I am trying to be sympathetic to your point of view - I am trying to approach this with an open mind - but it seems to me that you didn't carefully read my post. Here is an example of what I mean:
You said: and if you think that afganistan children and civilians don't get killed, well, maybe you should open your fucking eyes.
You said that in spite of the fact that I said: We (America) do our best to kill only those who would harm us. Terrorists on the other hand seek out innocent bystanders.
Did you catch it that time?
We (America) do our best to kill only those who would harm us.
By contrast:
Terrorists seek out innocent bystanders.
One more time... We try hard not to kill kids. Terrorist try hard to kill kids.
Given that my point is: We try not to/they try to Do you still think that "and if you think that afganistan children and civilians don't get killed, well, maybe you should open your fucking eyes" is a valid and reasoned response? Because I think that response is evidence that you didn't read my post.
Once we get past this we can move on to the other points you made. You did make some valid points, but I refuse to move on until we come to terms on the above point.
And that "arrogance" displayed by europeans (and arabs) is the normal "arrogance" displayed when one comes from a country with virtually no history, totally clueless, and begins criticizing everything in sight.
So, it's my fault other people are arrogant toward me? Shit I can't win.
You know, I've been an escort officer a few times too. It was when I was a lieutenant. When officers from other countries came to get a briefing or whatnot, the escort officer chauffeurs them around. I did this for officers from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Lithuania, Macedonia, and Singapore.
They all outranked me by a lot so I assure you I was very respectful. Your theory, that they were arrogant only in response to the way I acted, doesn't hold up. I laughed at their jokes and kept my fucking mouth shut. You know what - the Kuwaitis and Saudis were still assholes. The others were nice. The Major from Singapore was quite very friendly. The Lithuania gave me a nice book when he left. The Macedonia was a pervert but still cool.
The bottom line is, I believe my original point is still valid - lots of people are arrogant. If you believe Americans deserve what we got because we are arrogant they I guess you'll deserve it to when it comes your way.
You've obviously never been in a combat situation.
I was in the Army. I bet that means I've been closer than you have.
Ever heard stories of vietnam, how you systematically looted, raped, murdered and destroyed whole villages?
Looting, rape, and murder happened. Do you think this is the way we wage war? Do you think american generals sit in rooms and plan to hurt civilians? They do not. The people we are fighting however do make plans to kill civilians. Once again, this is the difference between they and us.
These things happen, yes, even today. Do you want to know the number of children who will die tomorrow because of US clusterbombs?
Why wait until tomorrow. Please post a link to a story about children being killed by US cluster bombs today, or yesterday. If you cannot find such a story I will continue to believe that you are wrong.
Range attack is a very cowardly and shrewd way to fight an enemy.
Is that more or less cowardly than hiding in a cave brainwashing religious zealots into believing that if they spill the blood of innocents (even people who agree with their cause) they can be rewarded with sex in the afterlife.
Believing [snip] "We" are better than "them".
So let me get this straight - you condemn me for thinking We are better than Them then turn around and say "you're too stupid or incapable to make a better political agenda" illustrating that you think you are better than me. What a hypocrite!
What I would suggest for you is to travel to europe and live there for a couple of years.
Surprise! I lived in Germany for two years, Korea for 1 year, and Saudi Arabia for 6 mo. I've been all over the world. What, you haven't? Well then let me assure you, Europeans and Arabs are far more arrogant than Americans. That's been my experience.
should America be punished with "violence" ?? I don't that would solve anything.
Isn't there any difference at all between the two sides? Can't you think of anything??
Here is a hint: We (America) do our best to kill only those who would harm us. We do that by spending millions of dollars on precision-guided weapons. We do it by being careful who we shoot.
Terrorists on the other hand seek out innocent bystanders. They kill children too young to know what's going on. They brutally massacre crowds of people at parties. And They do it on purpose.
