Suspension of Habeas Corpus, martial law, that sort of thing. Martial law and suspension of writs of Habeas Corupus are provided for by the Constitution itself, so how is that a suspension of the Constitution?
And for that reason there is means and opportunity. For motive, see above. There have been means, opportunity, and motive for years. What's kept terrorists from using WMD in the past? (I don't know, so I'm just asking for any opinions.)
Last time I checked Gore got the Majority. It appears you didn't check after the ballots started being counted, then. Gore got a plurality of the popular vote. Firstly, a plurality is not enough to elect a President as the Constitution mandates a majority. Secondly, the popular vote isn't even Constitutionally mandated. All that matters is the vote within any given state because that's how the states have decided to choose electors.
Could you offer an explanation of what you mean by "the suspension of the Constitution"?
The US has killed approximately 1 million Iraqis in the past 13 years. Yay? Was that statement to make a point, or were you just rambling?
WMDs are getting cheaper and easier to produce, not more expensive, not more difficult. That is why the past lack of use is not a predictor of future use. They're already cheap. They're already easy to produce. Anybody could build a thermonuclear bomb in their garrage if they have a few million bucks to spend, and terrorists have more than enough money for that. The only remotely difficult part is getting uranium, plutonium, and tritium. Price and ease-of-production have not been issues preventing their use for a long time.
Look, I understand where you're coming from, but it's totally too late. The movie's already being prepared to ship, so he can't change his mind even if he wants to. It's a real shame though, but the damn scene should've been in The Two Towers anyway.
No, that won't be taken seriously because the quality isn't high enough. Also, no, San Francisco would have the Golden Gate Bridge built by said crazy tripped out pornographic construction team because the construction workers didn't name the bridge. Government agencies have to be very careful with their procurement practices though because if anybody feels they didn't get a fair shake, the government is a big target in court. That's all I was saying.
The leap is much larger because switching from plural to singular is very unnatural because there is a large difference between referencing one thing and referencing a multitude of things, but dropping "thou" from use simply removed the "importance" connotation from the word. "You" was used essentially as Spanish uses "Usted/Ustedes" (you is both singular and plural, but people generally use another word (often all) to distinguish the plural form). The same goes for "vous" in French, I think. "Thou"/"You" was primarily a feudal/manorial thing to make one's societal betters feel important.
Actually, they don't have the right to discriminate against anyone based on the terminology used by said entity. Unless they want a lawsuit, they can only choose their vendor based on quality of hardware and price.
An analysis of the writings of the time clearly shows that slavery and slavery alone was the cause of the war. You were right until this point. There were things other than slavery. Slavery was the central issue and the breaking point, definitely, but there were other issues. The primary problem was that South Carolina (they left first... there were others but I don't remember how many of them really cared and how many were like North Carolina and seceded because they were surrounded by Confederate states) felt that it had the right to determine the legality of slavery within the state. The issue was states' rights, not just slavery. If the states' rights issue had been settled before, there would have been no secession.
For millions of Americans, the "master-slave" relationship means one thing and one thing only: over 200 years of institutionalized, legal American slavery. You, sir, are a racist and an anti-globalistic biggot! Do you think slavery was invented by the United States Government? Of course not! It was an issue long before the Contitutional convention. When the Roman legions conquered a new province, they enslaved most of the population! Let's also not forget that the Hebrews spent decades enslaved in Egypt. For that matter, do you realize that the white man never enslaved the black man in Africa? Yes, it was a terrible thing for white people in this country to keep black people as slaves, but do you know where those slaves came from? They were captured and enslaved by Africans! And these were black Africans, often Muslim invaders. It was a standard practice for the Ottoman Empire's invading armies to enslave anyone who refused to convert to Islam. Check any history book on India.
If "master-slave" truly means one thing only to millions of Americans, then those millions of Americans need to pull their self-absorbed heads out of their asses and quit giving the other tens of millions of us a bad name.
