Even more fundamentally obvious, the number of toys and troops, and their vast overarching deployments, creates an atmosphere that inevitably leads to wars. This is opportunity presenting itself to the military, and wars of opportunity. Let alone how it benefits the military industrial complex to have our military in such positions of opportunity.
If we have troops deployed globally, as we do now, the likelihood of elective war, even global war, goes up exponentially. It's what keeps such military geopolitics sustainable. In short: Weapons have a tendency to go off. It's what defines them as weapons. The idea of a deterrent force is an oxymoron and a myth.
So the only question in my mind is "How is this any different or less ethical than what Congress has done to this country?" The only difference is that, for some reason that escapes me, what Congress is doing, putting hundreds of thousands out of work because we don't accept election results any longer, is legal.
Clearly, this act is illegal, but my point is that both acts should be, and both are about the same level of nuts. Congress' behavior should be criminalized.
All those years of Russian history and I never understood why you might have to dissolve the Duma. This is a prime example. Our legislature cannot function, and is randomly lashing out at the people it represents. They have caused more harm to more people than this sick perp could ever hope to.
After Matt Smith's regenerative comment about having "two legs," I wonder if the Doctor shouldn't come back as a dog, or some mythical CGI centaur type thing. Why limit ourselves to humanity? Where is your imagination?
Oh, right. For the same reason Peter Capaldi is chosen as the next Doctor. The novelty of any such change wears off too quickly, and then you're stuck with a world of fan expectations and a never-ending cycle of ridiculous fan service. Better to keep the formula locked away in a vault, even if it isn't such a secret any longer, eh?
I heartily support Moffat's decision to keep it simple.
In areas of high sensitivity, there is no such thing as "fearmongering." Only fear, and justifiable risk. That it's being publicized in this way, without the inclusion of some context in the summary of the real security needs of the governments, who have to worry about TEMPEST emissions and other crap no one would dream of caring about, is the "fearmongering." I trust that our governments know what their requirements are in this regard, and that avoiding Lenovo is not going to keep them from accomplishing their mission. So that choice is a no-brainer.
I doubt however, that avoiding that particular brand will help, when everything else is also made in China, and the minerals are sourced from China. That's the real dilemma. How do you maintain security when you produce very little as a nation? There's no substitute for "made at home" in these cases. I wonder in what case, if any, that is actually truly achievable.
This is abuse of the reservation system, plain and simple. It simply is not robust enough (too informal) to handle bots. I suspect it soon will become commonplace to require tortuous captchas for reservations. Great job, lazy hacktivists! You've ruined e-life for everyone.
As for posting code for it in the wild so any script kiddy can do it. Good for you. That's called leveling the playing field. It's the proliferation of bots just to be shits to each other that rankles my ire, not the fact that everyone can now do it.
Mod this up, because he's absolutely correct. There is a meta-process that was included to prevent this sort of thing from ever coming to trial, and it is short-circuited by our ubiquitous "infotainment" media. Thanks for weighing in AC.
Yes, I call that "their means justify our means." It is distasteful, and a logical fallacy, not to mention a swift road to hell and warfare. I am heartened to see someone else coming to that realization. I am dismayed by the trend.
Yes, and accusations are a dime a dozen, battery can be anything from a brutal clubbing to throwing a wad of paper with ill intent, and resisting arrest is one officer's bad day away from being on your docket as well, should you be close to an unfortunate occurance. Context is everything.
And CONTEXT is what has been left out of the media screed you just quoted, which on the night of the killing included critical context in the NBC playback of the 911 call. You've been indoctrinated by a media machine digging up as much shit as possible on Zimmerman to try to get people to overlook the fact that they cut up the 911 call, deliberately, and with intent to race bait and perhaps start a race riot, friend AC. I call bullshit on the media. I call BS on unenlightened self-interest and circling the wagons to protect one's own. The media are one's that caused the prosecutors to overreach, because of public demand for it, and caused a failure to convict Zimmerman of the crimes he actually committed that night, and thus the real failure of justice. Overreach and hype. We need fewer people who believe the hype-machine's bullshit, not more. Doubling down on crap is not the solution.
That woman was crazy, and deserved 20 years, and the context shows it. What did the context in the Zimmerman case show? That he didn't commit murder. That is all.
Two words explain this attitude historically: "Secret Tribunal." (You can insert the word "military" if you'd prefer three words).
What would have them spinning at 5000 rpm in their graves is Guantanamo Bay, not this trial and public reaction. A public trial by jury is exactly what they designed, and the country was so small and insular at that point that reputations could be ruined far more thoroughly than in today's overpopulated, urban, and largely faceless culture. They absolutely expected mob mentality to be a result, which was why so many of them were members of secret societies. Privacy to speak one's mind may never have occurred to them as a possibility without that. The possibility of a public trial ruining someone's reputation was probably expected, in my considered opinion.
I don't have any primary sources to back that up though.