If you honestly don't see the difference - then I humbly submit that you are a moron.
it was over six months ago and if Americans should move on - it was a terrible tragedy yes - but enough's been said about it already.
would it be ok if we try to prevent it from happening again first? like maybe by going after people who plan terrorist attacks against us... would that be ok?
I got beat up in school once - my dad told me I shouldn't harp on it for too long - I should just get over it. I remember thinking "wtf! Does he realize I have to go back to school tomorrow?" It's kinda hard to get over it when they're still out there.
scientists whose career and reputation rests on the validity of their findings, models, and predictions?
If only it were that simple. The fact is that any scientist who releases findings, models, and predictions that go against the accepted norm wrt: global warming no longer has a career or reputation - regardless of the validity of the findings, models, and predictions.
thus we can only make a judgement about the credibility of the people advanccing the various cases
We must also take into account the political pressure these scientists are under. It is sad that scientists are subject to this but they are.
Do you want an example? In my lifetime Dinosaurs have gone from cold-blooded to warm-blooded and back. The accepted norm has been that they were big, slow scavengers, then that they were fast hunters. You know what finally settled it? In the movie _Jurasic Park_ Spielberg chose to make them fast agile warm blooded hunters. Now few people argue with that. "Dinosaurs moved fast. I saw it in a movie"
Theories about Egyptians go through the same cycles.
Global climate change is no different. 20 years ago scientists were telling us we were headed for another ice age.
I really don't know what the truth is. But I do know that finding it isn't as simple as listening to the majority of reputable scientists. There is just too much pressure on them not to rock the boat. There is too much competition for research grants and they know that if they speak up with a controversial (I should say politically incorrect) theory they will be black listed and cut off from the funding.
[raises hand] oh oh! I do! I do! XCOM was a great game. They don't make em like that anymore.
And since you seem to like OT XCOM jokes here's another one for you: I recently heard on the news that the US had captured an Al Queda leader. I immediately thought "cool, now we can research the Martian solution"
I have no clue. This 'article' was poorly written. I propose that in the future, submitters be required to be sober and free from mind-altering substances.
Idiot guard: "We need you to pass through the x-ray machine."
It's a metal detector - not an x-ray machine. Congratulations, you just qualified for a job as an airport security screener.
Re:What limitations?
on
DOJ Dot-Narc
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Why are there limitations on the first ammendment at all?
Well, let's see what the first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law [snip] abridging the freedom of speech [...]
abridging is a big word, lets see what that means: To cut short; curtail.
So if laws meant anything, Congress would be forbidden from limiting the freedom of speech in any way.
Unfortunately a. The legislative branch doesn't actually believe that (famous quote: "the constitution is a living document" - Al Gore) other quotes available on request.
b. the judicial branch doesn't actually believe that. Witness the limitation on shouting 'fire' in a theatre. In a truly free society no one would suggest that you were not free to shout 'fire' only that you would be held responsible for doing so.
c. The executive branch obviously doesn't belive this. As evidenced by Ashcroft. To be honest though, I am far less worried about Ashcroft than I was of Janet Reno. Sure Ashcroft has said some scarry things, but Reno actually did scary things.
The libertarian party is looking better and better all the time.
terrorist group targets Chuck and his SysAdmin pals before launching some kind of attack.
I should have made this clear in my last post, and this is based on my experience in the military: The web-page flozies typically work in the public affairs departments. They could be abducted by aliens and no one would care much. The real IT people have nothing to do with "administering" web sites.
Maybe the CIA does things differently - but I doubt it.
It don't claim to have found any private or restricted information. Everything they found was specifically put on the web to be found.
Simply knowing the names and e-mail addresses that Matta turned up would be enough for some social engineers to get the rest of the information necessary to mount an attack
Sorry, I don't buy that. "Hi, this is chuck, the webmaster. Can I have the names of our russian agents please?"
Post the article again when someone breaks in or actually finds classified info.
