Nah, the problem is too many pricks posting to the internet about how everyone else should shut the fuck up because they already have "too much peace, freedom, and happiness."
What kind of fucking moron thinks there's such a thing as too much peace, freedom, and happiness? Why don't you hie your own ass off to some nice, totalitarian state? I'm sure you'd be happy to go, and I'd certainly be happy to see you go.
According to my Websters, one of the definitions of 'soldier' is 'any person of mililtary skill or experience'. This would include sailors, pilots and marines.
Oh, but wait! This is the *old* Websters, not the Government-Approved Websters. Better get rid of this contraband before the jackboots show up at my door!
Warfighters! Another doubleplusgood word served up to us by our superduperleader and his department of the Fatherland, er, Homeland Defense!
C'mon! Be Bush's bitch! Throw out that old, not-government-approved terminology like 'soldier' and sign up for your New and Improved English class today!
Without in any way expressing my opinions on any of those topics, I can almost certainly assure you that, if I were to voice a given viewpoint on these issues, I would be shouted down by a large portion of my audience, regardless of how carefully thought out my presentation was. Rightfully so? You decide.
You do have a forum for expressing your views. Thousands, in fact. You're using one right now.
And nobody can 'shout you down', unless you count opposition to whatever you express as some sort of oppression.
It also doesn't appear that you're that clued up on what a capital L liberal is either, which is in many ways appropriate given that the definition you appear to be basing your posting on is that spread by the media at present
Oh, please. Liberals and conservatives are exactly the same sort of animal, only with different stripes. Both are enamored of telling other people what to do, especially if those people are unwilling to do it themselves - the only thing that differs is *what* they want other people to do. Which is irrelevant in any event, since both groups are simply interested in maliciously exercising power over others in order to prove that they do, indeed, have big dicks.
This sure as hell isn't the media definition of the liberal, which still equates these megalomaniacal morons with a positive good.
Competition has lead to a situation where instead of the media being liberal in its approach - that means listening to all sides, trying to be fair minded, etc - it's gone for a "squarking heads", unbalanced and generally "promote what people want to hear" view.
This has always been the case. It's no different today than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Only aging Boomer washups with a hard-on for the '60's think that things were actually different. And these people are as pathetic as the grocery store bagger who pines for his days in high school when he was actually somewhat popular.
I think that's in large part because of what you yourself believe - that media will, somehow, be more reasonable if there's more of it.
I never said any such thing. What I said was you could read 20 different sources, average the lot, and most likely get a closer approximation of the actual truth than any single source or group of sources. Mix all of the liberal and conversative bullshit extremism together to get some muddled, but most likely more accurate, moderate view of the actual situation.
It's ok to promote a viewpoint and ignore the facts because someone else out there will provide the correction. And that's doubly untrue and unlikely to happen when, while there's a lot of media, it's generally owned by the same types of group.
You're speaking of television and print - passe. The internet provides a great many 'news' sources not owned by media conglomerates, easily accessed, and of use when you're doing the averaging above. Time to enter the 21st century.
Attempts to keep informed will ultimately fail
Jesus H. Christ. This is pure cynical Boomer bullshit. Wallow in your pre-computer-age Luddite crap all you like, but this internet - the one you're posting to right now - is a better tool for finding accurate and reliable news than your precious non-internet media sources ever were. Sure, there's crap by the truckloads just waiting to spill forth on your keyboard, but there are also sources who aren't controlled by governments, or corporations, or powerful interests, all with different and often opposing views.
Can't get your favorite liberal party line drivel on TV anymore? Sucks to be you. But it doesn't mean shit when it comes to the topic at hand.
Scientists are prone to this fallacy, perhaps because they are temperamentally uncomfortable with uncertainty. That's why they became scientists in the first place. That's also why saying "I don't know" is considered, among scientists, so virtuous; it's hard to bring themselves to say it.
Apparently you aren't a scientist, else you'd know just how far you have your head stuck up your ass.
Most scientists have no problem whatsoever living with uncertainty. It's part of their freakin' job, to examine the uncertain in an attempt to find an explanation, backed by proof, which turns the uncertain into the known. Dealing with this very uncertainty is why you now have electricity, and the computer in front of you, and the internet to which you've posted this horseshit.
On the other hand, people who're bloody morons who believe in the most idiotic of things often take any opportunity they can to run down science, and scientists, because they know that some day their stupidly inane beliefs will most likely be buggered by an enterprising scientist, examining the uncertain.
