You have to ask yourself a very serious question: Is it the responsibility of the USA to bring democracy to the middle east?
Yes, absolutely, it is, if we have the power to do so we should do so.
We hold these rights to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
There is such a thing as right and wrong, and it's not all relative, and it's not cultural. If you force your people to pray to one god and the women to wear masks around all over the place, you are wrong. Period. People should be given the choice to do that if they wish, but should not be forced. It's not culture, it's *tyranny*, the enemy of culture.
The only mistake I think we made in Iraq was to go in without a plan, and underprepared. The abstract idea of ridding the world of a ruthless dictator and establishing a democracy was a good one. It's almost funny to hear you call us a bully, for ridding the world of a bully. To say that we were interfering with Iraq's culture I frankly find very insulting, to us and to them. Unless by their culture (or "way of life", same thing), you mean was agreeing with everything Saddam said or watching their family get killed.
That's not a way of life, that's a way of death. Funny how subtleties like that seem to be lost on people like you.
The "American Century" is over, and we can either be a player, maybe even "first among equals", in the new century, or we can be a second-rate laughing stock as nations that value cooperation and intelligent behavior lead the way.
You know, Mr. Slippery, you're a friend of a friend and all, but I think you're kidding yourself. What countries are those, exactly? The same countries that kicked us out of the UN Human Rights commitee, and appointed Libya as the leader? Is that cooperation? Is that "intelligent behavior"? Whatever you have to say about our human rights record, you MUST admit that we're better than Libya, for crying out loud.
The world is not truly cooperating for anything good, not yet. They are paying lip service to the idea of cooperating. Personally I think we should slowly sideline the UN and form our own organization. The UN is pretty much controlled by Islamic interests at this point. Evidence: they pass all kinds of resolutions about how Israel needs to be nice, but ignore the atrocities committed by the palestinians.
I really hate to say it, but the UN is practically a terrorist organization. As a group, they're no more interested in intelligence, cooperation, and human rights than Stalin was.
While everything you said is true, most of us will never play at the WSOP, and tells can be very lucrative when playing against rank amateurs. However, except in very egregious cases, they should merely be one factor among many that you use to weigh your decision, and putting too much emphasis on them will separate you from your money very quickly.
I think many people with a background in an engineering/technical discipline is[my emphasis], in general, more mathematically inclined than the average person.
Perhaps they are also less inclined towards grammar?:)
"Another Player" can be hard to find, since Go isn't terribly popular and a fairly decent player can thoroughly trounce a beginner.
Yahoo Games is a great place to play Go, for all levels. There's always lots of people playing there, at all levels, for all board sizes.
Usually when I try to connect to IGN, there's about 5 players online. I understand it's like the official Go network on the internet, but to me it seems fairly useless.
The article says that the exploit allows you to run a named process on the machine. The article does NOT say the exploit allows the writer to run arbitrary code on the machine.
Sure, this is really bad, but how can someone take control of your machine using this 'sploit?
Okay, I am almost as much the cynic as you are, but I must say, that's pretty much a load of hooey. There are plenty of examples of politicians that have legitimately solved problems and profited by it. It's just easier not to. Sometimes the solution to the problem is distasteful, witness the venerable ex mayor of New York, who sort of, let's say, flirted with the constitutional limits of government in his very effective crackdown on crime. He got results and solved the problem of extremely high violent crime rates, and it's hard to argue he didn't profit from it.
Oh please. "Creation science" isn't science at all. Science makes predictions based on theories, and often has applicable uses. "Creation science" just attacks an evolutionary strawman. Nothing useful has come out of it, and no predictions can be made from it, and its practicioners don't follow the scientific method of empirical research.