I'm sick of all you PC fuckheads bitching because you think every fucking word in the English language was developed solely to offend your worthless ass.
Actually not, the Master does not tell the slave what to do.
Actually, yes it does. The slave drive follows the master's clock, so while it may not exactly tell it what to do, it tells it when to do it. If you don't believe me, ask any systems engineer why you always make the faster drive master and the slower drive slave.
Seriously... what the hell are we supposed to call them? Master/Slave is the most accurate way to describe the damn things! Maybe to be PC they'll just call them the dominant and submissive drives instead?
Linux can be secure, but Windows can't. Well, let me rephrase that. Unless you manually edit the binaries to take out the holes, Windows can't.
Tell the truth, all systems are susceptible, no matter who makes it. This is true; however, the fact that all security schemes are breakable does not mean that all security schemes are created equal. I mean, if that were the case, we'd all go around using ROT-13 instead of anybody doing cryptography research.
I don't see how the gap's so huge. She may very well see it as a sweetheart relationship but be taking a shitload of emotional abuse. If that's the case, I reserve the right to set his dick on fire. That's all.
Might I suggest suspending the account. Making them reconfigure everything after their punishment is a sure way to teach them to hack root and circumvent you =P
If there actually IS a VERY GOOD REASON why a relationship between your kid and another kid has to end, then it is your task to explain your concerns to them, because telling them to finish the relationship is both completely wrong and out of your league. If my daughter is in a relationship that I object to, I will talk to her about it. If my daughter is in a relationship that I have a very good reason for it to have to end, I will place the barrel of a shotgun into his mouth and blow his head off. Sometimes, it is a parent's job to protect their kids. If a guy is physically or emotionally hurting her, and she doesn't understand, why the hell should I let it continue? If a 15 year old is dating an 18 year old, and he abuses her in any way, why shouldn't her father get a restraining order and keep an eye out to protect her? Letting your child get raped is NOT the same thing as allowing her freedom, and if I think that's likely, the guy better not come within 30 feet of her again.
uhh... sorry about the rant... but seriously people... home anarchy is just as dangerous and just as stupid as social anarchy
However, it is not reasonable to expect a less knowledgeable user to have to do this all of the time so binary distributions, especially for commercial software, has to be the way forward.
Why is this? Why can't we just have a packaging system that compiles the source with compiler options based on your system? Why can't we have a packaging system that knows what the dependencies are, checks to see if they're installed, and if not it installs them off of the CD (or it downloads them in the case of non-CD software)? For some reason, it just seems to me that it wouldn't really be that difficult if the community would just develop a standard for source-based dependency-resolving packages (the package developer just has to say what dependencies there are and where to install them from).
However, if a company like Wallmart could tell a band like Nirvana to change lyrics to their songs, and get the band's compliance can you honestly say that that corporate censorship doesn't happen in America? In today's world (as opposed to their world a few years ago) Nirvana could easily post an alternate version of the song on their website and just sell the "censored" version at WalMart. Furthermore, no, that's not censorship. That's WalMart saying, "we won't sell music containing X because it would hurt our reputation". That doesn't stop Nirvana from making the song and selling it elsewhere.
The net's great, but it is still nowhere as important in informing public opinion as the print and broadcast media. This is true, and I never said otherwise. I simply said that censorship is impossible because you can always go anonymously on the 'net to publish your thoughts.
Consider this too. Should we oppose selling to either AOL or Microsoft, for example, exclusive rights to content-filter the net? If you think this is something that should be opposed, then you do see that non-state censorship is possible, and in fact want to oppose it, well done! The parent poster would have to say, well there's no censorship there, I'll just accept it. Of course we should oppose this, but it's next to impossible for it to happen because of the way the network is setup. First of all, who has this "right" to sell it? Secondly, when did this become a "right" anyway? AOL and Microsoft don't have the infrastructure to control the network, and therefore they are unable to censor it.
