not what the student did or what the school officials did. The student is a dumb fuckup, and the underpaid staffers are just floundering around daily in their inadequacy and incompetence. Everything's perfectly normal up to this point.
What deeply incenses me is this asshole Starr, who has nothing better to do than poke his wiener into other peoples' dirty laundry and who clamors to stand first in line when it comes to demolishing freedom. Starr is a traitor to the American nation and should be hung - by the testicles.
The above comment about cheap energy warming up the planet is borne out of ignorance.
Please consider this: The sun bathes the planet in far more energy than we puny humans, even with fusion reactors, can produce in the foreseeable future. Global warming does not come about because of the extra ENERGY from a few centuries of humans burning fossil fuels. Global warming, so the scientific concensus goes, is a result of solar radiation being captured by greenhouse gases.
Thus, moving the world's energy economy from fossil fuels to fusion would be a tremendous help in reversing global warming.
I had a couple of Muslims for roomies at my University. One of them was well-mannered and earnest, a pleasure to be around. The other was an asshole. I've also met a few at parties or in a business setting. Some were interesting and helpful, others were loud-mouthed, petulant and irritating.
So what's your point?
Some interpretations of the Qu'ran (that are taken very seriously by their Muslim adherents) claim that it is the duty to convert every non-Muslim, or failing that, to kill him. In view of this interpretation, I am to understand I owe my life only to the circumstance that all the Muslims I've met were simply lacking in the practice of their faith? Or was I just lucky in that they interpret their faith some different way?
A more realistic strategy is to simply keep the world reasonably stable until most Christians toss their Bibles and most Muslims kick their Qu'rans. Work on global prosperity! Religion is an international disease and, along with many other diseases, is most successfully treated in countries having a high standard of living. Poor people pray to Christ/Allah/whomever for health, prosperity, and better luck in the next life. Well-off people realize they don't need Christ/Allah/whomever to be healthy and prosperous in this life.
AC, thank you for pointing out that radical Muslims are working hard to take over various countries. My favorite example is Turkey, a country with a mostly muslim population but a secular government, striving to become part of the Western world. One by one, the towel-heads are infiltrating Turkey's government, and I fear that its secular days are numbered.
That interview you quoted is easily the silliest explanation for Iranian nuclear power I've ever heard. Surely not even this Sa'idi character expects to be taken seriously?
Heavy water as such is safe to drink in small quantities. I'm not sure if heavy water becomes radioactive when irradiated; there's only so many ways for an element to decay if it has only two or three nucleons, and I kinda doubt it would occur spontaneously. However, if there is such a thing as radioactive heavy water, then it is probably lethal, depending on the dose.
It's pretty obvious that Iran wants to nuke Israel, or at least jockey for power in the nuclear club. Given nuclear technology, they would become a terrorist's clearinghouse for fissile materials. Thanks, this is just what the world needs.
Who gives a shit about your quibbles? These are the ones sitting on their butts anyway, not politically or violently active.
"Significant and growing number"?
Yes. Several thousand men who are just dying (literally if need be) to kill as many Americans as possible is a significant number. And US foreign policy is sending them in hordes and droves to the Al Quaeda recruiters; thus, "growing".
And Bush also believes that God has given him a Mission.
In the short term, I believe Bush is even more dangerous than the Muslims; but that's another topic.
What their "goal" is does not matter if they cannot achieve it.
And what makes you so sure they cannot? They are very patient, very determined and they multiply like cockroaches. Very possibly quite a successful strategy against a government that plans no further than the next election, controlled by corporations that plan no further than the next quarter.
If you would not vote for Osama, then it really does Not MATTER WHAT THEIR GOALS ARE BECAUSE THEY WILL NEVER ACHIEVE THEM.
Well, their goals matter because that's what they're working on. And voting is just one side of a successful strategy: Muslim immigrants out-reproducing US good ol' boys could one day out-vote them. But so long as the time is not ripe for that, there's always the strategy of a thousand pinpricks, which in the long term also has a finite chance of destabilizing the government.