To believe that crap, you have to discard physics (radioactive dating), astrophysics (age of the universe), biology (evolution and DNA), geology (age of the earth), paleoclimatology (ancient weather), and probably several other scientific disciplines that I just can't think of at the moment. Every one of THOSE sciences actually produce results. The atomic clock which you set your watch by in the morning is based on the same rate of radioactive decay which allows us to date rocks and sediment and fossils. The rockets that we send into space calculate their trajectory based on the same science which tells us how old the universe is. DNA and evolutionary research have given us new prescription drugs that are used to treat diseases. Paleoclimatology tells us what happens when the cabon dioxide levels get too high and cause global warming.
Has "Creation science" contributed anything to mankind, other than a bunch of wrongheaded thinking? Can you use "creation science" to make a better retrovirus drug? No. It's not science, it's muddle headed philosophy, and it will never be any more than that because it is fundamentally wrong.
When scientists say the earth is billions of years old, that theory is not based on pseudo-science, but cold, hard facts that "creation science" doesn't deal with, because it can't. If we used "creation science" geology to build our buildings, they would collapse. If we used "creation science" nuclear physics to build our nuclear reactors, they would explode. The only way you could possibly believe that crap is if you are woefully or intentionally ignorant of the facts.
The title story from Heinlein's anthology. A truly great science fiction story that forever changed how I thought about language, and which is very applicable to TFA. I suggest you read it immediately if you haven't done so already.
and their mass transit loving eco terrorist friends alike
Love how you threw in that canard about "eco terrorists". Yeah, I guess if you think it's wasteful and unamerican to drive a gas guzzling SUV to work every day, you're a terrorist.
I say, if you love your SUV so much that you're willing to drive it all around and consume twice as much gas as a normal car, you're funding the fundamentalist Islamist states that are the bankers of terrorism, and YOU are the terrorist. Of course, my opinions get me shunned by polite society, so I guess you are the one who is correct.
The USA only uses foreign oil for about 50% of its oil consumption needs (even though we only have 3% of the proven reserves). It wouldn't take much to stop funding terrorist states if we all got together and saved oil instead of calling anyone who wants to save oil an "eco-terrorist". Sure, there are real eco terrorists, who blow things up. They're not the mainstream, as you seem to imply. They're a small group of nuts.
Maybe you should start caring about your country and your biosphere and do your part to save it instead of ignorantly conflating environmentalism with terrorism.
How would you hold your breadth, anyway? Sometimes I hold my width, especially after eating spicy chicken wings, but I don't think I've ever held my breadth.
Seems like this would also have adverse effects for those *inside* the building, but not in the same room as the wireless node. Plus, it is possible to secure wireless, it's just beyond the means/ability of the average consumer, but corporations are not average consumers. Furthermore, rather than paying 200 grand for wallpaper that may not look like what you want, why not pay a contractor a lot less than that for a week's work securing your network the old fashioned way? PLUS - what about windows in the building?
All in all it seems like a dumb idea. The only way I can see it being used is in *addition* to strong conventional wi-fi security measures. Unless I'm missing something?
Quoth the press release: In an effort to avoid an association between the book originally titled Katie.com and the website Katie.com, Plume and the author decide to make this title change.
Ehhh..... because nobody would make that association naturally, of course. Obviously, it never occurred to them that it would happen. I'm titling my next book "(800) 788-6262 (Individual Consumer Sales)". It's a book about a salesman who is a pedophile. Surely no one will call the number and get Penguin's sales department. That would be a real non-sequitur.
If the email looks legit, the thing to do is to type the address in your browser and login from there. OOo, scary.
Here here! It's so sad that that's the only way to be safe, but there you have it. Give me a break, I'm not going to do a damn DNS investigation on every email to make sure it's legit.
Anyway, I'm good at spotting them. I got 10 of 10 on the test. Something that no one has said yet though - if I get an email from citibank about my account, it's phishing. I don't have an account at citibank. That makes it pretty easy to tell.
As the growing competition that the USA is facing in India on the software business demonstrates, there are technically advanced centers even in relatively poor countries, which would be spared in a nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are too expensive to waste in Third-World countries.