It doesn't stop at schooling. An explosion of information sources, and a lack of accountability where TV networks, publications, and other heavily promoted sources of information have become little more than pulpits for what the proprieters believe is a reasonable balance between the views they wish to express and what the public will stand, has lead to a situation where a huge amount of information presented is unfair, inaccurate, and promotional of particular belief systems.
Wake up and smell the coffee, boy. This has always been the case. Every promoter of information outside of an accredited, peer-reviewed journal is driven by factors other than that of presenting truth backed by independently verifiable evidence. There has never been a time when this wasn't the case, although you certainly seem to imply that such a 'Golden Age' existed at some point.
The only difference between today and the world 20 years ago is that you have a better chance of getting some particular version of the truth that isn't controlled by the state, powerful people, or powerful corporations. And with all the different sources that abound, one can access 20 or 50 of them and then 'average' the lot to get what's probably a more accurate representation of the situation than any single source can provide. This sure as hell wasn't true prior to the establishment of the internet. In case it hasn't occurred to you, more sources of information is *always* a better thing, not a worse one.
Unless you a totalitarian freak, that is. Or someone promoting a personal agenda who's upset that others don't agree with him and dare to publish their opposing view publicly.
As competition has increased, quality has decreased.
Bullshit and bullshit. Quality has remained pretty much the same, or if anything gotten better, because the filtering process is no longer under the control of a few powerful people or groups.
A "liberal", ie largely accurate, fair and balanced, media has become used to promoting views of the world that fit a less liberal agenda, lead by Fox, and groups playing catch-up to Fox's brand of popular illiberalism.
Get off the 60's train, you yack. Liberals are just as much lying little sacks of shit as conservatives are. Neither group is interesting in truth or accuracy, but power - especially the power to impose their views on the unwilling, in an attempt to convince themselves that they're 'important people' with the One True Belief (TM). The 'liberal' media has never been more accurate than the 'conservative' media; it's just that one group of vicious little powermongers and malicious pricks with a penchant for screwing with their neighbors lives tends to agree with them more than the other group.
What a crock of shit. This very statement is a contradiction in terms. Neither metaphysics or spirituality are disciplines of any kind, as neither has to adhere to any set of logical rules which can be tested in the real world.
Metaphysics, spirituality, whatever you want to call it, is just another way of believing in the Tooth Fairy. Only you sound slightly less like an idiot doing so.
Screw the other countries of the world. Their economic woes aren't our problem (and to hell with any liberal guilt-tripping over past First World/Third World exploitation - I really could give a shit).
The job of the leaders of our nation is to protect the citizens of our nation, first and foremost - or so that's the theory, at any rate. Certainly doesn't seem the practice with the Bush coup d'etat.
I don't, however, believe in tariffs or protection schemes. They only end up benefiting the rich, as pretty much every government move does. What I do believe in is telling our government to 'piss off' when it comes to certain aspects of the economy. Some examples:
- no more tax breaks for corporations - no tax incentives for moving jobs overseas; if anything, impose tax penalties for every non-U.S. citizen employed by a business. - if some Third-World piss-hole of a country decides to nationalize a U.S. business's assets, let them. Tell the crying execs of that business "if you had built your factory in America you wouldn't have had to worry about that. Sucks to be you". And with that, absolutely no U.S. intervention, military or otherwise, for countries that decide to go this route.
The duty of this nation is to it's citizens first, and to anything else a very distant second.
Guess you wanted to get the anti-gun "let's tell everyone else how to live their lives" freaks all riled up. Talk about pushing hot buttons.
For the uninformed and the just plain deluded, here's some statistics from National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 49, No. 12, October 9, 2001. These are *facts*, unlike what most people seem to be pulling out of their hairy asses:
In the United States, homocide ranked 15th in causes of death, down 6.5% in the last year (2000), a steady decline since 1991. Some numbers:
You are more likely to die as a result of contracting a non-specific infection during a hospital stay than you are to be murdered, by any means.
You are more likely to die in a non-car-related accident (almost three times as likely, in fact) than you are to be murdered, by any means. This includes falls, drownings, accidental poisonings, and so forth.
You are four times more likely to die of the flu or pneumonia than you are of being murdered, by any means. Note that the statistics for flu and pneumonia are separate from those concerning HIV-related deaths by pneumonia and infectious disease. HIV isn't to blame for these flu deaths.
If someone does try to murder you, there's a fair chance they'll use what's known as a 'weapon of opportunity', e.g., the handiest blunt object or sharp instrument. You are much more likely to die by blunt object or sharp instrument than by gun unless you're a) a criminal, or b) a black male living in certain particularly dangerous urban areas.