No. The danger of our system being destroyed from within IS FAR GREATER THAN FROM WITHOUT.
That depends on which country/countries you're talking about. I do believe the US is in a rapid downward spiral of self-destruction, but I see no need for other countries to follow their example.
In the US, statistically, you are more likely to kill YOURSELF than to be killed by a terrorist.
Terrorism isn't about killing people; it's about paralyzing and poisoning a society. The damage done is far more extensive than a few deaths.
You put an amazing amount of faith in your government.
You must have misunderstood me there. I trust the US government no farther than I can toss Dick Cheney.
Who will/can verify that the "terrorists" found are actually terrorists?
Western judicial systems are fairly good at this sort of thing, if they're kept on track. But they need to be, which is why I insist on the controls and safeguards I mentioned.
Instead, why not just realize that there is a certain danger in living every day and that no amount of Big Brother will ever protect you from that?
I'm not content to have my government turn the other cheek to forces actively threatening my lifestyle, if not my life. Consider that a reasonable amount of counter-pressure is needed to keep the state's enemies from becoming too bold and becoming so active that even you would acknowledge being in danger.
The "optimal strategy" for "dealing with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism" does NOT include elevating it to an issue of "national security".
When dealing with an organization bent on destroying a government, I see this as the only possible reaction, by definition.
You deal with it by supporting the liberal and moderate elements
Yep, I'm all for that, though even here I'd be wary. And as I said, I consider the tough judicial measures as part of a successful strategy. While I'm not sure if appeasement will ultimately be successful, I certainly regard a major change in foreign policy to be much more important than criminal/judicial/security procedures for dealing with
The moderate Islamists aren't the ones I'm worried about. If all Islamists worked the way you stated, there wouldn't be a problem. And just for the record, I agree that US foreign policy is an embarrassment to the entire free world.
I agree with you perfectly. It's not a matter of "spin" and "fearmongering": Christian and Islam fundamentalism are both extremely dangerous, and are heading at a breakneck pace for a massive global confrontation which will negatively impact our lives in a big way, or those of the next generation. I want to see Usama bin Laden dead, and I want to see Pat Robertson dead.
There are hundreds of millions of Muslims leading peaceful lives somewhere, who have no interest in blowing us Westerners up. But there is also a significant and growing number who are highly determined to force Islam on the entire world, introduce the Sharia as law globally and set up everything under religious rule in something they envision as the "Caliphate." This idea is nearly as nonsensical as Germany's one-time plans of the Thousand Year Reich, but that doesn't stop them from trying. These people fully believe they are acting on orders from Allah, and their religious leaders encourage them in that belief. These people believe their cause is more important than their own life, let alone the lives of an arbitrary number of infidels.
Wake up, folks! We're not talking about a handful of misguided individuals, like a Unabomber, nor a tiny sect like the Branch Davidian or whatever. We're talking about a loosely flung organization of thousands, with millions of supporters or at least sympathizers behind them. Their goal isn't to blow up a few people; while many view 9/11 as a global disaster, I consider it little more than a minor skirmish in an ongoing cultural war with much bigger stakes. 9/11 was successful beyond the wildest expectations of its perpetrators, and directly affected maybe 10,000 or 20,000 people - the victims and their families. But Islamic fundamentalists plan nothing short of overthrowing our governments and replacing them with the rule of foaming-at-the mouth religious zealots even worse than the ones currently ruling the US. This would affect hundreds of millions of people, perhaps for generations. Or, to put it into terms even your mouth-breathing neighbor would understand: They want to take away your booze and your porn and make you pray and bang your head on the ground five times a day! You could keep your guns, though, because killing each other seems to be an important facet of Muslim life.
In view of this danger, I have no problem with the government
monitoring bank transactions
tapping phones
deporting known radicals
sending spies into mosques and Qu'ran schools
and generally taking a tough stance. I believe that the stakes are nothing less than the continued existence of Western civilization as we know it.
