I believe you mean they "were previously not the hypocrites". Times have changed, and I don't believe you'll find an example of the ACLU coming to the defense of anyone using "hate speech" in 2018. Likely not 2017, for that matter.
There's one solid technological solution which would help even the odds a bit, and has been shown to cause folks to think twice before joining a lynch mob, but I don't believe it's available to folks in India. I'm referring of course to the firearm, which operates on the principle that a single individual imbued with the strength to defend against multiple attackers is too high a risk to attack, as even though one wouldn't necessarily be able to shoot a mob of 100 swarming them, nobody in that mob wants to volunteer to be one of the 3-15 that _do_ get shot.
Given my timezone error, that explains why I'm not seeing it at the time I was looking - however even with the error I was seeing the Obama SOTU promotion on applicable dates. that being the case, it would make sense to revise the statement to be "Obama's SOTU addresses were promoted for a much longer time in advance", rather than "exclusively". Still unfortunate, but a distinct case from what was stated.
Given my timezone error, that explains why I'm not seeing it at the time I was looking - however as even with the error I was seeing the Obama SOTU promotion on applicable dates. that being the case, it would make sense to revise the statement to be "Obama's SOTU addresses were promoted for a much longer time in advance", rather than "exclusively".
You may have missed the point. I was referring to, you know, literal monsters. Like under your bed. Or in your closet.
Everyone knows bad people exist. The parallel I was working to draw was that using their language is feeding their narrative, which increases their influence. I may not have expressed my though clearly enough, but I hope this helps clarify.
Seriously.
Racism has far too much popular support lately, coming almost exclusively from those who claim they're defending against it.
Drop this theme people, the emphasis is making it worse, not better. Didn't your parents explain about how believing in monsters is what makes them real?
I don't want this to sound like a personal attack, because I'm sure you just haven't carried this logic through to all the edge cases. Let me point out the flaw in your argument: drink how much, and over what interval?
I'll agree readily that if you have 10 drinks in 2 hours, you probably shouldn't be driving. Well, unless you're several hundred pounds, had a full stomach, and drank a lot of water during that interval... then who knows. That aside - what about 1 drink with a meal? Is that a deal-breaker? What about 5 drinks, 4 hours ago? 6 hours ago? 48 hours ago? One drink every 4 hours over the course of a day? With or without supplementary hydration?
These scenarios all lead to differing degrees (possibly 0) of impairment, and the only sane way to quantify what's acceptable is an objective test. That's what the BAC reading is about.
Now, getting that reading accurately, and deciding what a fair level of impairment is before one presents a credible hazard... those are the parts we could still stand to work out. Knowing that you won't be busted for being over the legal limit if you went on a bender a month ago, and only chose to drive tonight.. well, that's what we call "reasonable"
A "right" is a social convention used to define what is, and is not, acceptable civil behaviour. Rather than delineating every possible way a person can be violated, we describe them as having personal "right" attributes.
Of course your rights can, and probably will, be violated. The whole concept of law and justice, however, is built on the idea that this is not a favorable situation, and should be remedied and prevented whenever possible.
Of course corruption can protect the privilege of some over the rights of others. So can deceit, counter-intelligence, prestidigitation, isolation, and many other concepts or processes. This does not, however, refute the fact that the ideas that "rights" signify are worth attempting to protect as much as is possible.
The whole point of an "ideal" is that it is something one strives for, and while it may not be achieved, any progress toward it will better the circumstances of at least someone, somewhere.
The whole point and basis of civil society is that we do that for one another, as well as ourselves. What you suggest is a mercenary attitude, that - no matter how practical - is the antithesis to the concept of "society".
We all know that it's true, but we should be endeavouring together to make it less true, day by day. What is happening, is the opposite.
Police don't exist to keep you from harm, individually. If some guy is breaking into your house, intent on murdering you and raping your wife, you don't get to say "Hold on, chap, the police will be here in just a moment, and as they are here to serve and protect me, you must murder and rape them in my family's stead". They exist to enforce laws against those who are breaking them, and in the example - those who have broken them, after the fact. They will get you justice, sure, but not until after a crime has been committed.
I'd trust my gun over a 5 minute police response time. Do you have more faith in the strength of your ground-level windows, and your plywood door than that?
