All a gun can ever do is hurt people, be it for good or evil. Arguably shooting someone is never a good thing even if it is in self defense. Comparing guns to computers is a highly flawed analogy.
You are wrong.
Guns do not have to kill people, many target shooters don't even hunt or carry a concealed weapon. They simply enjoy target shooting. The same is true for archery. Hell, shooting guns and bows are both Olympic sports.
You are backing up the very point which you are trying to break. Guns are not evil, or good, or even in-between. They are simply chunks of metal. Comparing guns to computers is a very apt analogy. Both can be used for good, for evil, or for benign tasks.
The deck is stacked even further against consumers, just like how you have to pay to get your report if you don't live in certain states...and even if you get the report for free, you don't get your FICO score...
Do you know what a FICO score is? It is a measure of credit worthiness designed by a company based on statistics and probability. It is the product that is sold by a company, the Fair Isaac Corporation. It is the opinion of that company how likely you are to pay back a loan. Why do you feel you should be provided with this for free?
What state is not covered by the free credit reporting measure enacted by the government?
Makes you wonder why the courts don't automatically order credit reports of victims cleaned. The burden should NOT be on the victims, even if it is just a matter of sending a letter to the three agencies with a copy of the court docket or similar...
I do like that though, and have often wondered the same thing myself.
The site says Google fixed the problem on October 18, four days after a security researcher called ANELKAOS alerted the company to the problem.
Google didn't make a public announcement about the problem. Companies such as Microsoft typically alert their users to security flaws in their software.
So I am to believe that when someone makes a security flaw known to Microsoft they immediately make it public? They don't try to fix it or even shush the person who lets them know? The news is full of stories about security researchers who try to let Microsoft know about a problem only to see it not fixed for a long time. Then if the researcher lets the public know Microsoft goes berserk.
4 days seems like a pretty good time to patch a flaw that sounds as low risk as this one did.
How about you read the snopes article you just submitted? It says down at the bottom that some cards DO indeed contain this information, but there have been no cases of criminal activity that have been related to it.
At least not that snopes knows of...because snopes the all knowing source of information. If the crack investigation team there didn't find anything then it must not have happened.
Read up and use some common sense before posting a reply.
Wow! Thanks for pulling that info, "years" is so much more exact than "a long time"! I was afraid it might take "millenia" or "eons"
well there Bubba, maybe if you stopped to think about it for a second you would realize that the data set they have had to collect information is pretty doggone small. How many healthy males lose 1.5% of bone mass and they grow it back on a regular basis?
Maybe it also would cross your mind that "years" is a pretty good indicator. It could have been "decades", "scores", or even "dozens". It could have been 2 months for all you know. Now you have a much better idea of the time it takes. Did you really expect them to say, "it will take 4.6 months per every 24 hours in space." Or something like that? Maybe you would have liked a link to a bone mass calculator that would calculate how long it would take for YOU to get it back.
And growing the bone mass lost from a 6 month stint back, can take a long time.
I hate comments like that. Immediately I want to know how long, but all I know is that it's the ever-subjective "a long time". Gee, thanks.
From TFA
"And it takes a good long time to get it back," says Buckey, adding that it can take years to recover the bone mass lost from a six-month stay in orbit. Researchers are also not sure whether the quality of the new bone matches that of the bone mass lost, he told New Scientist.
Then he failed on all accounts, since the 50's one - created by an actual artist, so it presumably "stimulates the imagination" - was also more usable, informative, and accurate.
I won't argue with you on that.
My only point was that this chart isn't meant to replace the current chart with a "revamped" one as the title of the article implies and as many people posted comments have assumed.
Frankly, I liked the 1950s chart after it better. There was a certain beauty in the layout of that chart. The new chart is pretty much just the elements spiraled across a picture of a galaxy.
According to Phillip Stewarts website, this chart isn't meant to replace the current chart.
The intention is not to replace the familiar table, but to complement it and at the same time to stimulate the imagination and to evoke wonder at the order underlying the universe.
It used to be that conservatives lived up to their name and opposed foreign adventures and large standing armies. Properly speaking those who, like you, support the status quo of a massive network of overseas bases should be refered to as "militarists", "jingoists", or even "imperialists" rather than "conservatives" or "patriots".
Please reference the place where I, since you have directly accused me of it, stated that I support a status quot of overseas bases.
While the existence of the US military is to protect our freedoms, a lot of people believe that is not what's being accomplished by the presence in Iraq (Afghanistan is another story, at least for me).
Please, point me to the place where I said that our military being in Iraq and Afghanistan is protecting our freedom.