At the same time, I expect our governments to proceed fairly and appropriately. That sounds very wishy-washy, so I'll add some clarifying examples:
investigations should be discreet, and have no effect on individuals under investigation. My blood boils at the thought of some innocent observee being driven into bankruptcy just by virtue of being under observation;
investigations and their results must not be cross-purposed: If a terrorist investigation reveals an individual to be a drug dealer / kiddie pornster / wife beater / would-be presidential assassin / music downloader, then any evidence turned up by such an investigation must be null and void. Not to protect criminals, but to protect our civil liberties. Investigations into state-threatening activities should receive special privileges, which must never be abused for other purposes, as seems to be common in the US;
even if confirmed to be enemies of the state, those thus discovered must receive a fair trial and due process. While I'm all for dealing decisively with people who threaten my way of life, I see no reason why we should drop principles held sacred to that way of life.
At the same time, I recommend dealing severely with attempts by anyone: politicians, law makers or law enforcers to commandeer for unrelated purposes those special powers implemented for dealing with national threats. I'm talking loss of office, heavy fines, even imprisonment for such abuses. The danger of our system being destroyed from within is just as grave as from without, and must be resisted. If we drop all the accomplishments of centuries of civilization and justice at the mention of the word "terrorist" then –to quote a
I'd like to add my voice to the tiny minority chorus of people admonishing Americans for creating a catch phrase that says the exact opposite of what it's intended to mean. I'm sensitive to language issues, and reading this phrase bothers me in a way similar to that in which others are bothered by fingernails scratching on a blackboard.
If I ever find myself re-enacting Falling Down," it will be because of this or something like it.
Or is there more here than meets the eye? Are the Powers That Be just getting the sheep accustomed to hearing that black is white?
It's beyond me how not anyone could have flagged your post as "insightful". I object most strongly to the entire sentiment of your post.
To put things into perspective: I'm not at all worried about this particular case. I know that whatever I send over the Internet can and probably will be snooped by Echelon, and even without that, the Internet is simply not a safe medium for confidential data. Nor am I suprised that not all data is necessarily instantly destroyed. Nor that Google is involved. The bigger the target, the more likely the attack.
What concerns me is your sheep-like blind faith in your corrupt and evil government, combined with your attitude of "if I give up some of my freedoms, this will enable my government to protect me better." You and countless ill-informed dimwits like yourself are the supportive base of a massive, concerted, very deliberate attack on the American Way, the American Constitution and the ideals on which the country was founded. Many good men died for your right not to be micro-managed by an intrusive and abusive government, and your mindless surrender of this right invalidates their lifetime heartblood.
I'll try to calm down briefly to explain better why I am ranting at you. Here are some things that need to be considered:
First off, the actual threat to your life and safety from terrorism is negligible. Acts of terrorism usually kill a few dozen to maybe a few hundred people. 9/11 was an outstanding exception that will hopefully be the high water mark for one or more decades. Yes, it sucks to be one of the 3500 people killed in NY, but please consider that:
Many, many more people are killed every year in the US by gun-wielding Americans;
Many, many more are killed by reckless and/or drunk drivers;
Far more die early because they willingly neglect their health, either smoking or drinking or eating excessively;
...and we rarely experience national outrage at these things. The thing about terrorism is not the actual danger from it, it's just your warped perception.
On the other hand, there is strong evidence that US lawmakers do not have your interests at heart:
the sudden loss of interest in the case against Microsoft when Bush took office;
the new flurry of draconian laws against media file copiers at the behest of the *AA;
the inappropriate extension of copyright terms;
the recent ruling for industry and against residents in the "resident domain" thing;
Bush's attempted sell-out of control of US ports to the UAE.
IMHO, these happenings all share a common aspect: There is money involved, lots of it, and it is likely that lawmakers are letting their decisions be swayed by the prospect of part of it finding its way into their pockets.
Your corrupt government is relentlessly extending its own powers to act against its citizens as it pleases, and using terrorism as an excuse. Much of the newly-acquired power is being used to support wealthy industries, not honest citizens. THIS is the real danger, and you are in support of it. I cannot begin to express how strongly I loathe your stupidity.