Yes it is, assuming that the author dies at some point.
I meant in terms of the constitution, and the historical context.
What if the term was one million years? That's a limited time, according to your definition. Clearly that's not what was meant by the language in the constitution.
How could I know what the framers meant? Well, I would say that the copyright term at the time of the founders is a pretty good guideline. If I'm not mistaken, it was 14 years. That's a reasonably limited time, and one that the founders obviously approved of.
I could see an argument that in this day and age, 20 years is more reasonable, but the life of the author plus 70 is beyond the pale, by any test you can apply. Does it promote the arts to have current works by young artists completely unusable by other artists (with the exception of music) thoughout the artist's lifetime? Having art pass into the public domain for the benefit of the public was something the authors intended, and spoke passionately about.
How about a billion years? Do you believe Thomas Jefferson would agree with you and say that was compatible with the constitutional language? My point here is that there is some cutoff amount of years after which you can't argue that it constitutes a "limited time" as Madison and Jefferson envisioned it.
Read my post and you'll see that I said sunny bono wasn't limited "by any reasonable standard". Why don't you tell me your opinion of the maximum number of years which could be called reasonable?
At it's heart, copyright is about property rights.
Malarkey. At its heart, copyright is about "promot[ing] science and the useful arts", just like it says in the constitution. That's why copyright terms in the founders time were much shorter. The point of putting copyright in the constitution was to balance the author's right to make some money from their work with the public's right to have useful arts. That balance is now broken, and in a big way. That's why the constitution says "to secure, for limited times". The life of the author plus 70 years is NOT a limited time, not by any reasonable standard. Everyone who was alive at the creation of the work will be dead by its expiration. It's a travesty, and it's unconstitutional, regardless of what our lousy supreme court says.
You have a point that he brought it on himself. I never said he didn't do anything wrong. I said he didn't do anything criminal and there is a difference. Having sex with a subordinate is not sexual harrasment, especially if, in her own words she pursued him somewhat doggedly, rather than the other way around (see the HBO special "Monica, in her own words").
So, because there are 'some really sick individuals', everyone in society should have their rights erroded by putting a bandaid on a symptom of these 'really sick individuals'?
Well, in a word, no. That's what I was saying. I just wanted to make the point that no one else seemed to consider. The discussion seems to be focused around the possibility of a rational person being turned into a psycho killer by video games. That's obviously ludicrous. I think it is not nearly as ludicrous to say that psychos could be made worse psychos by video games.
I think there are plenty of other things we could do, however, to make us safer from these sorts of individuals - before we even need to consider the effect of VVGs.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, absolutely, it is, if we have the power to do so we should do so.
We hold these rights to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
There is such a thing as right and wrong, and it's not all relative, and it's not cultural. If you force your people to pray to one god and the women to wear masks around all over the place, you are wrong. Period. People should be given the choice to do that if they wish, but should not be forced. It's not culture, it's *tyranny*, the enemy of culture.
The only mistake I think we made in Iraq was to go in without a plan, and underprepared. The abstract idea of ridding the world of a ruthless dictator and establishing a democracy was a good one. It's almost funny to hear you call us a bully, for ridding the world of a bully. To say that we were interfering with Iraq's culture I frankly find very insulting, to us and to them. Unless by their culture (or "way of life", same thing), you mean was agreeing with everything Saddam said or watching their family get killed.
That's not a way of life, that's a way of death. Funny how subtleties like that seem to be lost on people like you.
You know, Mr. Slippery, you're a friend of a friend and all, but I think you're kidding yourself. What countries are those, exactly? The same countries that kicked us out of the UN Human Rights commitee, and appointed Libya as the leader? Is that cooperation? Is that "intelligent behavior"? Whatever you have to say about our human rights record, you MUST admit that we're better than Libya, for crying out loud.