As for the primary point you where making: how does a job in the military teach personal finance? I didn't say a job taught this. The military provides services and damn near forces you to use them if you have trouble balancing checkbooks, making budgets or understanding how to manage your finances.
And "can provide security clearances which translate into govt jobs" is a total nonargument. If you need clearance and you didn't get any through the military, you get it when you need it (and are vetted at that time). Saying that getting it through the military translates into more jobs is insane.
Again your words indicate that you have no idea what you are talking about. Having a security clearance is a huge bonus when looking for jobs that require a security clearance. It proves you can get one. This provides a great inroad to jobs which often times CANNOT be outsourced to other countries.
And finally as for "provides excellent job skills for many": NO!. The military teaches yuou one thing: how to kill people.
Again, you are dead wrong (forgive the pun). You obviously have no idea what you are talking about if you think that is all the military teaches, and you most likely have not been in the military.
Yes, because a choice between two shitty situtations is a lot better than just one.
Oh, wait, no it's not.
If you browse over to my other comment which links out the to the CDC factsheet which shows violence levels you will see that it is actually less dangerous to be in the military. Plus being in the military gives you a chance for advancement in life for the reasons I specified earlier.
Funny, I thought that was what the 2nd Amendment was there for...
Very good point, but I think you may have misunderstood my meaning, I should have been more clear.
I was inferring that without a trained military force, the US would be taken overrun by a country with a military force. I doubt that the new overlords would respect our current constitution as they installed themselves as a dictator.
The difference is that the purpose of their armed forces is defense, whereas the US' is empire building. The war on terrorism is a thinly veiled facade for imperialism, hardly better cloaked than converting the heathen masses.
Wow, you really believe that tripe. Unfortunatly what I have found is that people who use arguments like the ones you are using are not going to be happy no matter what. They live to vehemently protest something.
How ironic that the real reason for the US military force is to ensure people like you have a voice and the ability to express your opinions. Sad.
And if you think Bush is a dictator, it really shows how ignorant and coddled you are in this country, protected by the troops which you disdain.
Both sides of this purported argument are fluff. Bush is not a dictator by any stretch, but to cast the Bush Administration's adventures in geostrategy in Iraq as "protection" is (and always was) a stretch as best. What real-world attack vectors were/are we being protected from? What evidence has ever been demonstrated that Hussein working with the network that attacked our, or that he was providing them with capacity to replicate an attack of a scale justifying the deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops? And what were the metrics for a successful outcome in Iraq? Hell, three years into this war, what ARE the metrics of a successful outcome?
I never said the decision to go to war in Iraq had anything to do with protection, nor did I say we should be in Iraq in any way! What I did say is that our military is a deterrent force.
It's the well trained military force that puts the dictator into power, and keeps him there safe and secure.
And without a well trained military force we would be taken over by a different well trained military force. What exactly is your point? Oh, you were trolling. I knew you couldn't actually suggest that the existence of a military force run by the government was a bad idea.
Do you think we would be much safer without a military.
Now, whatever you say about the benefits to poor people for joining the military, is it really fair that during wartime our most disadvantaged citizens are the ones who get killed? That's not a very nice option... "Be poor, or risk your life."
More of these "disadvantaged citizens" have died in poor urban areas due to violence in the last two years than have died from enemy fire in the last two years.
From the CDC page "n 2002, more than 877,700 young people ages 10 to 24 were injured from violent acts. Approximately 1 in 13 required hospitalization (CDC 2004)."
While the death of 1000 troops in two years is horrible, it isn't exactly death in mass numbers.
No, they aren't "almost all" in Iraq. Their existence keeps other armies/countries from attacking us. Do you think if we didn't have an Army we wouldn't be attacked?
Is every war based on lies fought to protect our freedoms? Do you really believe that?
Nowhere did I say that, that is an obvious troll statement.
So only Americans should post in a story about the US? Did you ever post in a story about Chinese censorship or Canadian copyright law?
Please, that's just silly.
Actually, I don't think I have.
I never said that only Americans should post in a story about the US, I did infer that the AC responding to me shouldn't get his panties in a bunch about me posting a US centric comment about a issue happening in the US. Go back and read my post, do you understand now?
I'm not in "this country" if you're referring to the USA. There are other, more free countries you know.
And they pretty much all have a trained military, so substitute your appropriate country name in if you want to get all upset about me posting a US-Centric post on a US-Centric site regarding a story which is only happenening in the US
Slashdot Mirror
The PS3, the cabbage patch toy of '06.
All a gun can ever do is hurt people, be it for good or evil. Arguably shooting someone is never a good thing even if it is in self defense. Comparing guns to computers is a highly flawed analogy.
You are wrong.