I'm not sure Balmer realizes he is no longer in B-school. He seems to like to surround himself with like-minded B-school buddies, and runs Microsoft like it's the fraternity Mu Sigma Alpha. This kind of bizarro, "in"-group lingo doesn't actually fly when you're the CEO of a Fortune 500 company in what appears to be a consolidation/contraction phase and a profit-taking decline. This buddy mentality is the last thing "MS House" needs.
Plainspoken English matters in business when there is a crisis at hand. This kind of platitude laden memo belongs in a company that is not hungry and is cruising along with a high-quality, high-growth business strategy. Then you can talk biz-orgs theory all you like, however you may please.
My 2 cents. That penny is depreciated to the inflation standard of the year 2500, I would guess, but I find this kind of gamesmanship worrying.
I want MS to adapt and succeed. It has every reason to. It doesn't seem to be doing so. It seems to be resting on its laurels, and has been for a decade.
Oh yes, I've heard this song before. Let me change the tempo. Those congress people have rights too.
Like the right to be reasonably sure I'm not a "Jared Loughner" before letting me within 20 yards of them. This is something that is lost on most people who use "doesn't mean dick" to say something supposedly profound.
I swing that way too. But I do think the intent and philosophy of the law is important.
I also believe that governments take away your rights by force when you most need them. That is the sad truth. Rights are only granted by governments when they don't matter, which is why the Founders felt it important to not grant rights like in Magna Carta.
How provincial of you. When did I say I was talking about legal rights? The Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, only mentions which _natural_ rights the Federal Government may not infringe upon. The Founders were very specific about not coining explicit legal rights in those amendments. The only legal rights mentioned in Con Law are things like copyright. There may be others. Don't know. Not an expert, but I do know the philosophy with which the Constitution was framed, and we are absolutely talking about natural rights, and _only_ natural law regarding them, in the above case.
How does this play out in the release version of Firefox? Because in TFA it sounds like, very soon, I may not be able to watch Netflix on my computer any more without a preview version of IE.:^(
For now, it's just use Silverlight, but will MS share its new platform lockdown?
Slashdot Mirror
Even when there's nothing to talk about, you can have a Bitcoin story on the Slashdot front page every day.
This isn't even "news for nerds," it's Usenet-style speculation for the terminally bored.
Even more fundamentally obvious, the number of toys and troops, and their vast overarching deployments, creates an atmosphere that inevitably leads to wars. This is opportunity presenting itself to the military, and wars of opportunity. Let alone how it benefits the military industrial complex to have our military in such positions of opportunity.
If we have troops deployed globally, as we do now, the likelihood of elective war, even global war, goes up exponentially. It's what keeps such military geopolitics sustainable. In short: Weapons have a tendency to go off. It's what defines them as weapons. The idea of a deterrent force is an oxymoron and a myth.
So the only question in my mind is "How is this any different or less ethical than what Congress has done to this country?" The only difference is that, for some reason that escapes me, what Congress is doing, putting hundreds of thousands out of work because we don't accept election results any longer, is legal.
Clearly, this act is illegal, but my point is that both acts should be, and both are about the same level of nuts. Congress' behavior should be criminalized.
All those years of Russian history and I never understood why you might have to dissolve the Duma. This is a prime example. Our legislature cannot function, and is randomly lashing out at the people it represents. They have caused more harm to more people than this sick perp could ever hope to.
After Matt Smith's regenerative comment about having "two legs," I wonder if the Doctor shouldn't come back as a dog, or some mythical CGI centaur type thing. Why limit ourselves to humanity? Where is your imagination?
Oh, right. For the same reason Peter Capaldi is chosen as the next Doctor. The novelty of any such change wears off too quickly, and then you're stuck with a world of fan expectations and a never-ending cycle of ridiculous fan service. Better to keep the formula locked away in a vault, even if it isn't such a secret any longer, eh?
I heartily support Moffat's decision to keep it simple.
(*)(*) - Strongly Disagree
Ftfy
In areas of high sensitivity, there is no such thing as "fearmongering." Only fear, and justifiable risk. That it's being publicized in this way, without the inclusion of some context in the summary of the real security needs of the governments, who have to worry about TEMPEST emissions and other crap no one would dream of caring about, is the "fearmongering." I trust that our governments know what their requirements are in this regard, and that avoiding Lenovo is not going to keep them from accomplishing their mission. So that choice is a no-brainer.
I doubt however, that avoiding that particular brand will help, when everything else is also made in China, and the minerals are sourced from China. That's the real dilemma. How do you maintain security when you produce very little as a nation? There's no substitute for "made at home" in these cases. I wonder in what case, if any, that is actually truly achievable.
This is abuse of the reservation system, plain and simple. It simply is not robust enough (too informal) to handle bots. I suspect it soon will become commonplace to require tortuous captchas for reservations. Great job, lazy hacktivists! You've ruined e-life for everyone.
As for posting code for it in the wild so any script kiddy can do it. Good for you. That's called leveling the playing field. It's the proliferation of bots just to be shits to each other that rankles my ire, not the fact that everyone can now do it.
Hey, they aren't even on American soil! That was the whole point. To create a human rights "dead zone." Atrocious.