Accidental gun deaths accounted for 808 people in 2000. In comparison:
falls - 12,604, mostly down stairs or from ladders
drowning - 3,343, primarily in back yard pools or recreational areas.
poisoning - 9,803
Clearly, accidental gun deaths aren't nearly as common as falling, drowning or poisoning. If folks are so concerned about accidental deaths they should first concentrate on more primary offenders like stairs, ladders, and swimming pools, not to mention general stupidity (e.g., accidental poisoning).
Since 1930, the number of annual fatal firearms accidents has decreased 56% while the number of privately owned guns has quadrupled and the U.S. population has doubled. This information has been independently confirmed by the National Center for Health Statistics, the National Safety Council, the Bureau of the Census, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
According to the FBI the biggest purchaser of firearms during the last decade has been women, mostly under the age of 40. This makes sense given that this women of this age group are the most likely people to be victimized by a crime, especially a violent one.
For the male dick-measurers in the crowd, you might consider the impact of banning firearms completely with respect to the safety of women. Very few women can match an average man in a physical confrontation and win; the gun completely eliminates the size and strength advantage that a man has. At worst both the man and woman will have a gun - and then at least they'll be on equal ground. Ban the gun and men are once again the winners of any physical contest, in a country where we *know* we can't protect women from violent crime. But I suppose the mysogynistic bastards among you will rejoice at the thought that you can beat your wives and girlfriends without fear of getting your ass shot, as you deserve.
According to the FBI, somewhere between 200,000 and 800,000 violent crimes were prevented last year because the victim was armed. A 'violent crime' is defined as a rape, robbery, or murder. More than 60% of these victims were women who were carrying a concealed weapon illegally, which is why the statistics range so much (they don't report because they'll be arrested if they do). That's a minimum of 200,000 crimes that otherwise would've occurred had the victim not been armed. The firearm was actually discharged in less than 1/10 of 1% of these cases. And please note: the FBI isn't known for it's fondness of the 2nd Amendment.
Of course, I know none of this will mean anything to the anti-gun nuts. They're so piss-scared of everything around them that they'll say and do just about anything to make sure their neighbors aren't armed. Cowards. These are the kind of folks who'd rather see a women raped and strangled with her own pantyhose than defend herself with a firearm.
This being Slashdot, watch for the morons who'll no doubt jump out of the woodwork to decry the article, comparing the hobby of computer gaming to heroine addiction, alcoholism, and gambling. No doubt a few weak-willed souls will jump up to the plate to confirm this pathetic pandering bullshit with their own sordid tales of playing EverQuest night and day, or whatever the hell the current rage is.
Slashdot - home of the cyber-Oprah's, always willing to jump on the latest hand-wringing bandwagon.
Sure, sounds logical. And if any criminal use the open phone system to aid in the planning or commission of crimes, then the Bell responsible should be held liable as a facilitator of those crimes.
This whole line of reasoning is a crock of horseshit, e.g., "oooh, we need to protect our subways from evil nuke-toting terrorists!"
Let's examine this, shall we? Any terrorist organization with the resources and intelligence to get something like a suitcase-sized nuclear device into the United States quite probably isn't brain-dead enough to tote the thing through a secured installation wired to detect the bomb.
Although it appears some of my more idiotic countrymen think that very thing could happen. Forget the easily-made and easily-transported conventional explosives and poisonous gases - think of those nukes!
9/11 has apparently lobotomized more than a few people.
Well, the French might not be cowards, but according to a recent study they have less sex than any other Western European country. Certainly doesn't do wonders for their reputation as lovers.
Yes, there is. As soon as someone downloads music that they would have otherwise purchased, there is a theft of the money that would have been paid. No, not all downloads are theft, but that doesn't mean that all downloads are legitimate.
Get a clue, kid. That's called 'copyright infringement', a legal definition quite distinct from theft. You don't get to redefine terms as you please - not unless you want to look like a complete idiot.
"Preservation is one of the purposes of all cultures, and you can't deny an aspect of it simply by saying 'it's racist'."
Smoking a bit too much crack, are we? Of course it's fucking racist! That's pretty much the goddamn definition of racism right there. Arguing that it's just a way to 'preserve the culture' or some such crap doesn't in any way, shape or form justify the behavior. The behavior itself is despicable regardless.
Nothing on God's green Earth can excuse racism or the notion of racial superiority. Dressing it up as a 'cultural difference' is little more than apologia. Although I'm sure more than one white supremacist group would love to have you as a member (assuming you're racially pure, of course).