This will probably end up being just another popular software engineering idea that ends up being superceded by new business plans later on. It will become yet another ossified layer in the lower sediment of their future OSes (see DCOM, etc.).
And the arrogant self-serving foreign policy of the Bush administration is going to make more and more enemies.
Can you define arrogant?
Please take into account that because we have been attacked several times we have a very real fear of the day when terrorists use nukes on us. What if anything do you suggest we do to prevent that?
What can we do that would be effective yet not arrogant?
sorry this is not meant to be a flame Well then I wont flame you in return.
But I will humbly suggest that you made up your mind (basically to take nukes off the table) before you read my comment and that that prejudiced you against my comment.
I feel this is a better summation of this part of the thread so far:
cybermage said: [if nukes are used] This war would become US v Islam in the blink of an eye.
then I said: How is that different from the current situation?
Since 100% of the terrorists are Islamic, I feel that calling it US vs. Islam is a fair statement. I go on to suggest two courses of action for dealing with Islamic terrorists: a. Try to make them stop hating us. b. Try to make them stop killing us.
and I point out that nukes can in fact achieve option b.
And finally, I ask for your suggestions.
I don't know. I thought I was making a good case.
Your reply: So allow me to sum up your viewpoint. Muslim's hate Americans. [...] I pitty you
That's not very helpful. Do you have any suggestions?
and then you said: Anyone who feels that they need everyone to like them is mentally ill.
Did you read that after you typed it? You just said that (!hate == like). That's ridiculous. If you can't get that straight logically then what can I infer about the rest of your opinions?
Anyway, nobody likes the US! But the only people who seem to want to indiscriminately kill us happen to be concentrated in one small region of the world. I have a few million years of evolution urging me to take action to protect my offspring and myself. What do you suggest?
Using weapons of mass destruction will give focus to their hatred Don't make more terrorists by indiscriminately bombing civilians.
Well I wasn't actually suggesting we nuke them now! I'll say it again. 'They' (terrorists) will nuke us at their earliest possible convenience. What should we do then?
Your quote from the untouchables was right on but I don't think we can find terrorists before they become suicide bombers. So what else is left? The only thing I can think of is scarring the fuck out of them. They have no respect for us right now. Did you see Osama's last tape? It's safe to say he has a pretty low opinion of Americans. So what should we do? Maybe if we had public plans in place so that on the day they nuke one of our cities we nuke 5 of theirs starting with mecca - well, maybe they'd be scared.
I'm glad you recognize one of our most sacred values.
That's funny. We are just having a conversation about hypotheticals here. Did you feel I was threatening your right to an opinion? You must have me confused with a moderator. : P
Our opinions all count for the same - exactly one vote (except for the last election when I was in the military and voted in my home state of Florida through absentee ballot and a certain political party actively tried to negate my vote).
How is that different from the current situation? Like it or not > 50% (I know, not all) of Muslims evidently already hate us.
The choices seem to be:
a. Try to make them stop hating us.
Any ideas how to do this? Before you answer "stop supporting israel" consider this as evidence that some people will hate you for your religious beliefs no matter what you do.
b. Try to make them stop killing us.
Any ideas how to do this? Before you answer "nuking will only escalate" consider this: They will nuke us at their earliest possible convenience. On the bright side, if they happen to kill you then that's one less detractor in the way of decisively ending this war.
Slashdot Mirror
I am trying to be sympathetic to your point of view - I am trying to approach this with an open mind - but it seems to me that you didn't carefully read my post. Here is an example of what I mean:
You said:
and if you think that afganistan children and civilians don't get killed, well, maybe you should open your fucking eyes.
You said that in spite of the fact that I said:
We (America) do our best to kill only those who would harm us.
Terrorists on the other hand seek out innocent bystanders.
Did you catch it that time?
We (America) do our best to kill only those who would harm us.
By contrast:
Terrorists seek out innocent bystanders.
One more time... We try hard not to kill kids. Terrorist try hard to kill kids.
