Not sure what you are trying to say here. If I can be reasonably assured that my laptop hasn't been owned while I was going through customs (not at all a given), there are VPN solutions that will definitely secure my traffic between that laptop and home. If those solutions are blocked, then yeah, it's definitely not safe to transact anything sensitive.
Even going with your bizarre scorecard, radical Muslims are gaining in leaps and bounds and will soon dwarf anything you may want to blame on Christianity.
Perhaps, but we shall have to see, won't we. Meanwhile, you have missed the point entirely. Unless/until people wake up and realize that doing anything "in the name of gawd" that affects the liberties of others is wrong. Deeply wrong. Stupid, mindless, superstitious, bat-shit-crazy wrong. Always. The people, like you, apparently, who seem to think that radical Islam has a lock on doing stupid. mindless, superstitious, bat-shit-crazy things to other people in the name of their deity have badly missed that.
Well of course having detected I was being ripped off I stopped using Amazon. Most people won't be able to see alternate prices for an item, so they'll never know the reason they were required to log-in was to be offered an inflated price compared to others.
I think the same is true of this airline scam. HOWEVER, the main difference here, is the airlines via it's association are showing clear signs of cooperation on this, which is a strong indicator of cartel activity.
It's not like one of them has just decided to go alone on this, it's that their airline association is declaring this.
That has CARTEL written all over it.
The fix is simple. On-line vendors who engage in this kind of horseshit should be required to display a "Bite Me" button right alongside the "Buy Now" button, and furthermore be required to display the price you should have gotten if they'd been competing straight up. Then you can go to the competing vendors armed with the "Bite Me" price and make an informed comparison. I can hear the boardroom banter now... "Yeah, right. Informed buyers. What do they think this is, some kind of free market?"
Sounds like insecurity is ripe within organized religions.
TFTFY. Enforcing piety with the tip of the sword is pretty much a universal technique. Oh sure, it's popularity waxes and wanes, just like hemlines from one fashion season to the next. This year, killing in gawd's name is all the rage among the Wahhabi, and we've heard rumors that dead or mutilated school girls will be the hot item.
Using the term "Blasphemy" serves to moderate what is truly an abomination: the intolerance of few fanatical religious zealots for anything that even smacks of an insult to this or that part of their chosen volume of "the complete and unerring word of god" and they outrageous response that ultimately ends up getting people killed. Ironically, the people getting killed are usually Muslims,this time around.
TFTFY. Jeezuz, dude. Generalize much? FWIW, we started keeping score several centuries ago, and "the Muslims" still have a lot of catching up to do when it comes to killing those who don't believe the right things. Meanwhile, the rational few despair that there are so many of you who still believe that this is a game that must be played. What my neighbor eats, wears, or reads harms me not in the least. Likewise his choice of sexual partners has no effect on me. So why the would any rational person give a shit about those things?
I wonder where the national support is. They're basically doing the job of the Library of Congress, the British Library etc., in terms of being a record keeper of published material. You'd think those organisations (and there must be dozens and dozens of them throughout the world; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit) could each chip in a few thousand dollars a year, wouldn't you?
You're right, of course. I can think of few expenditures of public funds than this, but I just don't have the stomach for the argument that would ensue over spending public funds on archiving .
A ship? Fek - unless they run the damned thing aground first, it WILL have to weather a storm someday.
You speak of storms, sir, yet you also speak of destroyers.. note that the military ships you speak of will be standing on station, or going places that are a bit out of the way for various reasons (training perhaps, to ensure that the crew can take the worst of the weather when they need to)
But perhaps you don't have a grasp of the leisure aspect especially of the superyacht set?.
Going offshore, which one must assume this yacht would do from time to time, means being prepared for the unexpected. That includes heavy weather and tall seas. And no, one can not "just keep an eye on the weather sat and run for cover". Indeed, running for harbor on the lee of a storm is a bad move unless one is certain one can be safely anchored/berthed ahead of the weather's arrival. Were it for cruising around San Francisco Bay, on nice days, that tub would fit right in. But as an ocean-crossing vessel? Never.
For anyone who's been on water tall enough to make one forever know his place in Nature's scale of things, you could have summed it up in one derisive word... "lubbers".