"Technical solutions to social problems with never succeed."
What a crock of shit. This one-liner seems to be the mantra of folks who can't figure out how to program their VCRs.
We use technology to solve problems, social or otherwise, all the time. Chanting some idiotic Boomer adage to the contrary doesn't change this one whit.
So what's the real objection to Extreme Programming? Well, like any other 'extreme' activity it's simply an moron's way of making whatever he happens to be doing sound cool. This was pathetic when it came from frat boy losers and their 'extreme' sports, but it's even more stomache-turning when the geek set decide that they, too, are 'extreme' - and while sitting on their fat asses plunking away at their keyboards.
As I said in my first statement, I and any other American who cares can pass judgement on any law. Whether anyone pays attention to that judgement or not is entirely a different matter.
And contrary to your statements, Americans have just as much power to to judge, approve, or condemn laws as the judiciary does. Americans elect Congressmen who can both pass *AND REPEAL* laws. The laws might not be sane or pass Constitutional muster - they often don't - but that doesn't do thing one to deprive the right of all Americans to judge, modify, and repeal laws as they see fit, through their representatives.
I said nothing whatsoever about the judiciary, who might not approve of these actions and reverse them. But that wasn't the tenet you put forth in the first place, so it's irrelevant. Direct strawmen somewhere else, please.
The law currently protects copyright holders to an excessive degree.
That's a judgment call that you are not qualified to make.
What the fuck? Pull your ego out of your ass, moron; any American is qualified to make a judgement on any law whatsoever, by definition. Or have you forgotten the Constitution while indulging in your little act of mental masturbation?
It doesn't matter whether the judgement is learned, or follows common sense. The act of judgement itself is protected, and expressed through the election of Congressional members who in turn pass laws. A little logical reasoning by even the most arrogant of egotistical pricks should make it abundantly clear that every American is fundamentally qualified to pass judgement on any and all laws enacted in this country.
Having a fence around your land *does* make it trespass if you hop the fence. Under the law, a fence is by definition a very visible warning that you are not wanted on the property without invitation. Any decent barrier will do - the fence doesn't have to be a serious obstacle (e.g, it could be split-rail - but it's still a fence, and that means you aren't allowed to cross it).
This falls under 'reasonable assumption', i.e., the average person would reasonably consider a fence to be a warning that the land beyond the fence is private property and therefore not to be trespassed on.
For extra protection signs are often posted as well, just in case you get an incredibly stupid jury who needs things spelled out for them.
In America, there is no requirement for signs of any sort if a barrier is in place. If signs are posted at regular intervals or at points of entry, then no barrier method is need. It's either/or, not both.
And if I show up with a shotgun and tell you to get the hell off my land, that too is a reasonable 'barrier' method fully condoned by the law.
There will never be a peaceful resolution, no matter how much you yak about changing the system. The politicians, while most certainly a lower form of life, aren't exactly stupid; they'll simply outlaw any attempt to horn in on their power base. It's that simple.
Lobby all you like, for all the good it'll do you. And code all you like, in the naive belief that Congress won't just declare your code illegal if they perceive it as a threat. Either way you're fucked.
Innocence is for Catholic schoolgirls. Whether you think 'the code uber all' or 'lobbying works', it won't matter for shit in the real world. What it boils down to, and has always boiled down to, is: who has the power.
They do, and you don't. The only way to change anything is to change *that* equation. Until then you're just engaging in a simplistic act of mental masturbation to make yourself feel better about the shithole this country is becoming.
If you want that power, you'll have to *seize* it. Because they sure as hell aren't going to give it to you of their own free will.
The fact that this article appears on Slashdot, and generates the amount of commentary that it does, should be enough to send any rational user into giggle fits. I mean, how much more obvious does an article have to be to troll for Bill Gates fan-boys? Claim that Linux does *anything* better and you'll have the sheep running in all directions blasting Linux and extolling the virtues of Windows.
Nice going, sheep. You rose to the bait again. This in itself says something about the average Windows user.
Well I suppose it might sound similar, if you're a complete fucking idiot.
Free software is, by definition, free. Duh. So you use it the responsibility is yours, not the creator. Double-duh.
If you don't like that, go out and *buy* some software from a company that offers a warranty. Instead of acting like an MS- inspired Billy-fan-boy shithead.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, the problem is too many pricks posting to the internet about how everyone else should shut the fuck up because they already have "too much peace, freedom, and happiness."
