Well, if they think you're a terrorist, they may ship you off to Syria for torture and interrogation. That sort of beats out not being able to fast forward through previews on your DVD.
First, I am not a die-hard Republican. Are you a die-hard Liberal?
So it's Republicans and Liberals, now? There's no middle ground, and only two platforms? Sounds like a football game to me. If this is how you view the world, do everybody a favor and stay home on election day.
What's your damn point? That too many people have been too snowed to see the truth and now it's our fault that bush is acting like a mini caeser? Shouldn't you at least be happy that people have woken up?
So, let's get a little more specific, shall we Slate? It wasn't "The Government" that tried to execute him. It was overzealous prosecutors riding a power-trip straight to hell.
And the prosecution represents who? Yeah, it's the government.
The prisoners were deemed potentially to be the so-called vicious killers. Given the attacks on the USA, can you really expect us not to be at least a little sensitive to the possibility? So we found out many of them weren't.
Well duh, they weren't vicious killers - they were mostly random people from Afghanistan. Given the collection methods, this is to be expected. Regardless, we called them vicious killers, tried to deny them due process of any kind because of the danger letting them speak would cause, and kept them in a hole for 3 years.
If we ultimately rely on the courts to defend our civil liberties then we as citizens have failed democracy.
You moron. The problem here is that bush is attempting to undermine the balance of power by emasculating the judicial branch. How can this be anything but an outrage?
More crying about civil liberties that were supposedly taken from us when in fact they were given away.
Great, Bush starts acting like he's some sort of king, beyond all reproach, and it's our fault? What would you have us do? Congress hasn't got the balls to nail him to a wall like they should, so what is your plan?
More of the same. I am beginning to see a pattern here. All these anti-Bush-administration points.
Shocking - Bush has been on a tear for years and it's somehow suspect when we slag him, as if opposition was treason.
I almost wish a Liberal had been elected President
We haven't had a Liberal president since Carter. If you've been paying attention, it's the Brady campaign that's trying to ban private possession of firearms, and they're republicans.
Maybe, in some small corner of their minds the people are still very pissed off about 9/11
What's 9/11 got to do with Iraq or setting up a police state? We're pissed off, so the president is justified in beating the drum of terr'rism to make an obscene power grab?
It's a cheap fat substitute that provides no known health benefits and increases LDL cholestorol. This basically means that it's dangerous and unnecessary, and banning it as a public health risk is perfectly reasonable. I assume they only banned it in restaurants because of the number of junk foods that use it - can't ban potato chips and cheetos and still expect public support.
The FDA would be a good place to look for food bans - they banned Red Dye #1 (I think it was #1) and saccharine for similar reasons.
Re:Smoking bans: reducing freedom, or increasing i
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 1
If you really think that allowing large groups of people to go to large groups of places they previously couldn't -- even if it wasn't officially called a ban -- reduces their freedom, then I'm afraid you're missing this very important point.
That it restricts the rights of smokers. Now they can't go to any bar and smoke. They can't even set up their own bar that allows smoking. You took away their ability to exercise a legal habit so that some other group could go to bars and feel comfortable - people don't have the right to be comfortable.
If I suddenly progrma half the LoCs I usually do, it probably means I got stuck on some hard problem, maybe had to rewrite or refactor some code, redesign some data models or data flow.
Which means that you are just as productive as before. kLocs is indicative of many things, but productivity is not one of them.
I notice you said "almost all" - so you can in fact buy a PC without Windows.
Basically, you have to go with a server box builder or buy volume from dell/hp in order to lose the OS (although the discount varies from $0 to $30). Anything you buy at best buy or from dell in quantities of 1 will have windows on it. As a matter of fact, it's been a number of years since you could buy a PC with some other OS on it (and then, it was IBM only). So, you have an entrenched OS, no competition, and almost anyone you'd like to sell to has already given money to MS - sounds like a monopoly to me.
Or take it another way, a retailer choosing what they want on their shelves. This isn't government censorship, it is strictly market forces now
Way to be obtuse. In many places, Walmart is the only place for this stuff, so banning a game means you can't get it. It's like moron pharmacists refusing to fill a day after pill prescription, knowing that they're the only game in town, only quite a bit less life-altering.
The fact that a radio broadcast was made is public knowledge. You do not have a right to forbid the police from listening to your radio broadcasts. Whining about what you want does not change this one bit.
This is different. He didn't hear your broadcast; he has a report that outs you as a communist, which may have an impact on how you are treated. This does cross a line, and should be illegal.
I stopped for gas and when I came back from paying a cop was there who wanted to know why my plate number came up with a different car. Turns out he was bored and so he begain typing in license plates of nearby cars int his terminal in the cruiser.