Whoa, easy, this isn't about government vs. commercial (private), this is about Civilian (government) vs. Military (government, specifically the DOD). So, the mention of a corporation isn't correct.
You're being sarcastic, right? Right? You don't seriously believe that the U.S Government actually represents the will of the people anymore. Right? No one on/. would be that stupid. Right?
Compare the safety, reliability, efficiency, and comfort of a car designed and built in the 60s/70s to one from the 21st century... not much revolution, but a whole lot of evolution. Which is better?
21st century models, of course, but that's probably not a comparison you want to make. After all, accidents still happen and people still die, every day, in late model cars.
I don't know about NRA the organization - I don't think they've articulated any coherent position on that point so far - but, personally, as an NRA member, I don't have a problem with that.
In fact, I think we should have laws for responsible keeping of firearms. Pretty simple stuff: if someone takes your gun and commits a crime with it, and it can be shown that you were negligent in securing it (e.g. it was your kid, and you didn't keep in in a gun safe), then you're liable. If we do it for cars already, we should definitely do it for guns.
Yeah. Good luck with that. The NRA will never, ever, back such restrictions.
Bullshit. Mostly, they do. The NRA, and their paid lackeys in the House and Senate, have a long history of opposing any and all legislation that would tighten up the availability of guns. Selling guns is the reason for the NRA's existence. Anything that makes it harder to buy guns is bad for business. That the occasional loser who shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than a pointed stick is able to buy as much as he wants is ample proof that we have a problem. Jezuz H. Christ, folks. You need a license and insurance to drive a car. Is it asking so much to demand that gun owners demonstrate similar proficiency and responsibility? Oh, and before you label me as someone from "the far left", keep in mind that I own multiple firearms and have been an active shooter since I was five years old. I oppose most forms of "gun control". I embrace those forms that ensure that fewer people who should not have guns don't get guns. The NRA and their Republican lackeys do not.
As in, the government will ask about what the people think and then prettend to listen...
Uhm..., don't the Brits elect their "government"? So, just like here in the U.S., they keep electing the same lousy people to represent them. Imagine that.
So... not anything like 100 per day.
Still, thanks for taking the time to bring some facts into the discussion. It is more than most posters can be bothered with.
Now, if you want to really dig into the statistics and what they mean, start looking at those firearms related deaths in comparison to other "non-natural" causes. Also, pay attention to the demographic skew for the firearms deaths. You will find them clustered heavily in a few areas. That there has been no hue and cry about that "epidemic of violence" should make us angry. That the deaths of few white grade-schoolers, while uniquely tragic, should get all the attention while the daily deaths of young, inner-city, non-white kids does not, should absolutely enrage us. I submit that something very important is missing from the discussion.
The fact that he tried to physically destroy things means he isn't nearly as smart as they want us to believe. They'll get quite a bit of it back. And more than likely will be able to get a pretty good profile of him by sequestering logs from various services, be it ISP, Xbox Live, etc.
No, they won't. This is a simple murder case, a high-profile one to be sure, but it's not going to get the very expensive resources needed to recover the data that was stored on now-shattered hard drive platters.
Interesting read, that. Thanks. BTW, substitute just about any church or denomination for the WBC in that essay and it reads even better. With the occasional exception, organized religions have always been about hustling their believers in order to collect money and/or power. At least Phelps is honest about it, if we may take his over the top approach has thinly veiled cynicism.
Yes, that's the drill (no pun intended, honest) but that "2,000 years" bit has to be a typo. That's nothing. Other groups have analyzed cores that go back several hundred thousand years.
What's to stop Visa and Mastercard from refusing to process payments to this new foundation?
The FBI, probably, because as soon as someone with enough clout orders it done, The Freedom of the Press Foundation will be accused of "funding teh terrorists",or child porn... or heresy. Wait. What? That one's not illegal in this country yet?
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure what you are trying to say here. If I can be reasonably assured that my laptop hasn't been owned while I was going through customs (not at all a given), there are VPN solutions that will definitely secure my traffic between that laptop and home. If those solutions are blocked, then yeah, it's definitely not safe to transact anything sensitive.
