Ironic then, that we never had anything like the USA PATRIOT act when we were worried about the Russkies, but now that the USSR is gone, this study comes out and shows our own damn population (and by extension leadership) doesn't even understand what America is founded on.
Remember when the big difference between Us and Them (the reds) was that we had the freedom to travel, without having to "show your papers?"
There's also the asymmetric threat of al-qaeda. They spent $500,000 on 9/11. Our response is to spend somewhere around $200,000,000,000. Oh and then there's the fact that so long as we keep using oil, we'll keep funding Al Qaeda.
The threat is very different, but I don't think it's any lesser. To be honest I never felt that threatened by the USSR but we'll skip that for now. I'm worried that there won't be a "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" in twenty years because some guy in a cave who got one lucky shot tricked us into oustpending him at a ratio of four-hundred-thousand to one.
Simply put, Al Qaeda is not much of a threat to Western democracy, unless of course we allow ourselves to have our pants so scared off our asses that we lose all perspective. It's happened before.
Exactly my point. We have met the enemy, and he is us. What would FDR say to a color-coded Fear level?
* Under God - Only God can rule man. If a man thinks he can rule man, he is a tyrant and should be killed. That's why we went into Germany, into Japan. That's why we freed Cuba and the Phillippines in the Spanish-American War. That's why we fought against our own blood in the Civil War. That's why we fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, and why we promise to fight in Syria, and North Korea
I ran your explanation through the Bullshit Translator and it came back with this:
Onward, Christian soldiers, Marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus Going on before! Christ, the royal Master, Leads against the foe; Forward into battle, See His banner go!
Onward, Christian soldiers, Marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus Going on before!
At the sign of triumph Satan's host dost flee; On, then, Christian soldiers, On to victory! Hell's foundations quiver At the shout of praise; Brothers, lift your voices, Loud your anthems raise!
Onward, Christian soldiers, Marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus Going on before!
Like a mighty army Moves the church of God; Brothers, we are treading Where the saints have trod; We are not divided; All one body we, One in hope and doctrine, One in charity.
Onward, Christian soldiers, Marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus Going on before!
Onward, then ye people, Join our happyy throng, Blend with ours your voices In the triumph song; Glory, laud, and honor, Unto Christ the King: This thro' countless ages Men and angels sing.
Onward, Christian soldiers, Marching as to war. With the cross of Jesus Going on before!
Republicans tend to take the view that prisoners need to be punished.
Democrats tend to take the view that prisoners can be rehabilitated.
This dichotomy exists outisde prison as well. For instance, look at how the Republicans "reformed" welfare, and look at how the Democrats built it in the first place.
If you can't tell the difference between a real outfit and someone dressed up in a costume, I suggest you attend more halloween parties.
In the case of Bush, he is not a military aviator. So when he puts on those clothes, he's playing dress-up. (Bush's stint in the National Guard notwithstanding.) In the case of Peter Parker, he must don the costume to create the identity and persona of Spiderman.
It's akin to what a businessman does, sure. The old saying "the clothes make the man" comes to mind.
Hi, it's Spidey again. Sorry about the fist movie. You know what? I should just bang that chick. I realize I had some issues before, because when you dress up in a costume all the time, like George W. Bush on the aircraft carrier, it means you're gay. But none of that matters because there was this fat fuck who looks like Emeril, only more annoying, and he's the only fat physicist in the entire history of physics, and my cheerleader girlfriend is getting it from the star quarterback so I'm gonna go cry to my mom about the time me and dad were getting donuts and these guys came up to us and they were like "you're dead whitey" and I was like "no!" only in slow-motion and they were all "you'll thank us for this later kid" and then I finally kissed a girl for the first time in my life and I soiled my costume. Fin. Also something about an evil walrus or something.
When are we just gonna admit that the easiest, nay only, fix is to just have a shitload less people?
We can hope that Technology will find a way to pollute less... but those gains will likely be offset by the ever increasing number of people. In fact the same Technology that creates cleaner methods of living also allows far more people to live, and live longer.
Noone can deny that if there were fewer people consuming resources, we would have less of an impact on the environment.
I'm not saying ditch technology. I'm saying that just because it's technically possible for six billion humans to live on the planet doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Well, it's under the same umbrella. Perhaps this bust is justified. Doesn't mean the next one will be. This sort of incident can be used to push for tougher laws and tougher enforcement of those laws, and further erosion of your fair use rights.
We don't have, nor should we expect, the right to pirate movies.