Given that my point is: We try not to/they try to Do you still think that "and if you think that afganistan children and civilians don't get killed, well, maybe you should open your fucking eyes" is a valid and reasoned response? Because I think that response is evidence that you didn't read my post.
Once we get past this we can move on to the other points you made. You did make some valid points, but I refuse to move on until we come to terms on the above point.
well if that's the way you see it then it's clear we can't be friends. I hope all that hate keeps you warm.
And that "arrogance" displayed by europeans (and arabs) is the normal "arrogance" displayed when one comes from a country with virtually no history, totally clueless, and begins criticizing everything in sight.
So, it's my fault other people are arrogant toward me? Shit I can't win.
You know, I've been an escort officer a few times too. It was when I was a lieutenant. When officers from other countries came to get a briefing or whatnot, the escort officer chauffeurs them around. I did this for officers from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Lithuania, Macedonia, and Singapore.
They all outranked me by a lot so I assure you I was very respectful. Your theory, that they were arrogant only in response to the way I acted, doesn't hold up. I laughed at their jokes and kept my fucking mouth shut. You know what - the Kuwaitis and Saudis were still assholes. The others were nice. The Major from Singapore was quite very friendly. The Lithuania gave me a nice book when he left. The Macedonia was a pervert but still cool.
The bottom line is, I believe my original point is still valid - lots of people are arrogant. If you believe Americans deserve what we got because we are arrogant they I guess you'll deserve it to when it comes your way.
You've obviously never been in a combat situation.
I was in the Army. I bet that means I've been closer than you have.
Ever heard stories of vietnam, how you systematically looted, raped, murdered and destroyed whole villages?
Looting, rape, and murder happened. Do you think this is the way we wage war? Do you think american generals sit in rooms and plan to hurt civilians? They do not. The people we are fighting however do make plans to kill civilians. Once again, this is the difference between they and us.
These things happen, yes, even today. Do you want to know the number of children who will die tomorrow because of US clusterbombs?
Why wait until tomorrow. Please post a link to a story about children being killed by US cluster bombs today, or yesterday. If you cannot find such a story I will continue to believe that you are wrong.
Range attack is a very cowardly and shrewd way to fight an enemy.
Is that more or less cowardly than hiding in a cave brainwashing religious zealots into believing that if they spill the blood of innocents (even people who agree with their cause) they can be rewarded with sex in the afterlife.
Believing [snip] "We" are better than "them".
So let me get this straight - you condemn me for thinking We are better than Them then turn around and say "you're too stupid or incapable to make a better political agenda" illustrating that you think you are better than me. What a hypocrite!
What I would suggest for you is to travel to europe and live there for a couple of years.
Surprise! I lived in Germany for two years, Korea for 1 year, and Saudi Arabia for 6 mo. I've been all over the world. What, you haven't? Well then let me assure you, Europeans and Arabs are far more arrogant than Americans. That's been my experience.
should America be punished with "violence" ?? I don't that would solve anything.
Isn't there any difference at all between the two sides? Can't you think of anything??
Here is a hint:
We (America) do our best to kill only those who would harm us. We do that by spending millions of dollars on precision-guided weapons. We do it by being careful who we shoot.
Terrorists on the other hand seek out innocent bystanders. They kill children too young to know what's going on. They brutally massacre crowds of people at parties. And They do it on purpose.
If you honestly don't see the difference - then I humbly submit that you are a moron.
it was over six months ago and if Americans should move on - it was a terrible tragedy yes - but enough's been said about it already.
would it be ok if we try to prevent it from happening again first? like maybe by going after people who plan terrorist attacks against us... would that be ok?
I got beat up in school once - my dad told me I shouldn't harp on it for too long - I should just get over it. I remember thinking "wtf! Does he realize I have to go back to school tomorrow?" It's kinda hard to get over it when they're still out there.
scientists whose career and reputation rests on the validity of their findings, models, and predictions?