Guns do not have to kill people, many target shooters don't even hunt or carry a concealed weapon. They simply enjoy target shooting. The same is true for archery. Hell, shooting guns and bows are both Olympic sports.
You are backing up the very point which you are trying to break. Guns are not evil, or good, or even in-between. They are simply chunks of metal. Comparing guns to computers is a very apt analogy. Both can be used for good, for evil, or for benign tasks.
The deck is stacked even further against consumers, just like how you have to pay to get your report if you don't live in certain states...and even if you get the report for free, you don't get your FICO score...
Do you know what a FICO score is? It is a measure of credit worthiness designed by a company based on statistics and probability. It is the product that is sold by a company, the Fair Isaac Corporation. It is the opinion of that company how likely you are to pay back a loan. Why do you feel you should be provided with this for free?
What state is not covered by the free credit reporting measure enacted by the government?
Makes you wonder why the courts don't automatically order credit reports of victims cleaned. The burden should NOT be on the victims, even if it is just a matter of sending a letter to the three agencies with a copy of the court docket or similar...
I do like that though, and have often wondered the same thing myself.
wow, you posted a link that states that British security services left laptops in bars. Good one.
Yes, I did.
Actually, I still do. I won't ever get rid of it I suppose.
The site says Google fixed the problem on October 18, four days after a security researcher called ANELKAOS alerted the company to the problem. Google didn't make a public announcement about the problem. Companies such as Microsoft typically alert their users to security flaws in their software.
So I am to believe that when someone makes a security flaw known to Microsoft they immediately make it public? They don't try to fix it or even shush the person who lets them know? The news is full of stories about security researchers who try to let Microsoft know about a problem only to see it not fixed for a long time. Then if the researcher lets the public know Microsoft goes berserk.
4 days seems like a pretty good time to patch a flaw that sounds as low risk as this one did.
How about you read the snopes article you just submitted? It says down at the bottom that some cards DO indeed contain this information, but there have been no cases of criminal activity that have been related to it.
At least not that snopes knows of...because snopes the all knowing source of information. If the crack investigation team there didn't find anything then it must not have happened.
Read up and use some common sense before posting a reply.
Wow! Thanks for pulling that info, "years" is so much more exact than "a long time"! I was afraid it might take "millenia" or "eons"
well there Bubba, maybe if you stopped to think about it for a second you would realize that the data set they have had to collect information is pretty doggone small. How many healthy males lose 1.5% of bone mass and they grow it back on a regular basis?
Maybe it also would cross your mind that "years" is a pretty good indicator. It could have been "decades", "scores", or even "dozens". It could have been 2 months for all you know. Now you have a much better idea of the time it takes. Did you really expect them to say, "it will take 4.6 months per every 24 hours in space." Or something like that? Maybe you would have liked a link to a bone mass calculator that would calculate how long it would take for YOU to get it back.
And growing the bone mass lost from a 6 month stint back, can take a long time.
. over..whelming......
I hate comments like that. Immediately I want to know how long, but all I know is that it's the ever-subjective "a long time". Gee, thanks.
From TFA
"And it takes a good long time to get it back," says Buckey, adding that it can take years to recover the bone mass lost from a six-month stay in orbit. Researchers are also not sure whether the quality of the new bone matches that of the bone mass lost, he told New Scientist.
Argh! The..strain...of..finding..this..infor..mation...
*gasp*
Then he failed on all accounts, since the 50's one - created by an actual artist, so it presumably "stimulates the imagination" - was also more usable, informative, and accurate.
I won't argue with you on that.
My only point was that this chart isn't meant to replace the current chart with a "revamped" one as the title of the article implies and as many people posted comments have assumed.
According to Phillip Stewarts website, this chart isn't meant to replace the current chart.
From the website :
It used to be that conservatives lived up to their name and opposed foreign adventures and large standing armies. Properly speaking those who, like you, support the status quo of a massive network of overseas bases should be refered to as "militarists", "jingoists", or even "imperialists" rather than "conservatives" or "patriots".
Please reference the place where I, since you have directly accused me of it, stated that I support a status quot of overseas bases.
While the existence of the US military is to protect our freedoms, a lot of people believe that is not what's being accomplished by the presence in Iraq (Afghanistan is another story, at least for me).
Please, point me to the place where I said that our military being in Iraq and Afghanistan is protecting our freedom.
As for the primary point you where making: how does a job in the military teach personal finance?
I didn't say a job taught this. The military provides services and damn near forces you to use them if you have trouble balancing checkbooks, making budgets or understanding how to manage your finances.
