You may not remember the film very well. Jessup orders the code red that results in the death of a man under his command. That's at least manslaughter, and I'd be surprised if he didn't do hard time for that. It's not a faux pas.
The point of that speech is to show the overreach and arrogance of some of the people who run the organizations that protect the U.S. and that they can in fact damage us while doing what they think is right. You may agree with the sentiment, but in the context of the film, his disdain of the court and the prosecutor because he sees himself above the law is supposed to be cautionary, not celebratory.
To quote Col. Jessup "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way."
You do recall that the character you are quoting is a murderer, don't you?
And in case you ALSO have a poster of Al Pacino as Scarface on your wall, I'll also remind you that he dies in the end.
This is interesting. I had never heard of private pilots required to go through that kind of security for non-commercial hangars.
I flew aboard the Cigna private jet in 2004 (as a passenger), and there was no security at all, not at the entrance to the terminal, in the waiting area, or to board the plane. This was at Philadelphia International, not a Podunk little town. I guess it's kind of uneven, though it's pretty much all security theater.
Last time I checked, one of the most significant events to impact our society was perpetrated by nineteen individuals, among whom several were amateur pilots.
Yes, I'm well aware that this is a very, very small number of people. On the other hand, everyone that has anything to do with flying has been thoroughly impacted. There is no surprise that pilots have been impacted, and if they want some semblance of sanity, then I suggest they start pushing for sanity for all of us, not just complaints about their own small part of the greater problem.
I have no idea what you mean by this. I started taking lessons in 2003 in the Philadelphia area, and the only "impact" that pilots, instructors, and flight school owners ever referred to was the no fly zones around locations where the president might be, and jokes about how screwed you'd be if you violated that airspace. And this had nothing to do with 9/11, it was established many decades earlier.
Please list the "impact" that you say that private pilots have experienced. That was what the article was about, by the way. Not you having to take off your shoes at security.
This downturn in private pilot activity is most likely economic.
You are implying that everyone on/. is either American or German? Now that's a wild assumption. I think you forgot that there are approximately 195 other nations on this planet, a sizable fraction of which have sizable populations able to converse in English (albeit perhaps with some mistakes, which I'm SURE native speakers also do).
Whoa, a little defensive there, aren't you mate? There was no implication that everyone on/. is either American or German, and no slight in the GP's post against the other 193 countries. The poster said he wasn't German, and the GP who apparently is American, noted that the description of the GGP as "in mid 20th" is not a common American phrasing. So he was, in fact, deducing the poster was neither American or German and asking which of the OTHER 193 countries was that person's home.
Why do some people go out of their way to find U.S.-centric prejudice where it doesn't exist?
Funny, you eliminated this portion of the quote of the other poster, which was in your own post:
"So worst case, the Finnish police could ask Finnish ISPs to prevent access to a website that breaks the law in Finland."
You kept the "FORCING" portion of the post you quoted, even though the author's point was that "'Forcing' may be a problem", which agrees somewhat with your point of view. Your response to the portion of the quote (above) that you subsequently DELETED was that ASKING the ISP's to block the site was "NO. This is not just wrong, it's also incredibly stupid."
By removing some of the original post you quoted in your response you are rewriting history - odd, since anyone can see your original post.
Anyway, whether you were actually responding to the quoted portion you now claim to, or the portion you subsequently deleted, you have completely failed to address my point.
Yes or no, if that site were hosting what Finland considers child porn (but the hosting country does not) instead of asking for money, would you still claim the Finnish police would not only be "wrong, (but) incredibly stupid" to try to block the material in their country?
See if you can respond to the actual question instead of manufacturing a distraction this time.
NO. This is not just wrong, it's also incredibly stupid. Think about what you're saying: If every website must comply with every law in every country where the website can be seen, then we end up with a web that is the lowest common denominator of all the tyrannical laws in the world. A website in Finland does not get to dictate the terms of a website anywhere outside of Finland. Period.
Exactly. Take it to a conclusion to make your argument crystal clear; a website based in country A that is full of images that meet the definition of child pornography in Country B CANNOT be censored by Country B, which has no right to "dictate the terms of a website anywhere outside of (Country B)". Keep in mind, you responded to a post that suggested Finnish authorities (Country B) can respond by ASKING ISP's to block the site in Finland.
Does that help? Are you ready to back down on your absolutist position?
Yes, it's reasonable to expect the president to stop every negative action taken by government workers everywhere with, as you say, a phone call. I'll send him a headset; he's not going to get much sleep.
