To tag, click on the little triangle to the left of tags at the bottom of article. That is how I get the box to pop up, not sure if you don't see it why you don't.
You obviously have not done much research on the man to make blanket statements like that, because he wouldn't "runned" the government that way. He's can't (and wouldn't) "do away" with public education. He has said that on many of his more radical stances that he would do no harm, but would like to decrease the federal government's role in such programs. Read up, you might find you just don't get it, like you didn't get it here. Do some homework, and don't regurgitate ridiculous statements, like "constitutionally protected women's right to choose", as you should well know it is a very complicated subject.
Well, that being the case, it seems obvious that torture would be useful in cases where the information can be readily validated but not easily gained (phone numbers, safe combinations, software passwords, enemy hideout locations, etc.) I was really hoping for someone to change my mind on this, as I'm hardly a proponent of inflicting pain needlessly.
On the other hand, I'm not going to put myself at a demonstrable disadvantage as a policy, especially in light of the other atrocities going on during a war. It seems almost laughable to have such stringent policies for prisoners when these are the same people you would have beaten to death with a severed comrade's leg on the battlefield.
I think that torture probably works because it would work on me. There exists an amount of information that I would not give up freely, but given the options to tell or undergo some form of abuse I would likely tell. I would likely give up the information for money too, but you could save a passel and just threaten to cut off my finger. Why wouldn't torture work? It certainly works for schoolyard bullys.
hah, you can rant all day, but that won't change a bit what users want. And users seem to want attachments sent from untrusted sources in an automated fashion.
Your arbitrary definition of what email should be is myopic and unrealistic. Good luck getting the world to conform with what would make your life easier, though.
lovebyte said institutions, not individual members, so easy on the liar label.
Also, unless lovebyte is wandering around trying to gather tithes I don't see how his individual giving matters. Once again, he's talking about institutions that are stewards of money given for a greater purpose. Or given out of guilt, but at the very least they are non-profit entities with a responsibility to the public.
Speaking about absurd, how about you not compare an individual's giving to the church (or corporations, a hilarious comparison if you're looking for some sort of moral high ground,) and I'll not compare the horrors the church has inflicted in the past to lovebyte's abrasive comment.
Arrogance is not a crime. Failure to comply with basic requests from snarky store managers is not a crime.
Inventing reasons to arrest someone is a crime, and a significant one, and undermines the entire legal structure. Not standing up for your rights for convenience sake (nay, even time with the family's sake) is cowardice and shirking of civic responsibly.
So, if I lack the self control to not shoot up my coworkers when I lose my job or beat my wife when I have a bad day at the office, do we outlaw work? If not, then how do we justify outlawing gambling when I act irrationally when blackjack goes poorly for me?
I agree to an extent that some people do not have the self-control to behave appropriately. What I disagree about is the method (criminalizing otherwise victim less actions) for preventing the negative effects of this predisposition.
Do you not see the hypocrisy of your generalizations? You make unfair, sweeping assumptions about racists, rednecks, Midwesterners, dixie republicans all based on your limited experiences, just like they do. Say what you want, but don't start to think you are galloping around on some sort of moral high horse.
Wow...I would like to respond to your comment, but trying to argue each of the flaws in your arguments would actually give credence to your men are just as gabby conjecture, so I'll just say, pics or GTFO.
If, by chance, you decide to stick around, you really should have a sense of humor. Geeks on this site make fun of their own stereotypes constantly, and you should do the same. And while you're at it, move out of your mother's basement.
Or better yet, maybe reporters should go on the assumption that unless a person is designated as an official spokesperson, holds a position that would reasonably speak for a given company/organization, or says explicitly that it their comment is an official statement that whatever the person says is their personal opinion. I hate prefacing my statements like that, it is unnecessary and demeaning.
If you weren't a Native-American you wouldn't have all this animosity towards Americans taking your stuff;)
I would say that it depends on the part of the country (US) you are talking about. NYC is choosing a pretty extreme example I would say. Head south and to the smaller towns, civility is a lot more prevalent.
What about _my_ freedom and _my kids_ freedom to live in a drug-free environment? What about my right to live in a religion-free environment? Won't someone think of the atheists? (if you can't see the parallels, please note and I will spell it out in caps).
Seriously, read up on the case. The woman had substantial burns from the spilled coffee because it was served at temperatures not fit for human consumption. The temperature that the coffee was served at made it grounds for a lawsuit, not the act of spilling it on herself. This is not the case you are looking for if you are looking for a frivolous lawsuit reference. Especially on/.
Indeed, my girlfriend and I both recently met our fat % loss goals of 4% but each gained 2 lbs. We are now switching up our workouts to try and minimize our weight rather than our fat %.
Slashdot Mirror
To tag, click on the little triangle to the left of tags at the bottom of article. That is how I get the box to pop up, not sure if you don't see it why you don't.
Honestly...how can you be so snide about Ron Paul considering the shape that our country is in...it is sad, really.