Even going with your bizarre scorecard, radical Muslims are gaining in leaps and bounds and will soon dwarf anything you may want to blame on Christianity.
Perhaps, but we shall have to see, won't we. Meanwhile, you have missed the point entirely. Unless/until people wake up and realize that doing anything "in the name of gawd" that affects the liberties of others is wrong. Deeply wrong. Stupid, mindless, superstitious, bat-shit-crazy wrong. Always. The people, like you, apparently, who seem to think that radical Islam has a lock on doing stupid. mindless, superstitious, bat-shit-crazy things to other people in the name of their deity have badly missed that.
Well of course having detected I was being ripped off I stopped using Amazon. Most people won't be able to see alternate prices for an item, so they'll never know the reason they were required to log-in was to be offered an inflated price compared to others.
I think the same is true of this airline scam. HOWEVER, the main difference here, is the airlines via it's association are showing clear signs of cooperation on this, which is a strong indicator of cartel activity.
It's not like one of them has just decided to go alone on this, it's that their airline association is declaring this.
That has CARTEL written all over it.
The fix is simple. On-line vendors who engage in this kind of horseshit should be required to display a "Bite Me" button right alongside the "Buy Now" button, and furthermore be required to display the price you should have gotten if they'd been competing straight up. Then you can go to the competing vendors armed with the "Bite Me" price and make an informed comparison. I can hear the boardroom banter now... "Yeah, right. Informed buyers. What do they think this is, some kind of free market?"
Sounds like insecurity is ripe within organized religions.
TFTFY. Enforcing piety with the tip of the sword is pretty much a universal technique. Oh sure, it's popularity waxes and wanes, just like hemlines from one fashion season to the next. This year, killing in gawd's name is all the rage among the Wahhabi, and we've heard rumors that dead or mutilated school girls will be the hot item.
Welll, let's see... She raised me to think rationally, question authority, and to ever act as a champion for justice. Yep, damned proud, I'd say.
Using the term "Blasphemy" serves to moderate what is truly an abomination: the intolerance of few fanatical religious zealots for anything that even smacks of an insult to this or that part of their chosen volume of "the complete and unerring word of god" and they outrageous response that ultimately ends up getting people killed. Ironically, the people getting killed are usually Muslims,this time around.
TFTFY. Jeezuz, dude. Generalize much? FWIW, we started keeping score several centuries ago, and "the Muslims" still have a lot of catching up to do when it comes to killing those who don't believe the right things. Meanwhile, the rational few despair that there are so many of you who still believe that this is a game that must be played. What my neighbor eats, wears, or reads harms me not in the least. Likewise his choice of sexual partners has no effect on me. So why the would any rational person give a shit about those things?
I wonder where the national support is. They're basically doing the job of the Library of Congress, the British Library etc., in terms of being a record keeper of published material. You'd think those organisations (and there must be dozens and dozens of them throughout the world; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_deposit) could each chip in a few thousand dollars a year, wouldn't you?
You're right, of course. I can think of few expenditures of public funds than this, but I just don't have the stomach for the argument that would ensue over spending public funds on archiving .
The craft doing the work should be christened "Marcus Garvey".
You speak of storms, sir, yet you also speak of destroyers.. note that the military ships you speak of will be standing on station, or going places that are a bit out of the way for various reasons (training perhaps, to ensure that the crew can take the worst of the weather when they need to)
But perhaps you don't have a grasp of the leisure aspect especially of the superyacht set? .
Going offshore, which one must assume this yacht would do from time to time, means being prepared for the unexpected. That includes heavy weather and tall seas. And no, one can not "just keep an eye on the weather sat and run for cover". Indeed, running for harbor on the lee of a storm is a bad move unless one is certain one can be safely anchored/berthed ahead of the weather's arrival. Were it for cruising around San Francisco Bay, on nice days, that tub would fit right in. But as an ocean-crossing vessel? Never.
For anyone who's been on water tall enough to make one forever know his place in Nature's scale of things, you could have summed it up in one derisive word... "lubbers".
Whoa, easy, this isn't about government vs. commercial (private), this is about Civilian (government) vs. Military (government, specifically the DOD). So, the mention of a corporation isn't correct.