Are there jobs available in reasonable numbers and at reasonable rates for, umm Java/J2EE programmers? Sysadmins? Systems architects? Other geek professions?
I'd go in a heartbeat if I could get my girlfriend to uproot.
Re:Backgrounds of the PHP developers.
on
PHP 5.1.0 Released
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The Zend guys happen to be damn good programmers - have a look at the code of the interpreter
That sentence illustrates the problem and your lack of understanding of it.
Design and programming are two distinct disciplines. Some brilliant developers are good at both, but many people, myself included, get too much satisfaction from diving into coding to thoroughly think about what they are embarking on. The result is a program/system/language/whatever that starts with a clean small core but grows ever bigger and uglier as changes are bolted on. I tried PHP a couple years back and was disgusted by it. There's a reason why computer language design is a discipline of an academic subject, Computer Science: A wealth of knowledge has accumulated on how to do this kind of thing "right," and applying that knowledge will usually lead to a better end result.
Specifically, my beef with PHP summarizes down to: It makes simple things simple in a way that encourages sloppy coding. PHP is to the current would-be Web geek generation what BASIC was to teenage would-be hotshot coders in the late '80s: A way to achieve "gee whiz!" effects easily and cheaply. It's possible to write large, elegant programs in PHP, but that's not what usually happens.
Some more alternatives to MySQL
on
PHP 5.1.0 Released
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I apologize for being a bit off topic, but I'd like to throw in a couple of cents' worth on newly emerged alternatives in the "free DB" arena. Hopefully PHP support for these will be forthcoming forthwith:
IBM has spiffed up Cloudscape to be somewhat compatible to DB2, renamed it to Derby and is giving it away
Oracle is giving away a mildly crippled version of its DB, I don't remember the exact circumstances
ADABAS, also known as SAP DB, is now also FOSS
Firebird, née Interbase, was freed years ago and is said to be working well and under active development. I don't know why so few people seem to like it.
I believe I heard about SQL Server being "free" under some circumstances too, but I'm not sure.
So... many thanks to MySQL for being a forerunner in the "free DB" department, and more thanks to other, formerly proprietary-only vendors for making their products a little more accessible to the common man!
...insofar as corporations don't *always* manage to bully or bribe their way to getting legislation passed in their interest and against those of consumers, or citizens in general.
Here in Europe, the success rate for such capers is only about 50%:)
So let's see what happens this time. Remember, if the EU Parliament doesn't immediately give in, it's still a feasible tactic to target individual countries, bring about some division and then see if the Überparliament has meanwhile changed their tune.
The real disease is the fact that the USA's elected lawmakers are, in many if not most cases, susceptible to pressure and/or bribery by the industry. This is how many of these asinine laws originated.
and, um, how many died thanks to the athiestic commies of last century?
Flamebait/Troll, but I'll answer you anyway.
For lack of better knowledge, I'll simply guess that the number of people killed by Communists in the last century is roughly balanced with the number of people killed by Capitalists. But that's quite irrelevant because you're inviting me and other readers to compare apples with oranges.
In my earlier post, I was talking about the atrocities committed specifically by Christians, for and in the name of Christianity. There are wars going on all the time, alas, but most of them are politically motivated, not religiously. WWII was a power/land grab, and religion was a side issue at best. 6 million Jews were gassed not for being Jewish but for being different, because they were in the way, for economic reasons, as sacrificial scapegoats, whatever. Vietnam had nothing to do with atheists vs. Buddhists (?), it was power and politics. Nor did any other Communist aggressions. Commies acted as commies first and foremost, and atheists only incidentally.
On the other hand, it was specifically the Church that ordered and condoned torture and murder in countless cases, explicitly in the name of the Lord. And don't get me started about the Crusades!
The only modern equivalent would be the ongoing Palestinian struggle against Israel, which is at least partly religously motivated, and terrorist attacks by Muslims against the USA (among others), which is mostly religiously motivated. But so far, even this amount of violence pales by comparison to what the Catholic Church did in the Dark Ages.
OK, I'll refine that statement: There are many loathsome scum who claim to be Christians, or think they are Christians.
