I am aware of every incident that has used the systems I've worked on in my life. So far I'm up several thousand saved lives and not one system has killed anyone. Someone had to shoot a tiger once, but that wasn't 100% my fault and the tiger is still alive.
Life's about choices, and if you've made the kind of choices where the navy is firing at you, it's probably not a big loss to humanity if we have to kick you off the planet.
What about the people who just happen to be nearby the people the Navy is aiming at? Do they deserve to be killed too? How many of the approximately 500,000 people in Iraq who were killed qualify as the bad guys that aren't a big loss to humanity?
Probably none of them. Dave was a jerk though.
There was no reason for the US to attack Iraq other than to provide for a distraction in the hunt for bin Laden.
Just out of curiousity, what's the cutoff age when it's worse to kill someone? 12? 16? 18? 21? You mention children explicitly as though they're more innocent than the... let's say baker sitting next to them. What did that baker do that was worse than what the kids did, and after which birthday cake did he become a statistic rather than a senseless death?
I do plan on dying a slow and horrible death. That's why I exercise regularly, watch my diet, and drink moderately.
There is nothing in refusing to make things that can be used to kill people that magically makes people elsewhere do the same. By and large people who work on defense systems want nothing more than for them never to be used.
Yeah, pretty much. My job is to make sure that some time in the next 20 years, if someone in the navy presses the button it'll work and the ship will protect the sailors onboard. I'd prefer that it never gets pressed but that's not how earth works.
I'm a military contractor. The stuff I work on is designed to kill people. Well, mostly communication systems and power distribution, but a few of the systems, and the whole giant thing, is there to provide weaponry, humanitarian aid, and search/rescue operations.
Life's about choices, and if you've made the kind of choices where the navy is firing at you, it's probably not a big loss to humanity if we have to kick you off the planet. Right now, there are people who will throw acid on girls for going to school or kill their sisters for dancing in the rain. These are not people who will sit down at the breakfast table and discuss their problems calmly over a croissant. They're going to kill people for what we consider no reason at all, and the only thing they can understand is force. If you can figure out a way to get them to the table, fuck man, I'll buy the bagels with my last paycheque.
Now, as for this warrantless wiretapping, or the use of military force without judicial permission and gratuitious amounts of oversight? That's something for which someone should be facing jail time -- because WE ARE the kinds of people who will sit down and discuss our problems over a croissant.
Breaking into most physical locations is trivial for a motivated intruder, no matter how sophisticated your lock is. Anyone who would bother hacking or paying for this info, and then using it to create a duplicate key is sufficiently motivated to break in via less arcane methods. "Local gangs" will simply force open the door or gain access by some other entry.
And here's the gentleman who understands physical security. Locks on your house are as much an illusion of security as the TSA.
If someone wants to get into your house, all you have to do is, as the old Sierra games used to say, use brick on window
What we want is the government to work within its legal framework.
That's it.
You want to look into my phone records? That's fine. Go find probable cause, talk to a judge, and get a warrant.
That's it. That's all we're asking.
What the government wants is to collect data on people that have not done anything wrong in order to prove that they might think about doing something wrong. They're the ones who want it all and provide nothing but their own amusement. We are not safer, we are not freer, and we are not richer.
If they were effective at all, then we'd never have had those bombers in Boston. What caught them was regular police work, not an online omni-surveillance.
We have rights. When the government breaks the laws of the constitution, IT LOSES ITS LEGITIMACY TO GOVERN!
Slashdot Mirror
"First Nations"
I'm Canadian. I haven't heard "natives" in... maybe ten years?
I am aware of every incident that has used the systems I've worked on in my life. So far I'm up several thousand saved lives and not one system has killed anyone. Someone had to shoot a tiger once, but that wasn't 100% my fault and the tiger is still alive.
But there I go being pro-terrorist, right?
Questioning what the government is doing is not pro-terrorist.
Building bombs and putting them in public places is pro-terrorist.
Life's about choices, and if you've made the kind of choices where the navy is firing at you, it's probably not a big loss to humanity if we have to kick you off the planet.
What about the people who just happen to be nearby the people the Navy is aiming at? Do they deserve to be killed too? How many of the approximately 500,000 people in Iraq who were killed qualify as the bad guys that aren't a big loss to humanity?
Probably none of them. Dave was a jerk though.
There was no reason for the US to attack Iraq other than to provide for a distraction in the hunt for bin Laden.
There's gluten free bagels and vegan cream cheese available.
America is not the only country with a Navy.
