we don't really want private companies to be driving tanks around -- that would hardly protect individual rights. Too late: Blackwater was(is?) in New Orleans.
Not enough, cause they still haven't impeached him, or you know, made ANY EFFORT TO REIGN HIM IN.
In all fairness, the Democrats aren't exactly doing anything significant in that regard either. Unless you count taking impeachment "off the table", or making a token gesture of disagreement before caving in on essentially everything the Emperor has decided. Lets eschew the false dichotomy of Kang and Kodos, and use a real one: Texas VS Vermont.
Vermont wants to arrest him, Texas celebrates him.
hacking contests to replace bang-boom wars "In order to disrupt the Soviet gas supply, its hard currency earnings from the West, and the internal Russian economy, the pipeline software that was to run the pumps, turbines, and valves was programmed to go haywire, after a decent interval, to reset pump speeds and valve settings to produce pressures far beyond those acceptable to pipeline joints and welds," Reed writes. "The result was the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space," he recalls, adding that U.S. satellites picked up the explosion. Reed said in an interview that the blast occurred in the summer of 1982.
"In the past 10 years the US has initiated 2 military actions against foreign powers."
Off the top of my head, I can think of 4:
1998: US launches cruise missiles at Sudan and Afghanistan 1999: US launches airstrikes against Yugoslavia to get it out of Kosovo 2001: US provides air support to forces in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban 2003: US invades Iraq NATO is not the US. Was it another member of NATO that initiated those attacks?
"The European Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, France, produces an intense, high-energy light that can pierce just about any material,"
Does anyone know where I can obtain one of these devices ?
I always thought they were just a novelty sold via mail order in Mad Magazines. Can't tell you how many times I've been disappointed. If this is the real deal then please... I was thinking more along the lines of a small device for amplification by stimulated emission of radiation of that "high-energy light that can pierce just about any material", and having said contraption affixed to the pericerebral cartilaginous structure of a shark.
I expect that the project would cost around... one MILLION dollars!
Who needs propaganda bloggers when you have fools like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly? Anyone who want to reach people under 30?
This story is about governments using propaganda to manipulate its own people.
That is exactly what Rosie the Riveter, Wendy the Welder, Loose Lips, Buy War Bonds, and a myriad of other campaigns were about. I don't mind open, honest propaganda.
I mind secret manipulation through obfuscated means, passing it as the open, honest opinions of unrelated individuals or groups.
P.S. Before Pearl Harbor, Superman for for truth and justice. Period. That I mind a bit more than clever posters.
That's a wonderful false dichotomy you have there. Brainwashing or being disappeared. Though choice, huh?
The word is "dissent".
*boggle*
Isn't going grammar/spelling-nazi A typo isn't the same as using an other word entirely, though my typo resulted in the correct spelling of another word. tough luck for me.
I'm talking about using solely propaganda IN PLACE OF the bludgeon of the totalitarian state If someone steals from you at gunpoint, or steals from you through fraud, you still lose.
This kind of stuff is fairly benign next to the kind of stuff they do in SECRET. FTFA: Military Report: Secretly 'Recruit or Hire Bloggers' A study, written for U.S. Special Operations Command, suggested "clandestinely recruiting or hiring prominent bloggers."
would we prefer the army to use propaganda on its own citizens to convince us of its message or perhaps we would prefer being thrown in a secret prison for descent?
That's a wonderful false dichotomy you have there. Brainwashing or being disappeared. Though choice, huh?
The word is "dissent".
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars." "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
In a totalitarian state, it doesn't matter what people think, since the government can control people by force using a bludgeon. But when you can't control people by force, you have to control what people think, and the standard way to do this is via propaganda (manufacture of consent, creation of necessary illusions), marginalizing the general public or reducing them to apathy of some fashion.
-- Noam Chomsky
I don't consider intent of the poster in determining flamebait and my impression is that is typical for slashdot. The reason is because intent is ridiculously difficult to determine. Slashdot guidelines with respect to flamebait are incorrect and useless. No, the guidelines are clear and consice, but you do not understand them. You blame and punish the victim, and inforce an abuse of the moderation system that will kill honest communication in favor of the trolls.
No, I think this is an appropriate use of the "flamebait" mod. 1- You're wrong 2- The MODERATION GUIDELINES tell you you're wrong.
the original poster wasn't contributing to debate by provoking irrational responses. Are you retarded? Are you dense or something? FUCK YOU.