So when the Chinese block the net, those Chinese who are unaware that something is being blocked, (ie they don't want access to that information, they don't even know that information exists), you maintain that is not censorship? I beg to differ. Ok, so maybe I worded it wrong. If someone says "you can't publish this" and then enforces it, it's censorship. If someone says, "you can't see this" and then enforces it, it's censorship. My point was, when someone says, "I have this information, but I'm not telling!" that's not censorship. It's called keeping a secret. It's called confidential information. It's not called censorship. Censorship requires a party other than a publisher and reader.
The problem is that we have contending rights that must be balanced. In your equation the right to free speech simply trumphs the right to make an informed democratic choice. I don't have any idea what you're talking about. Where did I say anything about a right to make an informed democratic choice?
If a government engaged in some activity, which it was vital for the citizenry to know about in coming to a decision to excercise their democratic rights, it is wrong for Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner and a handful of others, merely by virtue of their control of the media, and merely because they stand collectively to gain from said activity, to decide that such information be surpressed. I agree that it would be wrong, but it would not be censorship. If a reporter found out about it, went to post it on the web, and was stopped by his employer, that would be censorship, but the 'net affords a certain anonymity that guarantees that the employer couldn't stop the reporter.
As well as having a right, the media have a duty to report those things reasonably necessary for the conduct of an informed democractic republic. This is true; however, firstly, the USA is not an informed democratic republic. The USA is a democratic republic full of people who have no idea what the hell is going on. This isn't the media's fault. It's the fault of the people who couldn't care less and therefore don't pay attention. Secondly, if the media fails in this duty, it's not censorship, it's simply keeping secret something they shouldn't. There is a huge difference.
That's very true, but it still existed and it's good to remember the mistakes of the past in order not to repeat them in the future, and the UN seems to have a lot of the problems of the Articles of Confederation.
Slashdot Mirror
Suspension of Habeas Corpus, martial law, that sort of thing.
Martial law and suspension of writs of Habeas Corupus are provided for by the Constitution itself, so how is that a suspension of the Constitution?
And for that reason there is means and opportunity. For motive, see above.
There have been means, opportunity, and motive for years. What's kept terrorists from using WMD in the past? (I don't know, so I'm just asking for any opinions.)
Last time I checked Gore got the Majority.
It appears you didn't check after the ballots started being counted, then. Gore got a plurality of the popular vote. Firstly, a plurality is not enough to elect a President as the Constitution mandates a majority. Secondly, the popular vote isn't even Constitutionally mandated. All that matters is the vote within any given state because that's how the states have decided to choose electors.
Could you offer an explanation of what you mean by "the suspension of the Constitution"?
The US has killed approximately 1 million Iraqis in the past 13 years.
Yay? Was that statement to make a point, or were you just rambling?
WMDs are getting cheaper and easier to produce, not more expensive, not more difficult. That is why the past lack of use is not a predictor of future use.
They're already cheap. They're already easy to produce. Anybody could build a thermonuclear bomb in their garrage if they have a few million bucks to spend, and terrorists have more than enough money for that. The only remotely difficult part is getting uranium, plutonium, and tritium. Price and ease-of-production have not been issues preventing their use for a long time.
It was a StarWars joke. It appears that it wasn't funny =/
Look, I understand where you're coming from, but it's totally too late. The movie's already being prepared to ship, so he can't change his mind even if he wants to. It's a real shame though, but the damn scene should've been in The Two Towers anyway.
No, that won't be taken seriously because the quality isn't high enough. Also, no, San Francisco would have the Golden Gate Bridge built by said crazy tripped out pornographic construction team because the construction workers didn't name the bridge. Government agencies have to be very careful with their procurement practices though because if anybody feels they didn't get a fair shake, the government is a big target in court. That's all I was saying.
The leap is much larger because switching from plural to singular is very unnatural because there is a large difference between referencing one thing and referencing a multitude of things, but dropping "thou" from use simply removed the "importance" connotation from the word. "You" was used essentially as Spanish uses "Usted/Ustedes" (you is both singular and plural, but people generally use another word (often all) to distinguish the plural form). The same goes for "vous" in French, I think. "Thou"/"You" was primarily a feudal/manorial thing to make one's societal betters feel important.