Just out of curiousity, what's the cutoff age when it's worse to kill someone? 12? 16? 18? 21? You mention children explicitly as though they're more innocent than the... let's say baker sitting next to them. What did that baker do that was worse than what the kids did, and after which birthday cake did he become a statistic rather than a senseless death?
I do plan on dying a slow and horrible death. That's why I exercise regularly, watch my diet, and drink moderately.
There is nothing in refusing to make things that can be used to kill people that magically makes people elsewhere do the same. By and large people who work on defense systems want nothing more than for them never to be used.
Yeah, pretty much. My job is to make sure that some time in the next 20 years, if someone in the navy presses the button it'll work and the ship will protect the sailors onboard. I'd prefer that it never gets pressed but that's not how earth works.
How's it going?
I'm a military contractor. The stuff I work on is designed to kill people. Well, mostly communication systems and power distribution, but a few of the systems, and the whole giant thing, is there to provide weaponry, humanitarian aid, and search/rescue operations.
Life's about choices, and if you've made the kind of choices where the navy is firing at you, it's probably not a big loss to humanity if we have to kick you off the planet. Right now, there are people who will throw acid on girls for going to school or kill their sisters for dancing in the rain. These are not people who will sit down at the breakfast table and discuss their problems calmly over a croissant. They're going to kill people for what we consider no reason at all, and the only thing they can understand is force. If you can figure out a way to get them to the table, fuck man, I'll buy the bagels with my last paycheque.
Now, as for this warrantless wiretapping, or the use of military force without judicial permission and gratuitious amounts of oversight? That's something for which someone should be facing jail time -- because WE ARE the kinds of people who will sit down and discuss our problems over a croissant.
I'm Canadian, so we don't really have that sort of thing up here.
I've never heard of it until this morning when I read it on Slashdot. If an employer tried to pay me with these, I'd laugh in their face.
What's smaller than wireless?
Get rid of the ports and use BT / W-USB / W-HDMI. Use induction charging if you're feeling ambitious.
Dongles = lock-in + $$, and there's no other way around it.
Personally, if you are willing to put the money into a Protec2, you really should consider putting ballistic film on your windows
That may cause problems if the fire department wants to get in in a hurry, for example if your house is on fire.
Breaking into most physical locations is trivial for a motivated intruder, no matter how sophisticated your lock is. Anyone who would bother hacking or paying for this info, and then using it to create a duplicate key is sufficiently motivated to break in via less arcane methods. "Local gangs" will simply force open the door or gain access by some other entry.
And here's the gentleman who understands physical security. Locks on your house are as much an illusion of security as the TSA.
If someone wants to get into your house, all you have to do is, as the old Sierra games used to say, use brick on window
"thanks for downloading warez at xxx.net site" ... IANAL.
Heh heh heh he heh he heh heh heh he he heh heh he heh
Ok, now you are getting me angry.
Geeks have been very vocal about wiretapping issues for a LONG time. Does ECHELON ring any bell?
Hmm?
Had this sig since 1998.
And now we all have skeletons in our closet.
if "the law" wants to require people to do something that costs money, then "the law" needs to pay for it. otherwise "the law" can go bugger itself.
Stupid building codes, driver's permits, garbage collection, always making ME pay for them.
Money's nifty but it's not the only thing.
I weigh 165 pounds, so I'd probably be able to pilot this thing.
Sign me the hell up.
Not everyone gets to use their choice of browser.
Not everyone gets to choose their own browser. Work has me using IE8, and that's after a huge fight to get off IE6.
Yes, some legacy code should be re-written. Have fun getting that put past corporate IT when it's the interface to the payroll system.
This looks like a conversation now.
We assassinate Obama at midnight.
What we want is the government to work within its legal framework.
That's it.
You want to look into my phone records? That's fine. Go find probable cause, talk to a judge, and get a warrant.
That's it. That's all we're asking.
What the government wants is to collect data on people that have not done anything wrong in order to prove that they might think about doing something wrong. They're the ones who want it all and provide nothing but their own amusement. We are not safer, we are not freer, and we are not richer.
These laws aren't stopping terrorism. Period.
If they were effective at all, then we'd never have had those bombers in Boston. What caught them was regular police work, not an online omni-surveillance.
We have rights. When the government breaks the laws of the constitution, IT LOSES ITS LEGITIMACY TO GOVERN!
That's why DHS was monitoring the anti-war protestors in Boston instead of looking for terrorists with bombs, right?
Because TERRORISM!
Face it, the jokers in power aren't Republican or Democrat. They're authoritarians.
Hmm?
I've had this signature since we found weird routing in Ultima Online. My hope is that some poor asshole has had to read
every
single
one
of
my
emails
for the last 15+ years.