The world is not truly cooperating for anything good, not yet. They are paying lip service to the idea of cooperating. Personally I think we should slowly sideline the UN and form our own organization. The UN is pretty much controlled by Islamic interests at this point. Evidence: they pass all kinds of resolutions about how Israel needs to be nice, but ignore the atrocities committed by the palestinians.
I really hate to say it, but the UN is practically a terrorist organization. As a group, they're no more interested in intelligence, cooperation, and human rights than Stalin was.
While everything you said is true, most of us will never play at the WSOP, and tells can be very lucrative when playing against rank amateurs. However, except in very egregious cases, they should merely be one factor among many that you use to weigh your decision, and putting too much emphasis on them will separate you from your money very quickly.
Perhaps they are also less inclined towards grammar? :)
Ehh.... I think you meant pay-per-view cable.
Everyone suffers from viruses because they eat bandwidth and make everything slower and more expensive, even if you are not infected.
Yes you're right, it was NNGS.
Yahoo Games is a great place to play Go, for all levels. There's always lots of people playing there, at all levels, for all board sizes.
Usually when I try to connect to IGN, there's about 5 players online. I understand it's like the official Go network on the internet, but to me it seems fairly useless.
Was this article translated the babelfish?
Sure, this is really bad, but how can someone take control of your machine using this 'sploit?
Okay, I am almost as much the cynic as you are, but I must say, that's pretty much a load of hooey. There are plenty of examples of politicians that have legitimately solved problems and profited by it. It's just easier not to. Sometimes the solution to the problem is distasteful, witness the venerable ex mayor of New York, who sort of, let's say, flirted with the constitutional limits of government in his very effective crackdown on crime. He got results and solved the problem of extremely high violent crime rates, and it's hard to argue he didn't profit from it.
Oh please. "Creation science" isn't science at all. Science makes predictions based on theories, and often has applicable uses. "Creation science" just attacks an evolutionary strawman. Nothing useful has come out of it, and no predictions can be made from it, and its practicioners don't follow the scientific method of empirical research.
To believe that crap, you have to discard physics (radioactive dating), astrophysics (age of the universe), biology (evolution and DNA), geology (age of the earth), paleoclimatology (ancient weather), and probably several other scientific disciplines that I just can't think of at the moment. Every one of THOSE sciences actually produce results. The atomic clock which you set your watch by in the morning is based on the same rate of radioactive decay which allows us to date rocks and sediment and fossils. The rockets that we send into space calculate their trajectory based on the same science which tells us how old the universe is. DNA and evolutionary research have given us new prescription drugs that are used to treat diseases. Paleoclimatology tells us what happens when the cabon dioxide levels get too high and cause global warming.
Has "Creation science" contributed anything to mankind, other than a bunch of wrongheaded thinking? Can you use "creation science" to make a better retrovirus drug? No. It's not science, it's muddle headed philosophy, and it will never be any more than that because it is fundamentally wrong.
When scientists say the earth is billions of years old, that theory is not based on pseudo-science, but cold, hard facts that "creation science" doesn't deal with, because it can't. If we used "creation science" geology to build our buildings, they would collapse. If we used "creation science" nuclear physics to build our nuclear reactors, they would explode. The only way you could possibly believe that crap is if you are woefully or intentionally ignorant of the facts.
Great rejoinder. What can I possibly say to counter that?
The title story from Heinlein's anthology. A truly great science fiction story that forever changed how I thought about language, and which is very applicable to TFA. I suggest you read it immediately if you haven't done so already.
Love how you threw in that canard about "eco terrorists". Yeah, I guess if you think it's wasteful and unamerican to drive a gas guzzling SUV to work every day, you're a terrorist.
I say, if you love your SUV so much that you're willing to drive it all around and consume twice as much gas as a normal car, you're funding the fundamentalist Islamist states that are the bankers of terrorism, and YOU are the terrorist. Of course, my opinions get me shunned by polite society, so I guess you are the one who is correct.