What kind of fucking moron thinks there's such a thing as too much peace, freedom, and happiness? Why don't you hie your own ass off to some nice, totalitarian state? I'm sure you'd be happy to go, and I'd certainly be happy to see you go.
Max
According to my Websters, one of the definitions of 'soldier' is 'any person of mililtary skill or experience'. This would include sailors, pilots and marines.
Oh, but wait! This is the *old* Websters, not the Government-Approved Websters. Better get rid of this contraband before the jackboots show up at my door!
Max
Warfighters! Another doubleplusgood word served up to us by our superduperleader and his department of the Fatherland, er, Homeland Defense!
C'mon! Be Bush's bitch! Throw out that old, not-government-approved terminology like 'soldier' and sign up for your New and Improved English class today!
Max
Without in any way expressing my opinions on any of those topics, I can almost certainly assure you that, if I were to voice a given viewpoint on these issues, I would be shouted down by a large portion of my audience, regardless of how carefully thought out my presentation was. Rightfully so? You decide.
You do have a forum for expressing your views. Thousands, in fact. You're using one right now.
And nobody can 'shout you down', unless you count opposition to whatever you express as some sort of oppression.
Max
It also doesn't appear that you're that clued up on what a capital L liberal is either, which is in many ways appropriate given that the definition you appear to be basing your posting on is that spread by the media at present
Oh, please. Liberals and conservatives are exactly the same sort of animal, only with different stripes. Both are enamored of telling other people what to do, especially if those people are unwilling to do it themselves - the only thing that differs is *what* they want other people to do. Which is irrelevant in any event, since both groups are simply interested in maliciously exercising power over others in order to prove that they do, indeed, have big dicks.
This sure as hell isn't the media definition of the liberal, which still equates these megalomaniacal morons with a positive good.
Competition has lead to a situation where instead of the media being liberal in its approach - that means listening to all sides, trying to be fair minded, etc - it's gone for a "squarking heads", unbalanced and generally "promote what people want to hear" view.
This has always been the case. It's no different today than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Only aging Boomer washups with a hard-on for the '60's think that things were actually different. And these people are as pathetic as the grocery store bagger who pines for his days in high school when he was actually somewhat popular.
I think that's in large part because of what you yourself believe - that media will, somehow, be more reasonable if there's more of it.
I never said any such thing. What I said was you could read 20 different sources, average the lot, and most likely get a closer approximation of the actual truth than any single source or group of sources. Mix all of the liberal and conversative bullshit extremism together to get some muddled, but most likely more accurate, moderate view of the actual situation.
It's ok to promote a viewpoint and ignore the facts because someone else out there will provide the correction. And that's doubly untrue and unlikely to happen when, while there's a lot of media, it's generally owned by the same types of group.
You're speaking of television and print - passe. The internet provides a great many 'news' sources not owned by media conglomerates, easily accessed, and of use when you're doing the averaging above. Time to enter the 21st century.
Attempts to keep informed will ultimately fail
Jesus H. Christ. This is pure cynical Boomer bullshit. Wallow in your pre-computer-age Luddite crap all you like, but this internet - the one you're posting to right now - is a better tool for finding accurate and reliable news than your precious non-internet media sources ever were. Sure, there's crap by the truckloads just waiting to spill forth on your keyboard, but there are also sources who aren't controlled by governments, or corporations, or powerful interests, all with different and often opposing views.
Can't get your favorite liberal party line drivel on TV anymore? Sucks to be you. But it doesn't mean shit when it comes to the topic at hand.
Max
Scientists are prone to this fallacy, perhaps because they are temperamentally uncomfortable with uncertainty. That's why they became scientists in the first place. That's also why saying "I don't know" is considered, among scientists, so virtuous; it's hard to bring themselves to say it.
Apparently you aren't a scientist, else you'd know just how far you have your head stuck up your ass.
Most scientists have no problem whatsoever living with uncertainty. It's part of their freakin' job, to examine the uncertain in an attempt to find an explanation, backed by proof, which turns the uncertain into the known. Dealing with this very uncertainty is why you now have electricity, and the computer in front of you, and the internet to which you've posted this horseshit.
On the other hand, people who're bloody morons who believe in the most idiotic of things often take any opportunity they can to run down science, and scientists, because they know that some day their stupidly inane beliefs will most likely be buggered by an enterprising scientist, examining the uncertain.