There, I flamed you, therefore you're flamebaiting.
And since there's trolls to flame any and every comment out there, everytime a troll attacks someone, that person, in addition to being attacked, should be modded down for the actions of someone else? Want to put victims of crimes in prison instead of their attackers? Since by provoking this violent agression they aren't contributing positively to scociety?
You have large problems with the logic of cause and effect. Work on that.
Slashdot is incorrect here. Intent isn't necessary. Yes it is. You don't mod someone down because they got flamed: you punish/censor the flamers, not the one being attacked.
you're not the least bit cynical, you're right. The two are not mutually exclusive. the word cynicism generally describes the opinions of those who see self-interest as the primary motive of human behaviour
If you give her enough attention, she'll eventually start mentioning her boyfriend.
I've known a few girls like that, and I don't think it's necessarily wrong for them do do it. The part I find "wrong" is where she pretends to be single in the first place.
There really ARE women who flirt without realising what they're doing, just like there are guys who apply sexual pressure without really knowing they're doing it. These are biologically primitive behaviours. And both types are astonished and insulted when you call 'em on it, cuz they really had no idea. I think I'm simply much more cynical than you. I don't believe that they act without knowing their motivations.
I've had a girl I'd asked on a date invite herself to my apartment, come over in a too-tight t-shirt that said "pornstar" on it with a picture of the mudflap girly outline, move stuff out of the way on my couch so she could sit so close we were joined at the hip, and after necking for 15 minutes start to act as though I had jumped on her for no reason when 'she clearly only wanted to be friends'. She was convincing enough to get our shared friends (who were obviously not there to see her make efforts to snuggle up to me in not-subtle suggestive clothing) to buy her story and treat me like I had broken the rules somehow.
My feeling is that you also buy their lies if they are good enough to convince themselves of their own cover story, while I believe that actions speak louder than words.
See here is the problem: women give ambiguous signals, while men don't. But wait: men are the ones with the problem. For those of us men who are married, is this starting to sound at all familiar??? Don't have to be married. Took me a while to figure out why some girls would get mad for no apparent reason with "you just don't understand anything!" thrown at me.
Turns out that's how they react when you don't understand that by acting exactly normal and not interested, they were letting you know they wanted you to make a move.
Women will often flirt with a man just for attention. Very, very true. There's a girl I know, very pretty, very flirty. If you give her enough attention, she'll eventually start mentioning her boyfriend. I asked her about it, she says if people know she has a boyfriend right away they don't come over and talk as much. She does it on purpose, and takes offense at the suggestion that this isn't right.
I've met women who simply didn't even know what they were doing was interpreted as flirting. Afraid not. You've actually met women who were really good actresses.
And when I confronted them with this observation, they gave this crazymaking attitude like "I don't even know what you're talking about. I was just being friendly." Yeah, right. Yeah right indeed. I've had "that wasn't flirting!" applied to telling me to come closer, feeding me something with her hand and softly brushing my lip with her finger... the denial came AFTER that led to some good, sweaty fun. Apparently, she never made any signals (yeah right), it was all me (sure), and the soft caress on my lip was nothing but innocent accidental contact (do I look that gullible?).
The problem with the article was at the end of it. It stated something to the effect of "men can learn.." Ok, but what about women? Are men the only ones that needs to learn something here? Wouldn't it be better if both learned? That's the dream, but here's reality: Men do all the work.
It's the flowers and the bees: Flowers sit there, looking pretty and smelling good. The bees have to find them, approach them, and do everything active in the relationship.
Always marry an ugly girl, that's the only kind. She'll never ever leave you, and if she does you won't mind. If you wanna be happy for the rest of life, never make a pretty woman your wife; Go for my personal point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you! Who's to say she's single, and who's to say she's on her own? Girls like that don't sleep alone. (Alright here's the thing, here's the thing)
That girl is flawless, and I know I'm not the first one to think that. And since I'm not the first, I sure won't be the last! I'd spend my whole life looking behind my back, I just don't think I'm up to that...
Always marry an ugly girl, that's the only kind. She'll never ever leave you, and if she does you won't mind. If you wanna be happy for the rest of life, never make a pretty woman your wife; Go for my personal point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you!