Now if you define Christianity as faithfully following Christ not just in words but also deeds, then I suppose you'd be looking at a bunch of people whom I would consider good: Christ wasn't known as a man of torture or genocide, and though I'm not well enough versed (pun?) in the Bible, I'll assume he never lied or cheated either.
I'm not about to get into a deep debate, but I am firmly convinced that the harm done by religion far outweighs the good. Just thinking about the absolutely savage treatment of human beings throughout the Dark Ages makes me ashamed for my entire species. It's not over: Ayatolla Chomenei issued a Fatwa (order to kill) on Salman Rushdie, Ayatolla Robertson on President Chavez of Venezuela. A cult whose leaders propagate murder holds, to me, no redeeming value.
There are many good, decent Christians. I posit that these are people who would be just as good and decent without their religion. There are many loathsome scum that are Christians. I posit that many of these people are happy to use Christianity as an excuse.
Confirming identity does nothing toward confirming non-terrorism. The attackers of 9/11 were fully legal American residents, maybe even citizens, and even the most expensive and invasive of identity tests would not have disclosed their terrorist intent.
Reasons why this would be considered for TSA purposes: (1) It will make some ignorant people feel more secure; (2) It will facilitate all kinds of other investigations, mostly related to the War On Drugs; (3) it will provide another opportunity for pork projects and kickbacks for government officials.
Slashdot Mirror
not what the student did or what the school officials did. The student is a dumb fuckup, and the underpaid staffers are just floundering around daily in their inadequacy and incompetence. Everything's perfectly normal up to this point.
What deeply incenses me is this asshole Starr, who has nothing better to do than poke his wiener into other peoples' dirty laundry and who clamors to stand first in line when it comes to demolishing freedom. Starr is a traitor to the American nation and should be hung - by the testicles.
The above comment about cheap energy warming up the planet is borne out of ignorance.
Please consider this: The sun bathes the planet in far more energy than we puny humans, even with fusion reactors, can produce in the foreseeable future. Global warming does not come about because of the extra ENERGY from a few centuries of humans burning fossil fuels. Global warming, so the scientific concensus goes, is a result of solar radiation being captured by greenhouse gases.
Thus, moving the world's energy economy from fossil fuels to fusion would be a tremendous help in reversing global warming.
This is the most insightful comment I've seen in this discussion so far. I wish I had mod points to give this person. Please do it for me.
I had a couple of Muslims for roomies at my University. One of them was well-mannered and earnest, a pleasure to be around. The other was an asshole. I've also met a few at parties or in a business setting. Some were interesting and helpful, others were loud-mouthed, petulant and irritating.
So what's your point?
Some interpretations of the Qu'ran (that are taken very seriously by their Muslim adherents) claim that it is the duty to convert every non-Muslim, or failing that, to kill him. In view of this interpretation, I am to understand I owe my life only to the circumstance that all the Muslims I've met were simply lacking in the practice of their faith? Or was I just lucky in that they interpret their faith some different way?
A more realistic strategy is to simply keep the world reasonably stable until most Christians toss their Bibles and most Muslims kick their Qu'rans. Work on global prosperity! Religion is an international disease and, along with many other diseases, is most successfully treated in countries having a high standard of living. Poor people pray to Christ/Allah/whomever for health, prosperity, and better luck in the next life. Well-off people realize they don't need Christ/Allah/whomever to be healthy and prosperous in this life.
AC, thank you for pointing out that radical Muslims are working hard to take over various countries. My favorite example is Turkey, a country with a mostly muslim population but a secular government, striving to become part of the Western world. One by one, the towel-heads are infiltrating Turkey's government, and I fear that its secular days are numbered.
That interview you quoted is easily the silliest explanation for Iranian nuclear power I've ever heard. Surely not even this Sa'idi character expects to be taken seriously?
Heavy water as such is safe to drink in small quantities. I'm not sure if heavy water becomes radioactive when irradiated; there's only so many ways for an element to decay if it has only two or three nucleons, and I kinda doubt it would occur spontaneously. However, if there is such a thing as radioactive heavy water, then it is probably lethal, depending on the dose.