...is in the hands of a skilled shooter. The second safest is in his holster.
I've cycled thousands of rounds through my guns, and guess what? Not a one of them flew through a school and killed all the children in there. Strangely, none have robbed banks or liquor stores, either. In fact, I am under the suspicion that if I were legaly permitted to carry one of my pistols around, and happened upon a dangerous situation where some bad guy was doing some bad thing, they'd probably save the day.
Funny that. Why then should we make this more difficult, rather than less?
I assumed that place was operated by a coven of bankers and lawyers. Assuming they really spoke with a human, it was probably one slated to be the office lunch.
Jesus H Christ, man! Read the damn dox for Apt, sometime! I'm not posting flamebait ot trolling, this guy posted some massive ignorance. Think about this:
It's as easy as adding a single option line to the/etc/apt/apt.conf file on the "update server" and putting a link to your apt repository (in/etc/apt/sources.list) on all the client machines that will feed from it! No more, no less. One line on the server, one line on the host.
You might want to schedule an update/download task on the clients, to keep them synced to the server (presuming you test on a testbed platform before updating the server, that is; and that would be good practice for Windows as well)... that's one more line added to root's crontab.
So, at most we're talking 2 lines for each client pc. I've written more than you will need to type on them in this message - they'll all use the same 2 lines!
Slashdot Mirror
But blackholed by who, exactly? Who would you trust with that power over controlling the Official Truth?
I believe you mean they "were previously not the hypocrites". Times have changed, and I don't believe you'll find an example of the ACLU coming to the defense of anyone using "hate speech" in 2018. Likely not 2017, for that matter.
There's one solid technological solution which would help even the odds a bit, and has been shown to cause folks to think twice before joining a lynch mob, but I don't believe it's available to folks in India. I'm referring of course to the firearm, which operates on the principle that a single individual imbued with the strength to defend against multiple attackers is too high a risk to attack, as even though one wouldn't necessarily be able to shoot a mob of 100 swarming them, nobody in that mob wants to volunteer to be one of the 3-15 that _do_ get shot.
Given my timezone error, that explains why I'm not seeing it at the time I was looking - however even with the error I was seeing the Obama SOTU promotion on applicable dates. that being the case, it would make sense to revise the statement to be "Obama's SOTU addresses were promoted for a much longer time in advance", rather than "exclusively". Still unfortunate, but a distinct case from what was stated.
Given my timezone error, that explains why I'm not seeing it at the time I was looking - however as even with the error I was seeing the Obama SOTU promotion on applicable dates. that being the case, it would make sense to revise the statement to be "Obama's SOTU addresses were promoted for a much longer time in advance", rather than "exclusively".
Cool, thank you - definitely an oversight on my part. Appreciate your correction!
Ignoring the "not technically SOTU", the Jan 30, 2018 address was promoted, right?
Curiously I can't find it on the Wayback Machine, though Obama's are indeed there from well early each morning on the days noted.
Here's Jan 30, 2018 mid-afternoon:
http://web.archive.org/web/201...
Can anyone point me to the right time of day, or alternative to archive.org which has a capture showing what's claimed in the article?
You may have missed the point. I was referring to, you know, literal monsters. Like under your bed. Or in your closet. Everyone knows bad people exist. The parallel I was working to draw was that using their language is feeding their narrative, which increases their influence. I may not have expressed my though clearly enough, but I hope this helps clarify.
Seriously. Racism has far too much popular support lately, coming almost exclusively from those who claim they're defending against it. Drop this theme people, the emphasis is making it worse, not better. Didn't your parents explain about how believing in monsters is what makes them real?
Keyboard input accidentally mismoderated while attempting to scroll. Just commenting to cancel the mod. Your commentary is sensible!
Google plus does in fact allow photos/albums (maybe posts? I haven't checked) marked "public" to be viewed by anyone with the url.