You did say that "the left" views everything through the lens of race, not liberals, that is true. But inveighing against an amorphous "left" and claiming they are not "liberal" is the same parlor trick I can use by claiming "the right" is not actually conservative. It's disingenuous.
Well I understand your example, although the original poster was referring to the federal government, not states. And Tennessee? Yeah, I imagine that's all kinds of different from most of the U.S.
If you mean that big word "engagement", I put it in there because the gp post made that assertion. Your complaint that it's practically impossible to prove is moot, because I responded to the poster's claim that the U.S. *fights* wars with the intent to scare other countries.
That's not at all what Roosevelt did - he used the THREAT of war, not prosecution of war itself. If you don't understand the difference, then as you say, "I really can't help you here".
You do know that TSA screw-ups that included forcing mothers to drink their own breast milk and patting down children began in the previous administration, right?
And you know the current president didn't make a rule that mothers had to drink breast milk, don't you?
Just like you make the absurd claim that liberals view everything through the lens of race, you show your own biases quite clearly.
IN America, our homeless are richer sleeping in the water conduit tunnels below Las Vegas than the middle class of India and China who have beds and warm meals. How? Because in America we have choice.
This statement is absurd. You seem to be saying that homeless in the U.S. are richer because they can, what, choose to starve on the streets? Are you really speaking for people to claim that they are better off without beds and warm meals because they have some theoretical "choice"? I imagine a majority of them would disagree.
The other way this is absurd is to lump two very different countries together. You do know that India is a democracy, yes? In fact, the most populous democracy on the planet.
The *third* absurdity is your bald statement that the U.S. maintains armed forces to "get into wars to scare the ever loving hell out of every other nation". I think most politicians in both parties would facepalm over that assertion. I defy you to find any description of U.S. foreign policy by anyone with authority over it that describes the ENGAGEMENT in wars as a deterrent to other countries' aggression.
well it comforting to know that the same government that managed this program is now moving on to something as *truly* important as our and our childrens healthcare.
right?
Exactly. Only, it's not. The ACA is to ensure more people have health *insurance*.
I'm curious why you felt the need to break out "our childrens (sic) healthcare", as if one might assume that their (again, insurance, not healthcare) was separate from ours. Just for the emotional weight?
A universal claim backed by absolutely zero evidence? Why, I never.
Can you really call it anecdotal if I say that I taught myself? It's still a data point of one.
However, I was a terrible programmer until I learned some of the core techniques and disciplines in college (we barely had computers at my high school in the 70's). I include logical and critical thinking, some of which I got from non-science courses. Liberal arts education is extraordinarily valuable.
Great, problem solved. Now the people protesting the busing of the Silicon Valley employees can turn their attention to the actual underlying situation, in which their futures are literally being stolen from them.
"Long time residents" are not owed lower rents continuing into the indefinite future. Neighborhoods evolve. Some people win, but some people lose. That's too bad.
Personally, I expect that as a professional, I'd find those neighborhoods more interesting with the influence of the better-paid residents.
My favorite part of the flyer (surely you bothered to spend enough time reading the flyer before you posted) was the call to action, which included, "Steal from the techies you babysit for."
> I realize this seems like sound advice, but it genuinely isn't, unless you're prepared for it in advance.
Not only that but.... you are sick before you know it. I am working from home today because I am sick, but I was in the office yesterday. I know now I was sick yesterday, but, at the time I didn't feel sick, I wasn't taking anything: I just thought I was tired and sore from spending the long weekend at a con (which is likely where I picked up this crud....nothing like 3000 people in a hotel to spread the love)
"Tired and sore" - yes, that sounds like the aftermath of a con.
Be thankful if a cold or flu was the only thing you picked up over the weekend.:-)
Oh no! That roommate has been exposed to the same degree those at the grocery store would have been. He should be quarantined along with you and your sickness. That Peapod guy is going to spread your sickness to dozens of others. Better invite him inside for the week as well. Same with the Chinese delivery guy. Hope you have a pull out sofa or something.
Slashdot Mirror
You may not remember the film very well. Jessup orders the code red that results in the death of a man under his command. That's at least manslaughter, and I'd be surprised if he didn't do hard time for that. It's not a faux pas.
The point of that speech is to show the overreach and arrogance of some of the people who run the organizations that protect the U.S. and that they can in fact damage us while doing what they think is right. You may agree with the sentiment, but in the context of the film, his disdain of the court and the prosecutor because he sees himself above the law is supposed to be cautionary, not celebratory.