Max
It doesn't stop at schooling. An explosion of information sources, and a lack of accountability where TV networks, publications, and other heavily promoted sources of information have become little more than pulpits for what the proprieters believe is a reasonable balance between the views they wish to express and what the public will stand, has lead to a situation where a huge amount of information presented is unfair, inaccurate, and promotional of particular belief systems.
Wake up and smell the coffee, boy. This has always been the case. Every promoter of information outside of an accredited, peer-reviewed journal is driven by factors other than that of presenting truth backed by independently verifiable evidence. There has never been a time when this wasn't the case, although you certainly seem to imply that such a 'Golden Age' existed at some point.
The only difference between today and the world 20 years ago is that you have a better chance of getting some particular version of the truth that isn't controlled by the state, powerful people, or powerful corporations. And with all the different sources that abound, one can access 20 or 50 of them and then 'average' the lot to get what's probably a more accurate representation of the situation than any single source can provide. This sure as hell wasn't true prior to the establishment of the internet. In case it hasn't occurred to you, more sources of information is *always* a better thing, not a worse one.
Unless you a totalitarian freak, that is. Or someone promoting a personal agenda who's upset that others don't agree with him and dare to publish their opposing view publicly.
As competition has increased, quality has decreased.
Bullshit and bullshit. Quality has remained pretty much the same, or if anything gotten better, because the filtering process is no longer under the control of a few powerful people or groups.
A "liberal", ie largely accurate, fair and balanced, media has become used to promoting views of the world that fit a less liberal agenda, lead by Fox, and groups playing catch-up to Fox's brand of popular illiberalism.
Get off the 60's train, you yack. Liberals are just as much lying little sacks of shit as conservatives are. Neither group is interesting in truth or accuracy, but power - especially the power to impose their views on the unwilling, in an attempt to convince themselves that they're 'important people' with the One True Belief (TM). The 'liberal' media has never been more accurate than the 'conservative' media; it's just that one group of vicious little powermongers and malicious pricks with a penchant for screwing with their neighbors lives tends to agree with them more than the other group.
Max
"metaphysical and spiritual disciplines"
What a crock of shit. This very statement is a contradiction in terms. Neither metaphysics or spirituality are disciplines of any kind, as neither has to adhere to any set of logical rules which can be tested in the real world.
Metaphysics, spirituality, whatever you want to call it, is just another way of believing in the Tooth Fairy. Only you sound slightly less like an idiot doing so.
Slightly less.
Max
Screw the other countries of the world. Their economic woes aren't our problem (and to hell with any liberal guilt-tripping over past First World/Third World exploitation - I really could give a shit).
The job of the leaders of our nation is to protect the citizens of our nation, first and foremost - or so that's the theory, at any rate. Certainly doesn't seem the practice with the Bush coup d'etat.
I don't, however, believe in tariffs or protection schemes. They only end up benefiting the rich, as pretty much every government move does. What I do believe in is telling our government to 'piss off' when it comes to certain aspects of the economy. Some examples:
- no more tax breaks for corporations
- no tax incentives for moving jobs overseas; if anything, impose tax penalties for every non-U.S. citizen employed by a business.
- if some Third-World piss-hole of a country decides to nationalize a U.S. business's assets, let them. Tell the crying execs of that business "if you had built your factory in America you wouldn't have had to worry about that. Sucks to be you". And with that, absolutely no U.S. intervention, military or otherwise, for countries that decide to go this route.
The duty of this nation is to it's citizens first, and to anything else a very distant second.
Max
Guess you wanted to get the anti-gun "let's tell everyone else how to live their lives" freaks all riled up. Talk about pushing hot buttons.
For the uninformed and the just plain deluded, here's some statistics from National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 49, No. 12, October 9, 2001. These are *facts*, unlike what most people seem to be pulling out of their hairy asses:
In the United States, homocide ranked 15th in causes of death, down 6.5% in the last year (2000), a steady decline since 1991. Some numbers:
homocides - 16,137
septicemia - 31,613
influenza and pneumonia - 67,024
accidents - 93,592
You are more likely to die as a result of contracting a non-specific infection during a hospital stay than you are to be murdered, by any means.
You are more likely to die in a non-car-related accident (almost three times as likely, in fact) than you are to be murdered, by any means. This includes falls, drownings, accidental poisonings, and so forth.
You are four times more likely to die of the flu or pneumonia than you are of being murdered, by any means. Note that the statistics for flu and pneumonia are separate from those concerning HIV-related deaths by pneumonia and infectious disease. HIV isn't to blame for these flu deaths.