Here are the first 99 photos from my trip to Death Valley last month, for example: https://plus.google.com/photos/114127672767084904209/albums/5718366559408412705
I don't want this to sound like a personal attack, because I'm sure you just haven't carried this logic through to all the edge cases. Let me point out the flaw in your argument: drink how much, and over what interval? I'll agree readily that if you have 10 drinks in 2 hours, you probably shouldn't be driving. Well, unless you're several hundred pounds, had a full stomach, and drank a lot of water during that interval... then who knows. That aside - what about 1 drink with a meal? Is that a deal-breaker? What about 5 drinks, 4 hours ago? 6 hours ago? 48 hours ago? One drink every 4 hours over the course of a day? With or without supplementary hydration? These scenarios all lead to differing degrees (possibly 0) of impairment, and the only sane way to quantify what's acceptable is an objective test. That's what the BAC reading is about. Now, getting that reading accurately, and deciding what a fair level of impairment is before one presents a credible hazard... those are the parts we could still stand to work out. Knowing that you won't be busted for being over the legal limit if you went on a bender a month ago, and only chose to drive tonight.. well, that's what we call "reasonable"
Sure the planet's warming. Proving that the actions of our species is the cause, that's a hell of a lot less clear.
Unless that's shown to be the case, hamstringing the world economy is a completely ridiculous "fix" for the warming trend.
Let's skip the feelings and "it's so obvious, geeze" responses, and apply the scientific method. So far, this has not been done successfully.
A "right" is a social convention used to define what is, and is not, acceptable civil behaviour. Rather than delineating every possible way a person can be violated, we describe them as having personal "right" attributes. Of course your rights can, and probably will, be violated. The whole concept of law and justice, however, is built on the idea that this is not a favorable situation, and should be remedied and prevented whenever possible. Of course corruption can protect the privilege of some over the rights of others. So can deceit, counter-intelligence, prestidigitation, isolation, and many other concepts or processes. This does not, however, refute the fact that the ideas that "rights" signify are worth attempting to protect as much as is possible. The whole point of an "ideal" is that it is something one strives for, and while it may not be achieved, any progress toward it will better the circumstances of at least someone, somewhere.
The whole point and basis of civil society is that we do that for one another, as well as ourselves. What you suggest is a mercenary attitude, that - no matter how practical - is the antithesis to the concept of "society". We all know that it's true, but we should be endeavouring together to make it less true, day by day. What is happening, is the opposite.
...and more to do with Ragnarok and Lineage. :D
Cool, thanks for the reminder. That's the one I was thinking of, alright.
Didn't grsec implement something like this ages ago?
Police don't exist to keep you from harm, individually. If some guy is breaking into your house, intent on murdering you and raping your wife, you don't get to say "Hold on, chap, the police will be here in just a moment, and as they are here to serve and protect me, you must murder and rape them in my family's stead". They exist to enforce laws against those who are breaking them, and in the example - those who have broken them, after the fact. They will get you justice, sure, but not until after a crime has been committed.
I'd trust my gun over a 5 minute police response time. Do you have more faith in the strength of your ground-level windows, and your plywood door than that?
...is in the hands of a skilled shooter. The second safest is in his holster.
I've cycled thousands of rounds through my guns, and guess what? Not a one of them flew through a school and killed all the children in there. Strangely, none have robbed banks or liquor stores, either. In fact, I am under the suspicion that if I were legaly permitted to carry one of my pistols around, and happened upon a dangerous situation where some bad guy was doing some bad thing, they'd probably save the day.
Funny that. Why then should we make this more difficult, rather than less?
My guns, by the way
I assumed that place was operated by a coven of bankers and lawyers. Assuming they really spoke with a human, it was probably one slated to be the office lunch.
Awesome, thanks buddy!
I must have missed something... sorry, nevermind.
The page renders fine in my Firefox - (Debian package 1.0+dfsg.1-2).
Jesus H Christ, man! Read the damn dox for Apt, sometime! I'm not posting flamebait ot trolling, this guy posted some massive ignorance. Think about this: It's as easy as adding a single option line to the /etc/apt/apt.conf file on the "update server" and putting a link to your apt repository (in /etc/apt/sources.list) on all the client machines that will feed from it! No more, no less. One line on the server, one line on the host.
You might want to schedule an update/download task on the clients, to keep them synced to the server (presuming you test on a testbed platform before updating the server, that is; and that would be good practice for Windows as well)... that's one more line added to root's crontab.
So, at most we're talking 2 lines for each client pc. I've written more than you will need to type on them in this message - they'll all use the same 2 lines!