms?
In this country we limit the rights of certain people... such as minors and felons, people who we as an ordered society have deemed either not yet mature enough to handle the responsibility or have shown themselves to be irresponsible through the commission (and conviction) of a very serious crime.
The same thing is seen when the United States (and others) try to stop other countries from developing/processing nuclear weapons. We don't do it arbitrarily and say "Nyeh, we want to be the only ones with the bomb"... instead we do it to generally unstable nations who are less likely to act responsibly with it.
> the supreme court is also the branch that has abused its power the least
Really? You should double check the Constitution with regards to the enumerated powers (you know, what the 10th amendment discusses) of SCOTUS... in fact they are the ones (not the constitution) that declared themselves the supreme arbiter of the constitution (see Marbury v. Madison).
Technically speaking... the scope of power SCOTUS has is in of itself unconstitutional... problem is that as things have evolved... in order to change things back... we'd either need a SCOTUS ruling (of them giving up their power) or a constitutional amendment... which could still in theory be ignored by them (see cases of how they have ignored the 10th amendment).
Funny... that's just what Apple was thinking in the mid to late 90's when Macs were most of what you saw in schools... what happend? Those folks ended up using PCs once they went on to college and real jobs.
Seriously... how long do you expect them to the language?
The majority of VB6 application issues on modern OSes has less to do with the underlying OS and more to do with the way the application is written... same kind of issue we now see with UAC gripes in Windows Vista. Had the software been written properly in the first place (ie not requiring administrative permissions), many of the pains seen today would not be present.
More so anytime the playing field changes... tools and technologies have to change as well.
Can't install VB6 on Windows Vista? So throw it in a virtual machine. Despite the great backwards compatibility in newer versions of Windows... sometimes old apps just don't work and there are plenty of options that enable you to use the application.
Sure... a VM may not be ideal... but then it is far more so than VB6.
Then again there is a simple rule most software developers forget... YOU DON'T HAVE TO UPGRADE! So your tools only support NT4 but your want/need to run your core OS and other apps on Vista? Fine, virtualizes it!
So... former Microsoft coders are unemployable because they've not only read, but also written such code?
There is nothing of the sort.
Your argument is like saying "If you've ever read a book you can never write another book on a related subject as your insights would be contaminated by the earlier reads or through outright copies."
"Nyeh, it.s not an original movie/song... they could have copied from this previous work that was similar. They shouldn't have made their own."
The issue of copying of code or misappropriating of IP is as old as both have been around... and is generally only relevant in very specific cases such as non-compete agreements and when a person has an extraordinary in-depth understanding of said IP, code or business practices.
Setup a virtual machine using whatever VM software you prefer, and then setup a script or other mechanism to whip out the existing VM and reload it from a hidden copy every interval so that if someone does screw something up... you just reload and boom, they are back.
Just make sure that your VM supports being run in full screen mode.
More than that really as they aren't giving you the code outright, they need to offer (in writing) to give it to you if you ask... from the sounds of it neither is happening here.
I thought it was an indicator of the paranoia of the content holders that refuse to let their pretties be broadcast in hi-def without some degree of onerous protection.
You really should take a look around CodePlex to see a few.
> What we're opposed to are the draconian enforcement and perpetual lengthening of copyright expiration.
Have you ever stop to consider when software covered under the GPL will actually become public domain and no longer be bound by the terms of the GPL?
Like it are not, all those extensions that benefit the (MP|RI)AA also end up benefiting the open source world as well, only the benefits to FOSS will be a little later in coming in theory.
Likely that will be part of the appeal... which remember hasn't even begun yet.
The sole reason the commutation happened when it did was because the court was not willing to delay the beginning of the jail time until after the appeal process had begun (not an unusual request). Had they been more willing, we likely would still see the full sentence in effect.
> That if it's a serious enough crime to impeach a couple Presidents, then it's a serious enough crime for Libby to do his time.
You are using two different standards, one criminal, one civil. Not to mention by that standard, Libby was treated similarly to both former presidents in that he risked losing his job and eventually did through his voluntary resignation.
Now then... on the criminal side of things... lets not forget that neither Clinton nor Nixon were ever criminally charged with perjury... however Clinton was charged with concept of court when he was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit (a form perjury) not two months after his acquittal by the Senate...... and as a result he lost his law license for 5 years, suspended from the SCOTUS bar, and paid a $90,000 fine... in a plea deal.
See the difference yet?
> It's irrelevant whether Libby was the first to name her or not, since he was not charged with "outing" Plame.
You recognize that unfortunately far to many of the 'nail him and any other neo-con to the wall' group do not.
> Libby lied under oath. That used to be bad enough to impeach a president or two.
Exactly... it was Libby, not the sitting president... what's your point?
It's a shame that such an truthful post is going to get modded down and flamed in no time.
> allows him to continue to lie to protect Cheney and Bush.
Really? And here I thought it was Richard Armitage who had given the name, something that had been known from very early on and yet he was never charged with the release of her name... why? Because it wasn't illegal.
So... what lies are you claiming that Libby is engaging in to protect the POTUS and VPOTUS?
That assumes the EULA is software based.
IIRC some Dells actually had the EULA in hardware, requiring your agreement during POST, effectively making it impossible for you to install another OS without agreeing.