If only it were that simple. The fact is that any scientist who releases findings, models, and predictions that go against the accepted norm wrt: global warming no longer has a career or reputation - regardless of the validity of the findings, models, and predictions.
thus we can only make a judgement about the credibility of the people advanccing the various cases
We must also take into account the political pressure these scientists are under. It is sad that scientists are subject to this but they are.
Do you want an example? In my lifetime Dinosaurs have gone from cold-blooded to warm-blooded and back. The accepted norm has been that they were big, slow scavengers, then that they were fast hunters. You know what finally settled it? In the movie _Jurasic Park_ Spielberg chose to make them fast agile warm blooded hunters. Now few people argue with that. "Dinosaurs moved fast. I saw it in a movie"
Theories about Egyptians go through the same cycles.
Global climate change is no different. 20 years ago scientists were telling us we were headed for another ice age.
I really don't know what the truth is. But I do know that finding it isn't as simple as listening to the majority of reputable scientists. There is just too much pressure on them not to rock the boat. There is too much competition for research grants and they know that if they speak up with a controversial (I should say politically incorrect) theory they will be black listed and cut off from the funding.
It's sad, but that's the way I see it.
(Does anyone know what I am talking about?)
[raises hand] oh oh! I do! I do!
XCOM was a great game. They don't make em like that anymore.
And since you seem to like OT XCOM jokes here's another one for you:
I recently heard on the news that the US had captured an Al Queda leader. I immediately thought "cool, now we can research the Martian solution"
had to reiterate (for the third time in that phone call) that LOC means nothing
Might I suggest that you get him a copy of The Mythical Man-Month
I have no clue. This 'article' was poorly written. I propose that in the future, submitters be required to be sober and free from mind-altering substances.
Idiot guard: "We need you to pass through the x-ray machine."
It's a metal detector - not an x-ray machine.
Congratulations, you just qualified for a job as an airport security screener.
Why are there limitations on the first ammendment at all?
Well, let's see what the first amendment says:
Congress shall make no law [snip] abridging the freedom of speech [...]
abridging is a big word, lets see what that means:
To cut short; curtail.
So if laws meant anything, Congress would be forbidden from limiting the freedom of speech in any way.
Unfortunately
a. The legislative branch doesn't actually believe that (famous quote: "the constitution is a living document" - Al Gore) other quotes available on request.
b. the judicial branch doesn't actually believe that. Witness the limitation on shouting 'fire' in a theatre. In a truly free society no one would suggest that you were not free to shout 'fire' only that you would be held responsible for doing so.
c. The executive branch obviously doesn't belive this. As evidenced by Ashcroft. To be honest though, I am far less worried about Ashcroft than I was of Janet Reno. Sure Ashcroft has said some scarry things, but Reno actually did scary things.
The libertarian party is looking better and better all the time.
terrorist group targets Chuck and his SysAdmin pals before launching some kind of attack.
I should have made this clear in my last post, and this is based on my experience in the military: The web-page flozies typically work in the public affairs departments. They could be abducted by aliens and no one would care much. The real IT people have nothing to do with "administering" web sites.
Maybe the CIA does things differently - but I doubt it.
It don't claim to have found any private or restricted information. Everything they found was specifically put on the web to be found.
Simply knowing the names and e-mail addresses that Matta turned up would be enough for some social engineers to get the rest of the information necessary to mount an attack
Sorry, I don't buy that. "Hi, this is chuck, the webmaster. Can I have the names of our russian agents please?"
Post the article again when someone breaks in or actually finds classified info.
you couldn't delete it or anything? even as administrator?
This will probably end up being just another popular software engineering idea that ends up being superceded by new business plans later on. It will become yet another ossified layer in the lower sediment of their future OSes (see DCOM, etc.).
Wow, excellent way of putting that!
there aren't any important features in 2k & XP to be envious of. Yay Office 97!