You obviously have not done much research on the man to make blanket statements like that, because he wouldn't "runned" the government that way. He's can't (and wouldn't) "do away" with public education. He has said that on many of his more radical stances that he would do no harm, but would like to decrease the federal government's role in such programs. Read up, you might find you just don't get it, like you didn't get it here. Do some homework, and don't regurgitate ridiculous statements, like "constitutionally protected women's right to choose", as you should well know it is a very complicated subject.
I'm with you by NiteShaed, the gp was obviously overstating his case, though he does have one.
Yes, an untestable conjecture could somehow align with reality. Praise Allah.
Well, that being the case, it seems obvious that torture would be useful in cases where the information can be readily validated but not easily gained (phone numbers, safe combinations, software passwords, enemy hideout locations, etc.) I was really hoping for someone to change my mind on this, as I'm hardly a proponent of inflicting pain needlessly.
On the other hand, I'm not going to put myself at a demonstrable disadvantage as a policy, especially in light of the other atrocities going on during a war. It seems almost laughable to have such stringent policies for prisoners when these are the same people you would have beaten to death with a severed comrade's leg on the battlefield.
I think that torture probably works because it would work on me. There exists an amount of information that I would not give up freely, but given the options to tell or undergo some form of abuse I would likely tell. I would likely give up the information for money too, but you could save a passel and just threaten to cut off my finger. Why wouldn't torture work? It certainly works for schoolyard bullys.
hah, you can rant all day, but that won't change a bit what users want. And users seem to want attachments sent from untrusted sources in an automated fashion.
Your arbitrary definition of what email should be is myopic and unrealistic. Good luck getting the world to conform with what would make your life easier, though.
Not only that, automated systems that send legitimate attachments would have to be re-written in order to comply w/ the new setting.
are you saying your would accept repeated abuse with no violent recourse indefinitely?
Give me your lunch money!
lovebyte said institutions, not individual members, so easy on the liar label.
Also, unless lovebyte is wandering around trying to gather tithes I don't see how his individual giving matters. Once again, he's talking about institutions that are stewards of money given for a greater purpose. Or given out of guilt, but at the very least they are non-profit entities with a responsibility to the public.
Speaking about absurd, how about you not compare an individual's giving to the church (or corporations, a hilarious comparison if you're looking for some sort of moral high ground,) and I'll not compare the horrors the church has inflicted in the past to lovebyte's abrasive comment.
I might agree if it weren't for Samuel Adams
Arrogance is not a crime. Failure to comply with basic requests from snarky store managers is not a crime.
Inventing reasons to arrest someone is a crime, and a significant one, and undermines the entire legal structure. Not standing up for your rights for convenience sake (nay, even time with the family's sake) is cowardice and shirking of civic responsibly.
So, if I lack the self control to not shoot up my coworkers when I lose my job or beat my wife when I have a bad day at the office, do we outlaw work? If not, then how do we justify outlawing gambling when I act irrationally when blackjack goes poorly for me?
I agree to an extent that some people do not have the self-control to behave appropriately. What I disagree about is the method (criminalizing otherwise victim less actions) for preventing the negative effects of this predisposition.
Do you not see the hypocrisy of your generalizations? You make unfair, sweeping assumptions about racists, rednecks, Midwesterners, dixie republicans all based on your limited experiences, just like they do. Say what you want, but don't start to think you are galloping around on some sort of moral high horse.
Wow...I would like to respond to your comment, but trying to argue each of the flaws in your arguments would actually give credence to your men are just as gabby conjecture, so I'll just say, pics or GTFO.
If, by chance, you decide to stick around, you really should have a sense of humor. Geeks on this site make fun of their own stereotypes constantly, and you should do the same. And while you're at it, move out of your mother's basement.
Or better yet, maybe reporters should go on the assumption that unless a person is designated as an official spokesperson, holds a position that would reasonably speak for a given company/organization, or says explicitly that it their comment is an official statement that whatever the person says is their personal opinion. I hate prefacing my statements like that, it is unnecessary and demeaning.
If you weren't a Native-American you wouldn't have all this animosity towards Americans taking your stuff ;)
I would say that it depends on the part of the country (US) you are talking about. NYC is choosing a pretty extreme example I would say. Head south and to the smaller towns, civility is a lot more prevalent.
Seriously, read up on the case. The woman had substantial burns from the spilled coffee because it was served at temperatures not fit for human consumption. The temperature that the coffee was served at made it grounds for a lawsuit, not the act of spilling it on herself. This is not the case you are looking for if you are looking for a frivolous lawsuit reference. Especially on /.
reminds me of my favorite network monitor's plugins page.
http://www.nagiosexchange.org/
Indeed, my girlfriend and I both recently met our fat % loss goals of 4% but each gained 2 lbs. We are now switching up our workouts to try and minimize our weight rather than our fat %.
probably not more references, just less null pointer references :)