That's not the issue, not by a mile.
What rights are you willing to surrender so that the state and corporations may more effectively combat piracy?
Your rights most certainly are affected by the laws, many created just recently, that protect intellectual property holders. The Betamax decision, which made home taping legal, is being eroded at an ever increasing pace. The powers-that-be are actively seeking an end-around against Fair Use and the Doctrine Of First Sale.
You know this, right? You're supposed to know this, this is Slashdot. Idiots like me blather and foam about this stuff all day.
I'll add my voice to the chorus here. WSJ is one of the "fairer" newspapers out there. I don't take this extreme a view, but a friend of mine feels that the WSJ and the Christian Science Monitor are the only American newspapers worth reading. Actually he said English-language papers worth reading, but I can't remember which foreign papers he included. Might have been the FT, not sure.
Try reading the WSJ someday. Just the little "In The News" grayed-in section on the front page contains more information than you'll see on TV that day.
I am a flaming liberal socialist and even I like the WSJ. They are honest. Kind of like The Economist used to be.
well, considering the bogus mp3 companies are being seeded by the copyright holders, or their agents, then it seems like there's some heightened standard of liability that should apply. Like, if I let you download a bogus mp3 full of viruses, that's one thing. But if you download a bogus mp3 full of viruses that was placed there by the copyright holder specifically to cause you harm, that's something else. Not sure it would amount to much in court, but it's the difference between some guy on the street selling a fake Rolex and the actual Rolex company selling you a fake Rolex.
I was under the impression, though, that it is still a federal offense to distribute any copyrighted material, even if it's under $1K in value, for which you don't have permission to do so.
Am I wrong, or is there some other piece of legislation which makes this so? You seem like you might know;)
HMmm maybe it's not, that's why we're still seeing RIAA v. 13 y.o. Kid, and not Ashcroft v. 13 y.o. kid.
Copyright infringement is now a criminal matter. It's criminal even without causing any economic harm. See the No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act) of 1997.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, or arguing against it. Couldn't tell from your post. But the way it is now, if I burn a copyrighted CD and just plain give it to you, the FBI could make a federal case out of that.
And yeah it sucks. However it's completely predictable esp. considering that "IP" is pretty much all America manufacturers anymore. Well and food and cars. But IP has the biggest margins.
It's an attempt to "make good" for the downtime. No, the game doesn't need it. This has more to do with keeping/appeasing customers today than any sort of long-term in-game economy issues.
The protection of children shouldn't trump the First Amendment.
Of course Kiddie Porn is not simply a first amendment issue. It should be illegal and rightfully so.
We shouldn't (and can't) build our world to be "child-safe." We're adults. There should be considerations for children, nothing more.
Look if children are so damn important that society must cater to their needs, why not just let them vote on it? Oh, that's right, "we know better." I'm not convinced. "Do as I say and not as I do." That's called hypocrisy, and even children can see it.
I take a very cynical view when things are done "for the children."
So the SOA gets a pass becuase of it's "good intentions." Good intentions and 35 cents will buy you a cup of coffee. Give me a break.
How about the CIA training of Bin Laden? Are we not just as guilty of exporting terrorism as the next guy?
Mitigating factors be damned! Just because Saddam was against Iran is no reason to be buddy-buddy with him. In fact it's exactly this sort of attitude that's gotten us in the mess we are now. Osama bin Laden's claim to fame is that he was smart enough to turn on his former masters before they decided he was no longer politically expedient.
Bin Laden, Marcos, Noriega, Saddam, Pinochet, these guys were all CIA assets at one time or antother. Bin Laden is the only one not currently in prison. Give the guy credit for seeing the handwriting on the wall.
The USA and Israel both provided financial support to Hamas when it was founded. Why? Because it was viewed as a destabilizing force against the powerful PLO. We funded radical Islam to overthrow secular forces which were more sympathetic to Moscow than Washington. Same thing with Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Hell it's the same thing we did in Iran in 1953. And it's exactly this two-faced attitude and false allegiance that explains a hell of a lot of the anti-US sentiment in the world today. Rightly so, in my opinion. (Not that the next guy would be any better. But that's irrelevant.)
And if a plot on Bush's life is terrorism, well we've done the same to Moamar Qadaffi and Saddam Hussein. We thought we even had a shot at Saddam in the 90s but his secret police foiled it. And instead of killing Qadaffi we only killed his adopted child.
If the US is so "good" and "righteous" why do we have to keep ghost prisoners? Why do we ship captured "intelligence assets" to Syria or Pakistan or Gitmo where they can be tortured with impunity?