Actually, Office 2K documents don't embed the GUID. So, that's good I guess.
problem_flowchart.jpg
Then I noticed a little program running the background called 'sapisrv.exe', turned it off, and was back to cruising speed.
That kinda reminds me of findfast. It was installed by default in office 97 and would chew up processor time indexing and reindexing the harddrive.
You've got to love the decision making skills of big bureaucracies like Microsoft.
And the arrogant self-serving foreign policy of the Bush administration is going to make more and more enemies.
Can you define arrogant?
Please take into account that because we have been attacked several times we have a very real fear of the day when terrorists use nukes on us. What if anything do you suggest we do to prevent that?
What can we do that would be effective yet not arrogant?
Why don't they just cut to the chase and call it something like the Secure Audio Technology Applications Network
"Congress today passed legislation that will require SATAN be a part of all new PCs"
"Dude, I just got SATAN so I can listen to N'Sync"
sorry this is not meant to be a flame
Well then I wont flame you in return.
But I will humbly suggest that you made up your mind (basically to take nukes off the table) before you read my comment and that that prejudiced you against my comment.
I feel this is a better summation of this part of the thread so far:
cybermage said: [if nukes are used] This war would become US v Islam in the blink of an eye.
then I said: How is that different from the current situation?
Since 100% of the terrorists are Islamic, I feel that calling it US vs. Islam is a fair statement. I go on to suggest two courses of action for dealing with Islamic terrorists:
a. Try to make them stop hating us.
b. Try to make them stop killing us.
and I point out that nukes can in fact achieve option b.
And finally, I ask for your suggestions.
I don't know. I thought I was making a good case.
Your reply: So allow me to sum up your viewpoint. Muslim's hate Americans. [...] I pitty you
That's not very helpful. Do you have any suggestions?
I said: Try to make them stop hating us.
and then you said: Anyone who feels that they need everyone to like them is mentally ill.
Did you read that after you typed it? You just said that (!hate == like). That's ridiculous. If you can't get that straight logically then what can I infer about the rest of your opinions?
Anyway, nobody likes the US! But the only people who seem to want to indiscriminately kill us happen to be concentrated in one small region of the world. I have a few million years of evolution urging me to take action to protect my offspring and myself. What do you suggest?
Using weapons of mass destruction will give focus to their hatred
Don't make more terrorists by indiscriminately bombing civilians.
Well I wasn't actually suggesting we nuke them now!
I'll say it again. 'They' (terrorists) will nuke us at their earliest possible convenience. What should we do then?
Your quote from the untouchables was right on but I don't think we can find terrorists before they become suicide bombers. So what else is left? The only thing I can think of is scarring the fuck out of them. They have no respect for us right now. Did you see Osama's last tape? It's safe to say he has a pretty low opinion of Americans. So what should we do? Maybe if we had public plans in place so that on the day they nuke one of our cities we nuke 5 of theirs starting with mecca - well, maybe they'd be scared.
I'm glad you recognize one of our most sacred values.
That's funny. We are just having a conversation about hypotheticals here. Did you feel I was threatening your right to an opinion? You must have me confused with a moderator. : P
Our opinions all count for the same - exactly one vote (except for the last election when I was in the military and voted in my home state of Florida through absentee ballot and a certain political party actively tried to negate my vote).
US v Islam
How is that different from the current situation? Like it or not > 50% (I know, not all) of Muslims evidently already hate us.
The choices seem to be:
a. Try to make them stop hating us.
Any ideas how to do this? Before you answer "stop supporting israel" consider this as evidence that some people will hate you for your religious beliefs no matter what you do.
b. Try to make them stop killing us.
Any ideas how to do this? Before you answer "nuking will only escalate" consider this: They will nuke us at their earliest possible convenience. On the bright side, if they happen to kill you then that's one less detractor in the way of decisively ending this war.
For those interested:
this is that the parent refers to.