It's pretty obvious that Iran wants to nuke Israel, or at least jockey for power in the nuclear club. Given nuclear technology, they would become a terrorist's clearinghouse for fissile materials. Thanks, this is just what the world needs.
Who gives a shit about your quibbles? These are the ones sitting on their butts anyway, not politically or violently active.
Yes. Several thousand men who are just dying (literally if need be) to kill as many Americans as possible is a significant number. And US foreign policy is sending them in hordes and droves to the Al Quaeda recruiters; thus, "growing".
In the short term, I believe Bush is even more dangerous than the Muslims; but that's another topic.
And what makes you so sure they cannot? They are very patient, very determined and they multiply like cockroaches. Very possibly quite a successful strategy against a government that plans no further than the next election, controlled by corporations that plan no further than the next quarter.
Well, their goals matter because that's what they're working on. And voting is just one side of a successful strategy: Muslim immigrants out-reproducing US good ol' boys could one day out-vote them. But so long as the time is not ripe for that, there's always the strategy of a thousand pinpricks, which in the long term also has a finite chance of destabilizing the government.
That depends on which country/countries you're talking about. I do believe the US is in a rapid downward spiral of self-destruction, but I see no need for other countries to follow their example.
Terrorism isn't about killing people; it's about paralyzing and poisoning a society. The damage done is far more extensive than a few deaths.
You must have misunderstood me there. I trust the US government no farther than I can toss Dick Cheney.
Western judicial systems are fairly good at this sort of thing, if they're kept on track. But they need to be, which is why I insist on the controls and safeguards I mentioned.
I'm not content to have my government turn the other cheek to forces actively threatening my lifestyle, if not my life. Consider that a reasonable amount of counter-pressure is needed to keep the state's enemies from becoming too bold and becoming so active that even you would acknowledge being in danger.
When dealing with an organization bent on destroying a government, I see this as the only possible reaction, by definition.
Yep, I'm all for that, though even here I'd be wary. And as I said, I consider the tough judicial measures as part of a successful strategy. While I'm not sure if appeasement will ultimately be successful, I certainly regard a major change in foreign policy to be much more important than criminal/judicial/security procedures for dealing with
The moderate Islamists aren't the ones I'm worried about. If all Islamists worked the way you stated, there wouldn't be a problem. And just for the record, I agree that US foreign policy is an embarrassment to the entire free world.
I agree with you perfectly. It's not a matter of "spin" and "fearmongering": Christian and Islam fundamentalism are both extremely dangerous, and are heading at a breakneck pace for a massive global confrontation which will negatively impact our lives in a big way, or those of the next generation. I want to see Usama bin Laden dead, and I want to see Pat Robertson dead.
Wake up, folks! We're not talking about a handful of misguided individuals, like a Unabomber, nor a tiny sect like the Branch Davidian or whatever. We're talking about a loosely flung organization of thousands, with millions of supporters or at least sympathizers behind them. Their goal isn't to blow up a few people; while many view 9/11 as a global disaster, I consider it little more than a minor skirmish in an ongoing cultural war with much bigger stakes. 9/11 was successful beyond the wildest expectations of its perpetrators, and directly affected maybe 10,000 or 20,000 people - the victims and their families. But Islamic fundamentalists plan nothing short of overthrowing our governments and replacing them with the rule of foaming-at-the mouth religious zealots even worse than the ones currently ruling the US. This would affect hundreds of millions of people, perhaps for generations. Or, to put it into terms even your mouth-breathing neighbor would understand: They want to take away your booze and your porn and make you pray and bang your head on the ground five times a day! You could keep your guns, though, because killing each other seems to be an important facet of Muslim life.
In view of this danger, I have no problem with the government
and generally taking a tough stance. I believe that the stakes are nothing less than the continued existence of Western civilization as we know it.