If someone does try to murder you, there's a fair chance they'll use what's known as a 'weapon of opportunity', e.g., the handiest blunt object or sharp instrument. You are much more likely to die by blunt object or sharp instrument than by gun unless you're a) a criminal, or b) a black male living in certain particularly dangerous urban areas.
Accidental gun deaths accounted for 808 people in 2000. In comparison:
falls - 12,604, mostly down stairs or from ladders
drowning - 3,343, primarily in back yard pools or recreational areas.
poisoning - 9,803
Clearly, accidental gun deaths aren't nearly as common as falling, drowning or poisoning. If folks are so concerned about accidental deaths they should first concentrate on more primary offenders like stairs, ladders, and swimming pools, not to mention general stupidity (e.g., accidental poisoning).
Since 1930, the number of annual fatal firearms accidents has decreased 56% while the number of privately owned guns has quadrupled and the U.S.
population has doubled. This information has been independently confirmed by the National Center for Health Statistics, the National Safety Council, the Bureau of the Census, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
According to the FBI the biggest purchaser of firearms during the last decade has been women, mostly under the age of 40. This makes sense given that this women of this age group are the most likely people to be victimized by a crime, especially a violent one.
For the male dick-measurers in the crowd, you might consider the impact of banning firearms completely with respect to the safety of women. Very few women can match an average man in a physical confrontation and win; the gun completely eliminates the size and strength advantage that a man has. At worst both the man and woman will have a gun - and then at least they'll be on equal ground. Ban the gun and men are once again the winners of any physical contest, in a country where we *know* we can't protect women from violent crime. But I suppose the mysogynistic bastards among you will rejoice at the thought that you can beat your wives and girlfriends without fear of getting your ass shot, as you deserve.
According to the FBI, somewhere between 200,000 and 800,000 violent crimes were prevented last year because the victim was armed. A 'violent crime' is defined as a rape, robbery, or murder. More than 60% of these victims were women who were carrying a concealed weapon illegally, which is why the statistics range so much (they don't report because they'll be arrested if they do). That's a minimum of 200,000 crimes that otherwise would've occurred had the victim not been armed. The firearm was actually discharged in less than 1/10 of 1% of these cases. And please note: the FBI isn't known for it's fondness of the 2nd Amendment.
Of course, I know none of this will mean anything to the anti-gun nuts. They're so piss-scared of everything around them that they'll say and do just about anything to make sure their neighbors aren't armed. Cowards. These are the kind of folks who'd rather see a women raped and strangled with her own pantyhose than defend herself with a firearm.
Max
This being Slashdot, watch for the morons who'll no doubt jump out of the woodwork to decry the article, comparing the hobby of computer gaming to heroine addiction, alcoholism, and gambling. No doubt a few weak-willed souls will jump up to the plate to confirm this pathetic pandering bullshit with their own sordid tales of playing EverQuest night and day, or whatever the hell the current rage is.
Slashdot - home of the cyber-Oprah's, always willing to jump on the latest hand-wringing bandwagon.
Max
Sure, sounds logical. And if any criminal use the open phone system to aid in the planning or commission of crimes, then the Bell responsible should be held liable as a facilitator of those crimes.
Right. Uh huh.
Max
This whole line of reasoning is a crock of horseshit, e.g., "oooh, we need to protect our subways from evil nuke-toting terrorists!"
Let's examine this, shall we? Any terrorist organization with the resources and intelligence to get something like a suitcase-sized nuclear device into the United States quite probably isn't brain-dead enough to tote the thing through a secured installation wired to detect the bomb.
Although it appears some of my more idiotic countrymen think that very thing could happen. Forget the easily-made and easily-transported conventional explosives and poisonous gases - think of those nukes!
9/11 has apparently lobotomized more than a few people.
Max
Well, the French might not be cowards, but according to a recent study they have less sex than any other Western European country. Certainly doesn't do wonders for their reputation as lovers.
Guess that's a load of hooey too.
Max
Yes, there is. As soon as someone downloads music that they would have otherwise purchased, there is a theft of the money that would have been paid. No, not all downloads are theft, but that doesn't mean that all downloads are legitimate.
Get a clue, kid. That's called 'copyright infringement', a legal definition quite distinct from theft. You don't get to redefine terms as you please - not unless you want to look like a complete idiot.
But apparently that doesn't bother you.
Max
"Preservation is one of the purposes of all cultures, and you can't deny an aspect of it simply by saying 'it's racist'."
Smoking a bit too much crack, are we? Of course it's fucking racist! That's pretty much the goddamn definition of racism right there. Arguing that it's just a way to 'preserve the culture' or some such crap doesn't in any way, shape or form justify the behavior. The behavior itself is despicable regardless.