We are not right. We are merely on one side of a global conflict. Now, don't get me wrong, I'd like to see freedom win the day. But I'm not convinced that the US is fighting for freedom, so much as it's fighting for the continued dominance of the US. Self-preservation is after all the most basic instict.
Find me a calendar year in which the number of American civilians killed by foreign terror is greater than the number of foreign civilians killed by the US military.
Wait, are you one of those people who believes that Iran Air flight 655 was full of dead bodies, and the whole thing an elaborate conspiracy?
The biggest failing is no Dance Dance Revolution for GameCube.
Come on, GameCube is supposedly the "kid's choice" but we're not gonna provide kids with the one video game that has the redeeming quality of making you get your fat ass off the freakin' couch.
Ooh, Thet get Donkey Kong Bongos instead. What a joke.
I believe Abu Nidal has struck out at the USA, 20 years ago, but I don't think those other groups have.
How do the training grounds at Salman Pak compare with School Of The Americas?
What was Rumsfeld doing shaking hands with the Known Terrorist Supporter Saddam Hussein in 1983?
Okay, enough rhetoric. Where the hell do you get the idea that I have an irrational hatred for the United States?
Are you denying that the No-Fly Zones offered a blanket of protection to the Kurds? (From Saddam I mean, the Turks were bombing the hell out of the Kurds, and did so with impunity because Iraq couldn't respond without opening a can of NATO whoopass.)
I accept that Saddam supported terrorism.
I've yet to see evidence that, after 1991, Saddam supported terrorism against the United States. Perhaps you know something the 9/11 Comission doesn't. Do tell.
I shouldn't need to point out to you that the purported attempted assassination on our 41st President is not an act of terror.
Slashdot Mirror
Ironic then, that we never had anything like the USA PATRIOT act when we were worried about the Russkies, but now that the USSR is gone, this study comes out and shows our own damn population (and by extension leadership) doesn't even understand what America is founded on.
Remember when the big difference between Us and Them (the reds) was that we had the freedom to travel, without having to "show your papers?"
There's also the asymmetric threat of al-qaeda. They spent $500,000 on 9/11. Our response is to spend somewhere around $200,000,000,000. Oh and then there's the fact that so long as we keep using oil, we'll keep funding Al Qaeda.
The threat is very different, but I don't think it's any lesser. To be honest I never felt that threatened by the USSR but we'll skip that for now. I'm worried that there won't be a "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" in twenty years because some guy in a cave who got one lucky shot tricked us into oustpending him at a ratio of four-hundred-thousand to one.
Simply put, Al Qaeda is not much of a threat to Western democracy, unless of course we allow ourselves to have our pants so scared off our asses that we lose all perspective. It's happened before.
Exactly my point. We have met the enemy, and he is us. What would FDR say to a color-coded Fear level?
* Under God - Only God can rule man. If a man thinks he can rule man, he is a tyrant and should be killed. That's why we went into Germany, into Japan. That's why we freed Cuba and the Phillippines in the Spanish-American War. That's why we fought against our own blood in the Civil War. That's why we fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, and why we promise to fight in Syria, and North Korea
I ran your explanation through the Bullshit Translator and it came back with this:
Onward, Christian soldiers,
Marching as to war.
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before!
Christ, the royal Master,
Leads against the foe;
Forward into battle,
See His banner go!
Onward, Christian soldiers,
Marching as to war.
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before!
At the sign of triumph
Satan's host dost flee;
On, then, Christian soldiers,
On to victory!
Hell's foundations quiver
At the shout of praise;
Brothers, lift your voices,
Loud your anthems raise!
Onward, Christian soldiers,
Marching as to war.
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before!
Like a mighty army
Moves the church of God;
Brothers, we are treading
Where the saints have trod;
We are not divided;
All one body we,
One in hope and doctrine,
One in charity.
Onward, Christian soldiers,
Marching as to war.
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before!
Onward, then ye people,
Join our happyy throng,
Blend with ours your voices
In the triumph song;
Glory, laud, and honor,
Unto Christ the King:
This thro' countless ages
Men and angels sing.
Onward, Christian soldiers,
Marching as to war.
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before!
Here's my take:
Republicans tend to take the view that prisoners need to be punished.
Democrats tend to take the view that prisoners can be rehabilitated.
This dichotomy exists outisde prison as well. For instance, look at how the Republicans "reformed" welfare, and look at how the Democrats built it in the first place.