And "can provide security clearances which translate into govt jobs" is a total nonargument. If you need clearance and you didn't get any through the military, you get it when you need it (and are vetted at that time). Saying that getting it through the military translates into more jobs is insane.
Again your words indicate that you have no idea what you are talking about. Having a security clearance is a huge bonus when looking for jobs that require a security clearance. It proves you can get one. This provides a great inroad to jobs which often times CANNOT be outsourced to other countries.
And finally as for "provides excellent job skills for many": NO!. The military teaches yuou one thing: how to kill people.
Again, you are dead wrong (forgive the pun). You obviously have no idea what you are talking about if you think that is all the military teaches, and you most likely have not been in the military.
I LOVE blind patriotism. It's such a comfort not having to think
That much is obvious, you are spouting nonsense rhetoric that you have been conditioned to spout.
Yes, because a choice between two shitty situtations is a lot better than just one.
Oh, wait, no it's not.
If you browse over to my other comment which links out the to the CDC factsheet which shows violence levels you will see that it is actually less dangerous to be in the military. Plus being in the military gives you a chance for advancement in life for the reasons I specified earlier.
Funny, I thought that was what the 2nd Amendment was there for...
Very good point, but I think you may have misunderstood my meaning, I should have been more clear.
I was inferring that without a trained military force, the US would be taken overrun by a country with a military force. I doubt that the new overlords would respect our current constitution as they installed themselves as a dictator.
The difference is that the purpose of their armed forces is defense, whereas the US' is empire building. The war on terrorism is a thinly veiled facade for imperialism, hardly better cloaked than converting the heathen masses.
Wow, you really believe that tripe. Unfortunatly what I have found is that people who use arguments like the ones you are using are not going to be happy no matter what. They live to vehemently protest something.
How ironic that the real reason for the US military force is to ensure people like you have a voice and the ability to express your opinions. Sad.
And if you think Bush is a dictator, it really shows how ignorant and coddled you are in this country, protected by the troops which you disdain.
Both sides of this purported argument are fluff. Bush is not a dictator by any stretch, but to cast the Bush Administration's adventures in geostrategy in Iraq as "protection" is (and always was) a stretch as best. What real-world attack vectors were/are we being protected from? What evidence has ever been demonstrated that Hussein working with the network that attacked our, or that he was providing them with capacity to replicate an attack of a scale justifying the deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops? And what were the metrics for a successful outcome in Iraq? Hell, three years into this war, what ARE the metrics of a successful outcome?
I never said the decision to go to war in Iraq had anything to do with protection, nor did I say we should be in Iraq in any way! What I did say is that our military is a deterrent force.
It's the well trained military force that puts the dictator into power, and keeps him there safe and secure.
What I mean is that it is not the military that we should be worried about. They are just a tool.
Now that the statements are next to one another I hope you can see that they are different and don't mean the same thing at all.
I do agree with you that politicians can misuse the military, but I fail to see the relevance of this in the current discussion.
It's the well trained military force that puts the dictator into power, and keeps him there safe and secure.
And without a well trained military force we would be taken over by a different well trained military force. What exactly is your point? Oh, you were trolling. I knew you couldn't actually suggest that the existence of a military force run by the government was a bad idea.
Do you think we would be much safer without a military.
Now, whatever you say about the benefits to poor people for joining the military, is it really fair that during wartime our most disadvantaged citizens are the ones who get killed? That's not a very nice option... "Be poor, or risk your life."
More of these "disadvantaged citizens" have died in poor urban areas due to violence in the last two years than have died from enemy fire in the last two years.
From the CDC page "n 2002, more than 877,700 young people ages 10 to 24 were injured from violent acts. Approximately 1 in 13 required hospitalization (CDC 2004)."
While the death of 1000 troops in two years is horrible, it isn't exactly death in mass numbers.
Protected how? They're almost all in Iraq.
No, they aren't "almost all" in Iraq. Their existence keeps other armies/countries from attacking us. Do you think if we didn't have an Army we wouldn't be attacked?
Is every war based on lies fought to protect our freedoms? Do you really believe that?
Nowhere did I say that, that is an obvious troll statement.
So only Americans should post in a story about the US? Did you ever post in a story about Chinese censorship or Canadian copyright law?
Please, that's just silly.
Actually, I don't think I have.
I never said that only Americans should post in a story about the US, I did infer that the AC responding to me shouldn't get his panties in a bunch about me posting a US centric comment about a issue happening in the US. Go back and read my post, do you understand now?
I'm not in "this country" if you're referring to the USA. There are other, more free countries you know.
And they pretty much all have a trained military, so substitute your appropriate country name in if you want to get all upset about me posting a US-Centric post on a US-Centric site regarding a story which is only happenening in the US