Slashdot Mirror
Which would win in a fight? The European robot transport or the Canadian robot manipulator?
In all fairness, the Democrats aren't exactly doing anything significant in that regard either. Unless you count taking impeachment "off the table", or making a token gesture of disagreement before caving in on essentially everything the Emperor has decided. Lets eschew the false dichotomy of Kang and Kodos, and use a real one: Texas VS Vermont.
Vermont wants to arrest him, Texas celebrates him.
None of which have more pull than others?
Are you this ignorant?
"The result was the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space," he recalls, adding that U.S. satellites picked up the explosion. Reed said in an interview that the blast occurred in the summer of 1982.
Off the top of my head, I can think of 4:
1998: US launches cruise missiles at Sudan and Afghanistan
1999: US launches airstrikes against Yugoslavia to get it out of Kosovo
2001: US provides air support to forces in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban
2003: US invades Iraq NATO is not the US. Was it another member of NATO that initiated those attacks?
Does anyone know where I can obtain one of these devices ?
I always thought they were just a novelty sold via mail order in Mad Magazines. Can't tell you how many times I've been disappointed. If this is the real deal then please
I expect that the project would cost around... one MILLION dollars!
That is exactly what Rosie the Riveter, Wendy the Welder, Loose Lips, Buy War Bonds, and a myriad of other campaigns were about. I don't mind open, honest propaganda.
I mind secret manipulation through obfuscated means, passing it as the open, honest opinions of unrelated individuals or groups.
P.S. Before Pearl Harbor, Superman for for truth and justice. Period. That I mind a bit more than clever posters.
*boggle*
Isn't going grammar/spelling-nazi A typo isn't the same as using an other word entirely, though my typo resulted in the correct spelling of another word. tough luck for me.
P.S. "Nazi" is supposed to be capitalized.
A study, written for U.S. Special Operations Command, suggested "clandestinely recruiting or hiring prominent bloggers."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
In a totalitarian state, it doesn't matter what people think, since the government can control people by force using a bludgeon. But when you can't control people by force, you have to control what people think, and the standard way to do this is via propaganda (manufacture of consent, creation of necessary illusions), marginalizing the general public or reducing them to apathy of some fashion.
-- Noam Chomsky
I clearly wasn't picking a fight.
2- The MODERATION GUIDELINES tell you you're wrong. the original poster wasn't contributing to debate by provoking irrational responses. Are you retarded? Are you dense or something? FUCK YOU.
There, I flamed you, therefore you're flamebaiting.
And since there's trolls to flame any and every comment out there, everytime a troll attacks someone, that person, in addition to being attacked, should be modded down for the actions of someone else?
Want to put victims of crimes in prison instead of their attackers? Since by provoking this violent agression they aren't contributing positively to scociety?
You have large problems with the logic of cause and effect. Work on that.
Sheesh.
the word cynicism generally describes the opinions of those who see self-interest as the primary motive of human behaviour
I'm quite cynical, actually.
I've known a few girls like that, and I don't think it's necessarily wrong for them do do it. The part I find "wrong" is where she pretends to be single in the first place.
I've had a girl I'd asked on a date invite herself to my apartment, come over in a too-tight t-shirt that said "pornstar" on it with a picture of the mudflap girly outline, move stuff out of the way on my couch so she could sit so close we were joined at the hip, and after necking for 15 minutes start to act as though I had jumped on her for no reason when 'she clearly only wanted to be friends'.
She was convincing enough to get our shared friends (who were obviously not there to see her make efforts to snuggle up to me in not-subtle suggestive clothing) to buy her story and treat me like I had broken the rules somehow.
My feeling is that you also buy their lies if they are good enough to convince themselves of their own cover story, while I believe that actions speak louder than words.
Turns out that's how they react when you don't understand that by acting exactly normal and not interested, they were letting you know they wanted you to make a move.
It's the flowers and the bees: Flowers sit there, looking pretty and smelling good. The bees have to find them, approach them, and do everything active in the relationship.
Go for my personal point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you! Who's to say she's single, and who's to say she's on her own?
Girls like that don't sleep alone.
(Alright here's the thing, here's the thing)
That girl is flawless, and I know I'm not the first one to think that.
And since I'm not the first, I sure won't be the last!
I'd spend my whole life looking behind my back, I just don't think I'm up to that...
Go for my personal point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you!