If you can't tell the difference between a real outfit and someone dressed up in a costume, I suggest you attend more halloween parties.
In the case of Bush, he is not a military aviator. So when he puts on those clothes, he's playing dress-up. (Bush's stint in the National Guard notwithstanding.) In the case of Peter Parker, he must don the costume to create the identity and persona of Spiderman.
It's akin to what a businessman does, sure. The old saying "the clothes make the man" comes to mind.
In this sense a costume means: Something you would wear on halloween. Clothes used to role-play.
Hi, it's Spidey again. Sorry about the fist movie. You know what? I should just bang that chick. I realize I had some issues before, because when you dress up in a costume all the time, like George W. Bush on the aircraft carrier, it means you're gay. But none of that matters because there was this fat fuck who looks like Emeril, only more annoying, and he's the only fat physicist in the entire history of physics, and my cheerleader girlfriend is getting it from the star quarterback so I'm gonna go cry to my mom about the time me and dad were getting donuts and these guys came up to us and they were like "you're dead whitey" and I was like "no!" only in slow-motion and they were all "you'll thank us for this later kid" and then I finally kissed a girl for the first time in my life and I soiled my costume. Fin. Also something about an evil walrus or something.
I could have sworn this story ended with the admission by one of the scientists that the creatures turned out ot be quite tasty.
When are we just gonna admit that the easiest, nay only, fix is to just have a shitload less people?
We can hope that Technology will find a way to pollute less... but those gains will likely be offset by the ever increasing number of people. In fact the same Technology that creates cleaner methods of living also allows far more people to live, and live longer.
Noone can deny that if there were fewer people consuming resources, we would have less of an impact on the environment.
I'm not saying ditch technology. I'm saying that just because it's technically possible for six billion humans to live on the planet doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Well, it's under the same umbrella. Perhaps this bust is justified. Doesn't mean the next one will be. This sort of incident can be used to push for tougher laws and tougher enforcement of those laws, and further erosion of your fair use rights.
We don't have, nor should we expect, the right to pirate movies.
That's not the issue, not by a mile.
What rights are you willing to surrender so that the state and corporations may more effectively combat piracy?
Your rights most certainly are affected by the laws, many created just recently, that protect intellectual property holders. The Betamax decision, which made home taping legal, is being eroded at an ever increasing pace. The powers-that-be are actively seeking an end-around against Fair Use and the Doctrine Of First Sale.
You know this, right? You're supposed to know this, this is Slashdot. Idiots like me blather and foam about this stuff all day.
I'll add my voice to the chorus here. WSJ is one of the "fairer" newspapers out there. I don't take this extreme a view, but a friend of mine feels that the WSJ and the Christian Science Monitor are the only American newspapers worth reading. Actually he said English-language papers worth reading, but I can't remember which foreign papers he included. Might have been the FT, not sure.
Try reading the WSJ someday. Just the little "In The News" grayed-in section on the front page contains more information than you'll see on TV that day.
I am a flaming liberal socialist and even I like the WSJ. They are honest. Kind of like The Economist used to be.
Just so you know, faux pas actually means something, and that something is, literally, "false step."
I don't know if I would have gotten faux pas from what you wrote. That is all.
well, considering the bogus mp3 companies are being seeded by the copyright holders, or their agents, then it seems like there's some heightened standard of liability that should apply. Like, if I let you download a bogus mp3 full of viruses, that's one thing. But if you download a bogus mp3 full of viruses that was placed there by the copyright holder specifically to cause you harm, that's something else. Not sure it would amount to much in court, but it's the difference between some guy on the street selling a fake Rolex and the actual Rolex company selling you a fake Rolex.
n/t
Television: The biggest public health crisis of the past 50 years.
Cool, thanks for correcting me.
;)
I was under the impression, though, that it is still a federal offense to distribute any copyrighted material, even if it's under $1K in value, for which you don't have permission to do so.
Am I wrong, or is there some other piece of legislation which makes this so? You seem like you might know
HMmm maybe it's not, that's why we're still seeing RIAA v. 13 y.o. Kid, and not Ashcroft v. 13 y.o. kid.
Copyright infringement is now a criminal matter. It's criminal even without causing any economic harm. See the No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act) of 1997.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, or arguing against it. Couldn't tell from your post. But the way it is now, if I burn a copyrighted CD and just plain give it to you, the FBI could make a federal case out of that.
And yeah it sucks. However it's completely predictable esp. considering that "IP" is pretty much all America manufacturers anymore. Well and food and cars. But IP has the biggest margins.