The USA only uses foreign oil for about 50% of its oil consumption needs (even though we only have 3% of the proven reserves). It wouldn't take much to stop funding terrorist states if we all got together and saved oil instead of calling anyone who wants to save oil an "eco-terrorist". Sure, there are real eco terrorists, who blow things up. They're not the mainstream, as you seem to imply. They're a small group of nuts.
Maybe you should start caring about your country and your biosphere and do your part to save it instead of ignorantly conflating environmentalism with terrorism.
How would you hold your breadth, anyway? Sometimes I hold my width, especially after eating spicy chicken wings, but I don't think I've ever held my breadth.
All in all it seems like a dumb idea. The only way I can see it being used is in *addition* to strong conventional wi-fi security measures. Unless I'm missing something?
Ehhh..... because nobody would make that association naturally, of course. Obviously, it never occurred to them that it would happen. I'm titling my next book "(800) 788-6262 (Individual Consumer Sales)". It's a book about a salesman who is a pedophile. Surely no one will call the number and get Penguin's sales department. That would be a real non-sequitur.
Here here! It's so sad that that's the only way to be safe, but there you have it. Give me a break, I'm not going to do a damn DNS investigation on every email to make sure it's legit.
Anyway, I'm good at spotting them. I got 10 of 10 on the test. Something that no one has said yet though - if I get an email from citibank about my account, it's phishing. I don't have an account at citibank. That makes it pretty easy to tell.
LOL! Pakistan might not agree with you on that.
Probably no worse than the original Doom lag times
I meant in terms of the constitution, and the historical context.
What if the term was one million years? That's a limited time, according to your definition. Clearly that's not what was meant by the language in the constitution.
How could I know what the framers meant? Well, I would say that the copyright term at the time of the founders is a pretty good guideline. If I'm not mistaken, it was 14 years. That's a reasonably limited time, and one that the founders obviously approved of.
I could see an argument that in this day and age, 20 years is more reasonable, but the life of the author plus 70 is beyond the pale, by any test you can apply. Does it promote the arts to have current works by young artists completely unusable by other artists (with the exception of music) thoughout the artist's lifetime? Having art pass into the public domain for the benefit of the public was something the authors intended, and spoke passionately about.
How about a billion years? Do you believe Thomas Jefferson would agree with you and say that was compatible with the constitutional language? My point here is that there is some cutoff amount of years after which you can't argue that it constitutes a "limited time" as Madison and Jefferson envisioned it.
Read my post and you'll see that I said sunny bono wasn't limited "by any reasonable standard". Why don't you tell me your opinion of the maximum number of years which could be called reasonable?
Malarkey. At its heart, copyright is about "promot[ing] science and the useful arts", just like it says in the constitution. That's why copyright terms in the founders time were much shorter. The point of putting copyright in the constitution was to balance the author's right to make some money from their work with the public's right to have useful arts. That balance is now broken, and in a big way. That's why the constitution says "to secure, for limited times". The life of the author plus 70 years is NOT a limited time, not by any reasonable standard. Everyone who was alive at the creation of the work will be dead by its expiration. It's a travesty, and it's unconstitutional, regardless of what our lousy supreme court says.
You have a point that he brought it on himself. I never said he didn't do anything wrong. I said he didn't do anything criminal and there is a difference. Having sex with a subordinate is not sexual harrasment, especially if, in her own words she pursued him somewhat doggedly, rather than the other way around (see the HBO special "Monica, in her own words").
Well, in a word, no. That's what I was saying. I just wanted to make the point that no one else seemed to consider. The discussion seems to be focused around the possibility of a rational person being turned into a psycho killer by video games. That's obviously ludicrous. I think it is not nearly as ludicrous to say that psychos could be made worse psychos by video games.
I think there are plenty of other things we could do, however, to make us safer from these sorts of individuals - before we even need to consider the effect of VVGs.