Nothing on God's green Earth can excuse racism or the notion of racial superiority. Dressing it up as a 'cultural difference' is little more than apologia. Although I'm sure more than one white supremacist group would love to have you as a member (assuming you're racially pure, of course).
Max
"Technical solutions to social problems with never succeed."
What a crock of shit. This one-liner seems to be the mantra of folks who can't figure out how to program their VCRs.
We use technology to solve problems, social or otherwise, all the time. Chanting some idiotic Boomer adage to the contrary doesn't change this one whit.
Max
So what's the real objection to Extreme Programming? Well, like any other 'extreme' activity it's simply an moron's way of making whatever he happens to be doing sound cool. This was pathetic when it came from frat boy losers and their 'extreme' sports, but it's even more stomache-turning when the geek set decide that they, too, are 'extreme' - and while sitting on their fat asses plunking away at their keyboards.
Get a life, you 'extreme' losers.
Max
As I said in my first statement, I and any other American who cares can pass judgement on any law. Whether anyone pays attention to that judgement or not is entirely a different matter.
And contrary to your statements, Americans have just as much power to to judge, approve, or condemn laws as the judiciary does. Americans elect Congressmen who can both pass *AND REPEAL* laws. The laws might not be sane or pass Constitutional muster - they often don't - but that doesn't do thing one to deprive the right of all Americans to judge, modify, and repeal laws as they see fit, through their representatives.
I said nothing whatsoever about the judiciary, who might not approve of these actions and reverse them. But that wasn't the tenet you put forth in the first place, so it's irrelevant. Direct strawmen somewhere else, please.
Max
It doesn't matter whether the judgement is learned, or follows common sense. The act of judgement itself is protected, and expressed through the election of Congressional members who in turn pass laws. A little logical reasoning by even the most arrogant of egotistical pricks should make it abundantly clear that every American is fundamentally qualified to pass judgement on any and all laws enacted in this country.
Max
Having a fence around your land *does* make it trespass if you hop the fence. Under the law, a fence is by definition a very visible warning that you are not wanted on the property without invitation. Any decent barrier will do - the fence doesn't have to be a serious obstacle (e.g, it could be split-rail - but it's still a fence, and that means you aren't allowed to cross it).
This falls under 'reasonable assumption', i.e., the average person would reasonably consider a fence to be a warning that the land beyond the fence is private property and therefore not to be trespassed on.
For extra protection signs are often posted as well, just in case you get an incredibly stupid jury who needs things spelled out for them.
In America, there is no requirement for signs of any sort if a barrier is in place. If signs are posted at regular intervals or at points of entry, then no barrier method is need. It's either/or, not both.
And if I show up with a shotgun and tell you to get the hell off my land, that too is a reasonable 'barrier' method fully condoned by the law.
Max
There will never be a peaceful resolution, no matter how much you yak about changing the system. The politicians, while most certainly a lower form of life, aren't exactly stupid; they'll simply outlaw any attempt to horn in on their power base. It's that simple.
Lobby all you like, for all the good it'll do you. And code all you like, in the naive belief that Congress won't just declare your code illegal if they perceive it as a threat. Either way you're fucked.
Innocence is for Catholic schoolgirls. Whether you think 'the code uber all' or 'lobbying works', it won't matter for shit in the real world. What it boils down to, and has always boiled down to, is: who has the power.
They do, and you don't. The only way to change anything is to change *that* equation. Until then you're just engaging in a simplistic act of mental masturbation to make yourself feel better about the shithole this country is becoming.
If you want that power, you'll have to *seize* it. Because they sure as hell aren't going to give it to you of their own free will.
Max
The fact that this article appears on Slashdot, and generates the amount of commentary that it does, should be enough to send any rational user into giggle fits. I mean, how much more obvious does an article have to be to troll for Bill Gates fan-boys? Claim that Linux does *anything* better and you'll have the sheep running in all directions blasting Linux and extolling the virtues of Windows.
Nice going, sheep. You rose to the bait again. This in itself says something about the average Windows user.
Max
Well I suppose it might sound similar, if you're a complete fucking idiot.
Free software is, by definition, free. Duh. So you use it the responsibility is yours, not the creator. Double-duh.
If you don't like that, go out and *buy* some software from a company that offers a warranty. Instead of acting like an MS- inspired Billy-fan-boy shithead.
Twerp.
Max
If you aren't willing to go to jail you have no convictions.
Max