At the same time, I expect our governments to proceed fairly and appropriately. That sounds very wishy-washy, so I'll add some clarifying examples:
At the same time, I recommend dealing severely with attempts by anyone: politicians, law makers or law enforcers to commandeer for unrelated purposes those special powers implemented for dealing with national threats. I'm talking loss of office, heavy fines, even imprisonment for such abuses. The danger of our system being destroyed from within is just as grave as from without, and must be resisted. If we drop all the accomplishments of centuries of civilization and justice at the mention of the word "terrorist" then –to quote a
I'd like to add my voice to the tiny minority chorus of people admonishing Americans for creating a catch phrase that says the exact opposite of what it's intended to mean. I'm sensitive to language issues, and reading this phrase bothers me in a way similar to that in which others are bothered by fingernails scratching on a blackboard.
If I ever find myself re-enacting Falling Down," it will be because of this or something like it.
Or is there more here than meets the eye? Are the Powers That Be just getting the sheep accustomed to hearing that black is white?
No, that's the death of America!
It's beyond me how not anyone could have flagged your post as "insightful". I object most strongly to the entire sentiment of your post.
To put things into perspective: I'm not at all worried about this particular case. I know that whatever I send over the Internet can and probably will be snooped by Echelon, and even without that, the Internet is simply not a safe medium for confidential data. Nor am I suprised that not all data is necessarily instantly destroyed. Nor that Google is involved. The bigger the target, the more likely the attack.
What concerns me is your sheep-like blind faith in your corrupt and evil government, combined with your attitude of "if I give up some of my freedoms, this will enable my government to protect me better." You and countless ill-informed dimwits like yourself are the supportive base of a massive, concerted, very deliberate attack on the American Way, the American Constitution and the ideals on which the country was founded. Many good men died for your right not to be micro-managed by an intrusive and abusive government, and your mindless surrender of this right invalidates their lifetime heartblood.
I'll try to calm down briefly to explain better why I am ranting at you. Here are some things that need to be considered:
First off, the actual threat to your life and safety from terrorism is negligible. Acts of terrorism usually kill a few dozen to maybe a few hundred people. 9/11 was an outstanding exception that will hopefully be the high water mark for one or more decades. Yes, it sucks to be one of the 3500 people killed in NY, but please consider that:
On the other hand, there is strong evidence that US lawmakers do not have your interests at heart:
IMHO, these happenings all share a common aspect: There is money involved, lots of it, and it is likely that lawmakers are letting their decisions be swayed by the prospect of part of it finding its way into their pockets.
Your corrupt government is relentlessly extending its own powers to act against its citizens as it pleases, and using terrorism as an excuse. Much of the newly-acquired power is being used to support wealthy industries, not honest citizens. THIS is the real danger, and you are in support of it. I cannot begin to express how strongly I loathe your stupidity.
that now SlashDotters will no longer have an excuse for poor spelling in their posts?
Oops... I obviously didn't read that post from 2 days ago.
Just goes to show that an article's effectiveness at capturing your attention depends on its choice of title and keywords. Well, among other things.
Before this post, I'd never heard of Google Base. For anyone else in that boat, here's the URL:
:)
http://base.google.com/base/default
And yes, it shows up very high on the list of hits if you Google for "Google Base"
Are there jobs available in reasonable numbers and at reasonable rates for, umm Java/J2EE programmers? Sysadmins? Systems architects? Other geek professions?
I'd go in a heartbeat if I could get my girlfriend to uproot.
Design and programming are two distinct disciplines. Some brilliant developers are good at both, but many people, myself included, get too much satisfaction from diving into coding to thoroughly think about what they are embarking on. The result is a program/system/language/whatever that starts with a clean small core but grows ever bigger and uglier as changes are bolted on. I tried PHP a couple years back and was disgusted by it. There's a reason why computer language design is a discipline of an academic subject, Computer Science: A wealth of knowledge has accumulated on how to do this kind of thing "right," and applying that knowledge will usually lead to a better end result.
Specifically, my beef with PHP summarizes down to: It makes simple things simple in a way that encourages sloppy coding. PHP is to the current would-be Web geek generation what BASIC was to teenage would-be hotshot coders in the late '80s: A way to achieve "gee whiz!" effects easily and cheaply. It's possible to write large, elegant programs in PHP, but that's not what usually happens.