You're being sarcastic, right? Right? You don't seriously believe that the U.S Government actually represents the will of the people anymore. Right? No one on /. would be that stupid. Right?
...I needed yet another reason not to ever buy an Apple product. Still... Thanks, Apple, for solidifying my resolve completely.
Compare the safety, reliability, efficiency, and comfort of a car designed and built in the 60s/70s to one from the 21st century... not much revolution, but a whole lot of evolution. Which is better?
21st century models, of course, but that's probably not a comparison you want to make. After all, accidents still happen and people still die, every day, in late model cars.
I don't know about NRA the organization - I don't think they've articulated any coherent position on that point so far - but, personally, as an NRA member, I don't have a problem with that.
In fact, I think we should have laws for responsible keeping of firearms. Pretty simple stuff: if someone takes your gun and commits a crime with it, and it can be shown that you were negligent in securing it (e.g. it was your kid, and you didn't keep in in a gun safe), then you're liable. If we do it for cars already, we should definitely do it for guns.
Yeah. Good luck with that. The NRA will never, ever, back such restrictions.
Mostly, they don't...
Bullshit. Mostly, they do. The NRA, and their paid lackeys in the House and Senate, have a long history of opposing any and all legislation that would tighten up the availability of guns. Selling guns is the reason for the NRA's existence. Anything that makes it harder to buy guns is bad for business. That the occasional loser who shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than a pointed stick is able to buy as much as he wants is ample proof that we have a problem. Jezuz H. Christ, folks. You need a license and insurance to drive a car. Is it asking so much to demand that gun owners demonstrate similar proficiency and responsibility? Oh, and before you label me as someone from "the far left", keep in mind that I own multiple firearms and have been an active shooter since I was five years old. I oppose most forms of "gun control". I embrace those forms that ensure that fewer people who should not have guns don't get guns. The NRA and their Republican lackeys do not.
As in, the government will ask about what the people think and then prettend to listen...
Uhm..., don't the Brits elect their "government"? So, just like here in the U.S., they keep electing the same lousy people to represent them. Imagine that.
So it's "We can do this the hard way or the easy way. Take it down now, and nobody gets hurt. Your choice, scumbag." Wow. I feel better already.
So... not anything like 100 per day.
Still, thanks for taking the time to bring some facts into the discussion. It is more than most posters can be bothered with.
Now, if you want to really dig into the statistics and what they mean, start looking at those firearms related deaths in comparison to other "non-natural" causes. Also, pay attention to the demographic skew for the firearms deaths. You will find them clustered heavily in a few areas. That there has been no hue and cry about that "epidemic of violence" should make us angry. That the deaths of few white grade-schoolers, while uniquely tragic, should get all the attention while the daily deaths of young, inner-city, non-white kids does not, should absolutely enrage us. I submit that something very important is missing from the discussion.
Over a hundred people die from firearms every day
[citation needed]
The fact that he tried to physically destroy things means he isn't nearly as smart as they want us to believe. They'll get quite a bit of it back. And more than likely will be able to get a pretty good profile of him by sequestering logs from various services, be it ISP, Xbox Live, etc.
No, they won't. This is a simple murder case, a high-profile one to be sure, but it's not going to get the very expensive resources needed to recover the data that was stored on now-shattered hard drive platters.
Because the hammer is faster, given the limited resources the cops are likely to expend on attempts to reconstruct the drive's contents.
Still bitter about having been suckered into buying that PC Jr., eh?
Interesting read, that. Thanks. BTW, substitute just about any church or denomination for the WBC in that essay and it reads even better. With the occasional exception, organized religions have always been about hustling their believers in order to collect money and/or power. At least Phelps is honest about it, if we may take his over the top approach has thinly veiled cynicism.
Yes, that's the drill (no pun intended, honest) but that "2,000 years" bit has to be a typo. That's nothing. Other groups have analyzed cores that go back several hundred thousand years.
What's to stop Visa and Mastercard from refusing to process payments to this new foundation?
The FBI, probably, because as soon as someone with enough clout orders it done, The Freedom of the Press Foundation will be accused of "funding teh terrorists",or child porn... or heresy. Wait. What? That one's not illegal in this country yet?