It's an attempt to "make good" for the downtime. No, the game doesn't need it. This has more to do with keeping/appeasing customers today than any sort of long-term in-game economy issues.
The protection of children shouldn't trump the First Amendment.
Of course Kiddie Porn is not simply a first amendment issue. It should be illegal and rightfully so.
We shouldn't (and can't) build our world to be "child-safe." We're adults. There should be considerations for children, nothing more.
Look if children are so damn important that society must cater to their needs, why not just let them vote on it? Oh, that's right, "we know better." I'm not convinced. "Do as I say and not as I do." That's called hypocrisy, and even children can see it.
I take a very cynical view when things are done "for the children."
And no I don't have kids.
Okay, I won't dis the bongos, but may I dis you for getting your year-old son addicted to Nintendo?
Pot to kettle: You're black!
So the SOA gets a pass becuase of it's "good intentions." Good intentions and 35 cents will buy you a cup of coffee. Give me a break.
How about the CIA training of Bin Laden? Are we not just as guilty of exporting terrorism as the next guy?
Mitigating factors be damned! Just because Saddam was against Iran is no reason to be buddy-buddy with him. In fact it's exactly this sort of attitude that's gotten us in the mess we are now. Osama bin Laden's claim to fame is that he was smart enough to turn on his former masters before they decided he was no longer politically expedient.
Bin Laden, Marcos, Noriega, Saddam, Pinochet, these guys were all CIA assets at one time or antother. Bin Laden is the only one not currently in prison. Give the guy credit for seeing the handwriting on the wall.
The USA and Israel both provided financial support to Hamas when it was founded. Why? Because it was viewed as a destabilizing force against the powerful PLO. We funded radical Islam to overthrow secular forces which were more sympathetic to Moscow than Washington. Same thing with Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Hell it's the same thing we did in Iran in 1953. And it's exactly this two-faced attitude and false allegiance that explains a hell of a lot of the anti-US sentiment in the world today. Rightly so, in my opinion. (Not that the next guy would be any better. But that's irrelevant.)
And if a plot on Bush's life is terrorism, well we've done the same to Moamar Qadaffi and Saddam Hussein. We thought we even had a shot at Saddam in the 90s but his secret police foiled it. And instead of killing Qadaffi we only killed his adopted child.
If the US is so "good" and "righteous" why do we have to keep ghost prisoners? Why do we ship captured "intelligence assets" to Syria or Pakistan or Gitmo where they can be tortured with impunity?
We are not right. We are merely on one side of a global conflict. Now, don't get me wrong, I'd like to see freedom win the day. But I'm not convinced that the US is fighting for freedom, so much as it's fighting for the continued dominance of the US. Self-preservation is after all the most basic instict.
Find me a calendar year in which the number of American civilians killed by foreign terror is greater than the number of foreign civilians killed by the US military.
Wait, are you one of those people who believes that Iran Air flight 655 was full of dead bodies, and the whole thing an elaborate conspiracy?
The biggest failing is no Dance Dance Revolution for GameCube.
Come on, GameCube is supposedly the "kid's choice" but we're not gonna provide kids with the one video game that has the redeeming quality of making you get your fat ass off the freakin' couch.
Ooh, Thet get Donkey Kong Bongos instead. What a joke.
and one tenth the customers. Sounds like a solid business plan to me.
I believe Abu Nidal has struck out at the USA, 20 years ago, but I don't think those other groups have.
How do the training grounds at Salman Pak compare with School Of The Americas?
What was Rumsfeld doing shaking hands with the Known Terrorist Supporter Saddam Hussein in 1983?
Okay, enough rhetoric. Where the hell do you get the idea that I have an irrational hatred for the United States?
Are you denying that the No-Fly Zones offered a blanket of protection to the Kurds? (From Saddam I mean, the Turks were bombing the hell out of the Kurds, and did so with impunity because Iraq couldn't respond without opening a can of NATO whoopass.)
I accept that Saddam supported terrorism.
I've yet to see evidence that, after 1991, Saddam supported terrorism against the United States. Perhaps you know something the 9/11 Comission doesn't. Do tell.
I shouldn't need to point out to you that the purported attempted assassination on our 41st President is not an act of terror.
Does everyone forget that Iraq kicked out the UN weapons inspectors in 1998 because they turned out to be CIA spies?
The peace treaty called for inspections, not letting spies set up a clandestine listening network at all of Iraq's military bases.