Actually, they don't have the right to discriminate against anyone based on the terminology used by said entity. Unless they want a lawsuit, they can only choose their vendor based on quality of hardware and price.
An analysis of the writings of the time clearly shows that slavery and slavery alone was the cause of the war.
You were right until this point. There were things other than slavery. Slavery was the central issue and the breaking point, definitely, but there were other issues. The primary problem was that South Carolina (they left first... there were others but I don't remember how many of them really cared and how many were like North Carolina and seceded because they were surrounded by Confederate states) felt that it had the right to determine the legality of slavery within the state. The issue was states' rights, not just slavery. If the states' rights issue had been settled before, there would have been no secession.
For millions of Americans, the "master-slave" relationship means one thing and one thing only: over 200 years of institutionalized, legal American slavery.
You, sir, are a racist and an anti-globalistic biggot! Do you think slavery was invented by the United States Government? Of course not! It was an issue long before the Contitutional convention. When the Roman legions conquered a new province, they enslaved most of the population! Let's also not forget that the Hebrews spent decades enslaved in Egypt. For that matter, do you realize that the white man never enslaved the black man in Africa? Yes, it was a terrible thing for white people in this country to keep black people as slaves, but do you know where those slaves came from? They were captured and enslaved by Africans! And these were black Africans, often Muslim invaders. It was a standard practice for the Ottoman Empire's invading armies to enslave anyone who refused to convert to Islam. Check any history book on India.
If "master-slave" truly means one thing only to millions of Americans, then those millions of Americans need to pull their self-absorbed heads out of their asses and quit giving the other tens of millions of us a bad name.
I'm sick of all you PC fuckheads bitching because you think every fucking word in the English language was developed solely to offend your worthless ass.
Maybe we should've just called them the master and the apprentice?
'Thou' was the informal form of 'you', not the singular form.
Actually not, the Master does not tell the slave what to do.
Actually, yes it does. The slave drive follows the master's clock, so while it may not exactly tell it what to do, it tells it when to do it. If you don't believe me, ask any systems engineer why you always make the faster drive master and the slower drive slave.
Seriously... what the hell are we supposed to call them? Master/Slave is the most accurate way to describe the damn things! Maybe to be PC they'll just call them the dominant and submissive drives instead?
Next time you have a random drive failure and have no backup because you don't like removable media, you'll know the answer to that question.
Damn! All these years, I've thought jokes were supposed to be humorous.
Linux can be secure, but
Windows can't. Well, let me rephrase that. Unless you manually edit the binaries to take out the holes, Windows can't.
Tell the truth, all systems are susceptible, no matter who makes it.
This is true; however, the fact that all security schemes are breakable does not mean that all security schemes are created equal. I mean, if that were the case, we'd all go around using ROT-13 instead of anybody doing cryptography research.
I don't see how the gap's so huge. She may very well see it as a sweetheart relationship but be taking a shitload of emotional abuse. If that's the case, I reserve the right to set his dick on fire. That's all.
Fear != Respect
Fear is instilled by having the power. Respect is earned by treating them well and being a decent human being.
Unless you leave the door unlocked and are too busy watching porn to notice the burglar sneak in ;)
Might I suggest suspending the account. Making them reconfigure everything after their punishment is a sure way to teach them to hack root and circumvent you =P
If there actually IS a VERY GOOD REASON why a relationship between your kid and another kid has to end, then it is your task to explain your concerns to them, because telling them to finish the relationship is both completely wrong and out of your league.