To quote Col. Jessup "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way."
You do recall that the character you are quoting is a murderer, don't you?
And in case you ALSO have a poster of Al Pacino as Scarface on your wall, I'll also remind you that he dies in the end.
This is interesting. I had never heard of private pilots required to go through that kind of security for non-commercial hangars.
I flew aboard the Cigna private jet in 2004 (as a passenger), and there was no security at all, not at the entrance to the terminal, in the waiting area, or to board the plane. This was at Philadelphia International, not a Podunk little town. I guess it's kind of uneven, though it's pretty much all security theater.
Last time I checked, one of the most significant events to impact our society was perpetrated by nineteen individuals, among whom several were amateur pilots. Yes, I'm well aware that this is a very, very small number of people. On the other hand, everyone that has anything to do with flying has been thoroughly impacted. There is no surprise that pilots have been impacted, and if they want some semblance of sanity, then I suggest they start pushing for sanity for all of us, not just complaints about their own small part of the greater problem.
I have no idea what you mean by this. I started taking lessons in 2003 in the Philadelphia area, and the only "impact" that pilots, instructors, and flight school owners ever referred to was the no fly zones around locations where the president might be, and jokes about how screwed you'd be if you violated that airspace. And this had nothing to do with 9/11, it was established many decades earlier.
Please list the "impact" that you say that private pilots have experienced. That was what the article was about, by the way. Not you having to take off your shoes at security.
This downturn in private pilot activity is most likely economic.
Pointing it out where it doesn't exist just makes you look stupid.
You are implying that everyone on /. is either American or German? Now that's a wild assumption. I think you forgot that there are approximately 195 other nations on this planet, a sizable fraction of which have sizable populations able to converse in English (albeit perhaps with some mistakes, which I'm SURE native speakers also do).
Whoa, a little defensive there, aren't you mate? There was no implication that everyone on /. is either American or German, and no slight in the GP's post against the other 193 countries. The poster said he wasn't German, and the GP who apparently is American, noted that the description of the GGP as "in mid 20th" is not a common American phrasing. So he was, in fact, deducing the poster was neither American or German and asking which of the OTHER 193 countries was that person's home.
Why do some people go out of their way to find U.S.-centric prejudice where it doesn't exist?
Funny, you eliminated this portion of the quote of the other poster, which was in your own post:
"So worst case, the Finnish police could ask Finnish ISPs to prevent access to a website that breaks the law in Finland."
You kept the "FORCING" portion of the post you quoted, even though the author's point was that "'Forcing' may be a problem", which agrees somewhat with your point of view. Your response to the portion of the quote (above) that you subsequently DELETED was that ASKING the ISP's to block the site was "NO. This is not just wrong, it's also incredibly stupid."
By removing some of the original post you quoted in your response you are rewriting history - odd, since anyone can see your original post.
Anyway, whether you were actually responding to the quoted portion you now claim to, or the portion you subsequently deleted, you have completely failed to address my point.
Yes or no, if that site were hosting what Finland considers child porn (but the hosting country does not) instead of asking for money, would you still claim the Finnish police would not only be "wrong, (but) incredibly stupid" to try to block the material in their country?
See if you can respond to the actual question instead of manufacturing a distraction this time.
I was persuaded by your argument, until the last word in your post.
Then you lost me.
NO. This is not just wrong, it's also incredibly stupid. Think about what you're saying: If every website must comply with every law in every country where the website can be seen, then we end up with a web that is the lowest common denominator of all the tyrannical laws in the world. A website in Finland does not get to dictate the terms of a website anywhere outside of Finland. Period.
Exactly. Take it to a conclusion to make your argument crystal clear; a website based in country A that is full of images that meet the definition of child pornography in Country B CANNOT be censored by Country B, which has no right to "dictate the terms of a website anywhere outside of (Country B)". Keep in mind, you responded to a post that suggested Finnish authorities (Country B) can respond by ASKING ISP's to block the site in Finland.
Does that help? Are you ready to back down on your absolutist position?
Yes, it's reasonable to expect the president to stop every negative action taken by government workers everywhere with, as you say, a phone call. I'll send him a headset; he's not going to get much sleep.
You did say that "the left" views everything through the lens of race, not liberals, that is true. But inveighing against an amorphous "left" and claiming they are not "liberal" is the same parlor trick I can use by claiming "the right" is not actually conservative. It's disingenuous.