- IBM has spiffed up Cloudscape to be somewhat compatible to DB2, renamed it to Derby and is giving it away
- Oracle is giving away a mildly crippled version of its DB, I don't remember the exact circumstances
- ADABAS, also known as SAP DB, is now also FOSS
- Firebird, née Interbase, was freed years ago and is said to be working well and under active development. I don't know why so few people seem to like it.
- I believe I heard about SQL Server being "free" under some circumstances too, but I'm not sure.
So... many thanks to MySQL for being a forerunner in the "free DB" department, and more thanks to other, formerly proprietary-only vendors for making their products a little more accessible to the common man!...insofar as corporations don't *always* manage to bully or bribe their way to getting legislation passed in their interest and against those of consumers, or citizens in general.
:)
Here in Europe, the success rate for such capers is only about 50%
So let's see what happens this time. Remember, if the EU Parliament doesn't immediately give in, it's still a feasible tactic to target individual countries, bring about some division and then see if the Überparliament has meanwhile changed their tune.
The real disease is the fact that the USA's elected lawmakers are, in many if not most cases, susceptible to pressure and/or bribery by the industry. This is how many of these asinine laws originated.
Unlimited legal campaign contributions, indeed!
For lack of better knowledge, I'll simply guess that the number of people killed by Communists in the last century is roughly balanced with the number of people killed by Capitalists. But that's quite irrelevant because you're inviting me and other readers to compare apples with oranges.
In my earlier post, I was talking about the atrocities committed specifically by Christians, for and in the name of Christianity. There are wars going on all the time, alas, but most of them are politically motivated, not religiously. WWII was a power/land grab, and religion was a side issue at best. 6 million Jews were gassed not for being Jewish but for being different, because they were in the way, for economic reasons, as sacrificial scapegoats, whatever. Vietnam had nothing to do with atheists vs. Buddhists (?), it was power and politics. Nor did any other Communist aggressions. Commies acted as commies first and foremost, and atheists only incidentally.
On the other hand, it was specifically the Church that ordered and condoned torture and murder in countless cases, explicitly in the name of the Lord. And don't get me started about the Crusades!
The only modern equivalent would be the ongoing Palestinian struggle against Israel, which is at least partly religously motivated, and terrorist attacks by Muslims against the USA (among others), which is mostly religiously motivated. But so far, even this amount of violence pales by comparison to what the Catholic Church did in the Dark Ages.
OK, I'll refine that statement: There are many loathsome scum who claim to be Christians, or think they are Christians.
Now if you define Christianity as faithfully following Christ not just in words but also deeds, then I suppose you'd be looking at a bunch of people whom I would consider good: Christ wasn't known as a man of torture or genocide, and though I'm not well enough versed (pun?) in the Bible, I'll assume he never lied or cheated either.
He's very, very right.
I'm not about to get into a deep debate, but I am firmly convinced that the harm done by religion far outweighs the good. Just thinking about the absolutely savage treatment of human beings throughout the Dark Ages makes me ashamed for my entire species. It's not over: Ayatolla Chomenei issued a Fatwa (order to kill) on Salman Rushdie, Ayatolla Robertson on President Chavez of Venezuela. A cult whose leaders propagate murder holds, to me, no redeeming value.
There are many good, decent Christians. I posit that these are people who would be just as good and decent without their religion. There are many loathsome scum that are Christians. I posit that many of these people are happy to use Christianity as an excuse.
Can you bust the myth that "Intelligent Design" is science?
Confirming identity does nothing toward confirming non-terrorism. The attackers of 9/11 were fully legal American residents, maybe even citizens, and even the most expensive and invasive of identity tests would not have disclosed their terrorist intent.
Reasons why this would be considered for TSA purposes: (1) It will make some ignorant people feel more secure; (2) It will facilitate all kinds of other investigations, mostly related to the War On Drugs; (3) it will provide another opportunity for pork projects and kickbacks for government officials.