With his Masonic ring, George Washington would shoot lasers at them. ;^)
Mod this up, because he's absolutely correct. There is a meta-process that was included to prevent this sort of thing from ever coming to trial, and it is short-circuited by our ubiquitous "infotainment" media. Thanks for weighing in AC.
Yes, I call that "their means justify our means." It is distasteful, and a logical fallacy, not to mention a swift road to hell and warfare. I am heartened to see someone else coming to that realization. I am dismayed by the trend.
If it was POWs there, the Red Cross would have access. It is far worse than that.
Hey, glad to see you're working on your rage issues, if not your tact. You have no idea who I AM.
If clicking a bookmark or using a Firefox search assist is navigating, then yes. You make it sound like he's typing in the URL.
Yes, and accusations are a dime a dozen, battery can be anything from a brutal clubbing to throwing a wad of paper with ill intent, and resisting arrest is one officer's bad day away from being on your docket as well, should you be close to an unfortunate occurance. Context is everything.
And CONTEXT is what has been left out of the media screed you just quoted, which on the night of the killing included critical context in the NBC playback of the 911 call. You've been indoctrinated by a media machine digging up as much shit as possible on Zimmerman to try to get people to overlook the fact that they cut up the 911 call, deliberately, and with intent to race bait and perhaps start a race riot, friend AC. I call bullshit on the media. I call BS on unenlightened self-interest and circling the wagons to protect one's own. The media are one's that caused the prosecutors to overreach, because of public demand for it, and caused a failure to convict Zimmerman of the crimes he actually committed that night, and thus the real failure of justice. Overreach and hype. We need fewer people who believe the hype-machine's bullshit, not more. Doubling down on crap is not the solution.
That woman was crazy, and deserved 20 years, and the context shows it. What did the context in the Zimmerman case show? That he didn't commit murder. That is all.
Two words explain this attitude historically: "Secret Tribunal." (You can insert the word "military" if you'd prefer three words).
What would have them spinning at 5000 rpm in their graves is Guantanamo Bay, not this trial and public reaction. A public trial by jury is exactly what they designed, and the country was so small and insular at that point that reputations could be ruined far more thoroughly than in today's overpopulated, urban, and largely faceless culture. They absolutely expected mob mentality to be a result, which was why so many of them were members of secret societies. Privacy to speak one's mind may never have occurred to them as a possibility without that. The possibility of a public trial ruining someone's reputation was probably expected, in my considered opinion.
I don't have any primary sources to back that up though.
I'm not sure Balmer realizes he is no longer in B-school. He seems to like to surround himself with like-minded B-school buddies, and runs Microsoft like it's the fraternity Mu Sigma Alpha. This kind of bizarro, "in"-group lingo doesn't actually fly when you're the CEO of a Fortune 500 company in what appears to be a consolidation/contraction phase and a profit-taking decline. This buddy mentality is the last thing "MS House" needs.
Plainspoken English matters in business when there is a crisis at hand. This kind of platitude laden memo belongs in a company that is not hungry and is cruising along with a high-quality, high-growth business strategy. Then you can talk biz-orgs theory all you like, however you may please.
My 2 cents. That penny is depreciated to the inflation standard of the year 2500, I would guess, but I find this kind of gamesmanship worrying.
I want MS to adapt and succeed. It has every reason to. It doesn't seem to be doing so. It seems to be resting on its laurels, and has been for a decade.
It depends on what you mean by the word "do" in the contraction of "do not." Welcome to propaganda 101.
I think he meant "populist" hot-button issue. That would be accurate at least.
Oh yes, I've heard this song before. Let me change the tempo. Those congress people have rights too.
Like the right to be reasonably sure I'm not a "Jared Loughner" before letting me within 20 yards of them. This is something that is lost on most people who use "doesn't mean dick" to say something supposedly profound.
Ding. Ding. Ding.
In practice, government will attempt to violate your rights when you most need them. It doesn't make them alienable.
I swing that way too. But I do think the intent and philosophy of the law is important.
I also believe that governments take away your rights by force when you most need them. That is the sad truth. Rights are only granted by governments when they don't matter, which is why the Founders felt it important to not grant rights like in Magna Carta.
How provincial of you. When did I say I was talking about legal rights? The Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, only mentions which _natural_ rights the Federal Government may not infringe upon. The Founders were very specific about not coining explicit legal rights in those amendments. The only legal rights mentioned in Con Law are things like copyright. There may be others. Don't know. Not an expert, but I do know the philosophy with which the Constitution was framed, and we are absolutely talking about natural rights, and _only_ natural law regarding them, in the above case.
How does this play out in the release version of Firefox? Because in TFA it sounds like, very soon, I may not be able to watch Netflix on my computer any more without a preview version of IE. :^(
For now, it's just use Silverlight, but will MS share its new platform lockdown?
Wrong. They are inalienable. When the government takes them away, they are overstepping their bounds, and becoming authoritarian despots.
That's how it works in Enlightenment philosophy (almost theology, really) at least, which is the basis of our country's law, and Nature's God.
Read up, bro.