Well I understand your example, although the original poster was referring to the federal government, not states. And Tennessee? Yeah, I imagine that's all kinds of different from most of the U.S.
If you mean that big word "engagement", I put it in there because the gp post made that assertion. Your complaint that it's practically impossible to prove is moot, because I responded to the poster's claim that the U.S. *fights* wars with the intent to scare other countries.
That's not at all what Roosevelt did - he used the THREAT of war, not prosecution of war itself. If you don't understand the difference, then as you say, "I really can't help you here".
Unfortunately your kind of magic thinking leads people to vote against their own interests. That makes me a sad panda.
Wow, awesome, that should keep you going for at least a week.
A universal claim backed by absolutely zero evidence? Why, I never.
Can you really call it anecdotal if I say that I taught myself?
Yea, that's kinda the definition of 'anecdotal:' Something you claim but have no empirical data to back up.
That could be applied to nearly every claim posted on /. Lighten up, Francis.
You are skilled at serially conflating things that you don't like, as though they were actually related. They are not.
You do know that TSA screw-ups that included forcing mothers to drink their own breast milk and patting down children began in the previous administration, right?
And you know the current president didn't make a rule that mothers had to drink breast milk, don't you?
Just like you make the absurd claim that liberals view everything through the lens of race, you show your own biases quite clearly.
IN America, our homeless are richer sleeping in the water conduit tunnels below Las Vegas than the middle class of India and China who have beds and warm meals. How? Because in America we have choice.
This statement is absurd. You seem to be saying that homeless in the U.S. are richer because they can, what, choose to starve on the streets? Are you really speaking for people to claim that they are better off without beds and warm meals because they have some theoretical "choice"? I imagine a majority of them would disagree.
The other way this is absurd is to lump two very different countries together. You do know that India is a democracy, yes? In fact, the most populous democracy on the planet.
The *third* absurdity is your bald statement that the U.S. maintains armed forces to "get into wars to scare the ever loving hell out of every other nation". I think most politicians in both parties would facepalm over that assertion. I defy you to find any description of U.S. foreign policy by anyone with authority over it that describes the ENGAGEMENT in wars as a deterrent to other countries' aggression.
well it comforting to know that the same government that managed this program is now moving on to something as *truly* important as our and our childrens healthcare.
right?
Exactly. Only, it's not. The ACA is to ensure more people have health *insurance*.
I'm curious why you felt the need to break out "our childrens (sic) healthcare", as if one might assume that their (again, insurance, not healthcare) was separate from ours. Just for the emotional weight?
A universal claim backed by absolutely zero evidence? Why, I never.
Can you really call it anecdotal if I say that I taught myself? It's still a data point of one.
However, I was a terrible programmer until I learned some of the core techniques and disciplines in college (we barely had computers at my high school in the 70's). I include logical and critical thinking, some of which I got from non-science courses. Liberal arts education is extraordinarily valuable.
Great, problem solved. Now the people protesting the busing of the Silicon Valley employees can turn their attention to the actual underlying situation, in which their futures are literally being stolen from them.
"Long time residents" are not owed lower rents continuing into the indefinite future. Neighborhoods evolve. Some people win, but some people lose. That's too bad.
Personally, I expect that as a professional, I'd find those neighborhoods more interesting with the influence of the better-paid residents.
My favorite part of the flyer (surely you bothered to spend enough time reading the flyer before you posted) was the call to action, which included, "Steal from the techies you babysit for."
HI-larious!
> I realize this seems like sound advice, but it genuinely isn't, unless you're prepared for it in advance.
Not only that but.... you are sick before you know it. I am working from home today because I am sick, but I was in the office yesterday. I know now I was sick yesterday, but, at the time I didn't feel sick, I wasn't taking anything: I just thought I was tired and sore from spending the long weekend at a con (which is likely where I picked up this crud....nothing like 3000 people in a hotel to spread the love)
"Tired and sore" - yes, that sounds like the aftermath of a con.
:-)
Be thankful if a cold or flu was the only thing you picked up over the weekend.
Oh no! That roommate has been exposed to the same degree those at the grocery store would have been. He should be quarantined along with you and your sickness. That Peapod guy is going to spread your sickness to dozens of others. Better invite him inside for the week as well. Same with the Chinese delivery guy. Hope you have a pull out sofa or something.
"Did someone order a pizza?"
Boom chicka wow wow!