If my daughter is in a relationship that I object to, I will talk to her about it. If my daughter is in a relationship that I have a very good reason for it to have to end, I will place the barrel of a shotgun into his mouth and blow his head off. Sometimes, it is a parent's job to protect their kids. If a guy is physically or emotionally hurting her, and she doesn't understand, why the hell should I let it continue? If a 15 year old is dating an 18 year old, and he abuses her in any way, why shouldn't her father get a restraining order and keep an eye out to protect her? Letting your child get raped is NOT the same thing as allowing her freedom, and if I think that's likely, the guy better not come within 30 feet of her again.
uhh... sorry about the rant... but seriously people... home anarchy is just as dangerous and just as stupid as social anarchy
However, it is not reasonable to expect a less knowledgeable user to have to do this all of the time so binary distributions, especially for commercial software, has to be the way forward.
Why is this? Why can't we just have a packaging system that compiles the source with compiler options based on your system? Why can't we have a packaging system that knows what the dependencies are, checks to see if they're installed, and if not it installs them off of the CD (or it downloads them in the case of non-CD software)? For some reason, it just seems to me that it wouldn't really be that difficult if the community would just develop a standard for source-based dependency-resolving packages (the package developer just has to say what dependencies there are and where to install them from).
However, if a company like Wallmart could tell a band like Nirvana to change lyrics to their songs, and get the band's compliance can you honestly say that that corporate censorship doesn't happen in America?
In today's world (as opposed to their world a few years ago) Nirvana could easily post an alternate version of the song on their website and just sell the "censored" version at WalMart. Furthermore, no, that's not censorship. That's WalMart saying, "we won't sell music containing X because it would hurt our reputation". That doesn't stop Nirvana from making the song and selling it elsewhere.
The net's great, but it is still nowhere as important in informing public opinion as the print and broadcast media.
This is true, and I never said otherwise. I simply said that censorship is impossible because you can always go anonymously on the 'net to publish your thoughts.
Consider this too. Should we oppose selling to either AOL or Microsoft, for example, exclusive rights to content-filter the net? If you think this is something that should be opposed, then you do see that non-state censorship is possible, and in fact want to oppose it, well done! The parent poster would have to say, well there's no censorship there, I'll just accept it.
Of course we should oppose this, but it's next to impossible for it to happen because of the way the network is setup. First of all, who has this "right" to sell it? Secondly, when did this become a "right" anyway? AOL and Microsoft don't have the infrastructure to control the network, and therefore they are unable to censor it.
So when the Chinese block the net, those Chinese who are unaware that something is being blocked, (ie they don't want access to that information, they don't even know that information exists), you maintain that is not censorship? I beg to differ.
Ok, so maybe I worded it wrong. If someone says "you can't publish this" and then enforces it, it's censorship. If someone says, "you can't see this" and then enforces it, it's censorship. My point was, when someone says, "I have this information, but I'm not telling!" that's not censorship. It's called keeping a secret. It's called confidential information. It's not called censorship. Censorship requires a party other than a publisher and reader.
The problem is that we have contending rights that must be balanced. In your equation the right to free speech simply trumphs the right to make an informed democratic choice.
I don't have any idea what you're talking about. Where did I say anything about a right to make an informed democratic choice?
If a government engaged in some activity, which it was vital for the citizenry to know about in coming to a decision to excercise their democratic rights, it is wrong for Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner and a handful of others, merely by virtue of their control of the media, and merely because they stand collectively to gain from said activity, to decide that such information be surpressed.
I agree that it would be wrong, but it would not be censorship. If a reporter found out about it, went to post it on the web, and was stopped by his employer, that would be censorship, but the 'net affords a certain anonymity that guarantees that the employer couldn't stop the reporter.
As well as having a right, the media have a duty to report those things reasonably necessary for the conduct of an informed democractic republic.
This is true; however, firstly, the USA is not an informed democratic republic. The USA is a democratic republic full of people who have no idea what the hell is going on. This isn't the media's fault. It's the fault of the people who couldn't care less and therefore don't pay attention. Secondly, if the media fails in this duty, it's not censorship, it's simply keeping secret something they shouldn't. There is a huge difference.
That's very true, but it still existed and it's good to remember the mistakes of the past in order not to repeat them in the future, and the UN seems to have a lot of the problems of the Articles of Confederation.