That much is perfectly reasonable. Your plates are visible to anybody that cares to look, and having them tied to another car is reasonable suspicion that someone stole some plates. I agree about the national search thing. It should only include criminal record/warrant stuff and should only be used when stopping someone as part of some other investigation.
As the article says very clearly, Google is in a (near monopoly) position to direct users to "the best" of the web.
Do tell. Google has no way of erecting barriers to others entering the market - they've just a lot of things better than the competition. When Google can release crap and force you to use it, then they'll have a monopoly.
My point is that most people don't mess with the defaults, since they rarely have reason to, so having a 192.168.x.x address is indicative of using a router with mostly default settings. Of course you can set your internal network to something public, but unless you know what you're doing, you'll just make pain for yourself later.
We could do much better if we dropped the clocks and dropped the instant on. Tube televisions took minutes to warm up. Solid State televisions take a few seconds to warm up. Instant On only saves me 3 seconds at most.
How were you planning on turning the thing on? Something has to listen to the remote.
I like the dev and testing environments to be different from each other... and from the production environment.
Simple solution that mostly works: run a lot of the dev stuff on your desktop. Depending on your environment, that can isolate developers from each other and free up a test server for 'more stable' code.
You really think that if polygraph didn't work, they would use it on people who would know this?! How would they get such people to confess?
Common criminals aren't known for their brilliance. I recall once where some cops rigged up a copier as a fake lie detector. When they hit the button, it spit out a piece of paper that said "He's lying", eliciting a confession. You think guys like this will see through an apparent scientific instrument with a 'skilled' operator?
No, Lie Detectors do not exist. What they have is basically a scam, as the FBI admit, and all they can really do is see how you react to a particular question and try to get you to confess.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if they think you're a terrorist, they may ship you off to Syria for torture and interrogation. That sort of beats out not being able to fast forward through previews on your DVD.
First, I am not a die-hard Republican. Are you a die-hard Liberal?
So it's Republicans and Liberals, now? There's no middle ground, and only two platforms? Sounds like a football game to me. If this is how you view the world, do everybody a favor and stay home on election day.
What's your damn point? That too many people have been too snowed to see the truth and now it's our fault that bush is acting like a mini caeser? Shouldn't you at least be happy that people have woken up?
So, let's get a little more specific, shall we Slate? It wasn't "The Government" that tried to execute him. It was overzealous prosecutors riding a power-trip straight to hell.
And the prosecution represents who? Yeah, it's the government.
The prisoners were deemed potentially to be the so-called vicious killers. Given the attacks on the USA, can you really expect us not to be at least a little sensitive to the possibility? So we found out many of them weren't.
Well duh, they weren't vicious killers - they were mostly random people from Afghanistan. Given the collection methods, this is to be expected. Regardless, we called them vicious killers, tried to deny them due process of any kind because of the danger letting them speak would cause, and kept them in a hole for 3 years.
If we ultimately rely on the courts to defend our civil liberties then we as citizens have failed democracy.
You moron. The problem here is that bush is attempting to undermine the balance of power by emasculating the judicial branch. How can this be anything but an outrage?
More crying about civil liberties that were supposedly taken from us when in fact they were given away.
Great, Bush starts acting like he's some sort of king, beyond all reproach, and it's our fault? What would you have us do? Congress hasn't got the balls to nail him to a wall like they should, so what is your plan?
More of the same. I am beginning to see a pattern here. All these anti-Bush-administration points.
Shocking - Bush has been on a tear for years and it's somehow suspect when we slag him, as if opposition was treason.
I almost wish a Liberal had been elected President
We haven't had a Liberal president since Carter. If you've been paying attention, it's the Brady campaign that's trying to ban private possession of firearms, and they're republicans.
Maybe, in some small corner of their minds the people are still very pissed off about 9/11
What's 9/11 got to do with Iraq or setting up a police state? We're pissed off, so the president is justified in beating the drum of terr'rism to make an obscene power grab?
The FDA would be a good place to look for food bans - they banned Red Dye #1 (I think it was #1) and saccharine for similar reasons.
If you really think that allowing large groups of people to go to large groups of places they previously couldn't -- even if it wasn't officially called a ban -- reduces their freedom, then I'm afraid you're missing this very important point.
That it restricts the rights of smokers. Now they can't go to any bar and smoke. They can't even set up their own bar that allows smoking. You took away their ability to exercise a legal habit so that some other group could go to bars and feel comfortable - people don't have the right to be comfortable.
And this can never happen.
So scrap electronic voting. Saving a bit of cash isn't worth losing our vote.
If I suddenly progrma half the LoCs I usually do, it probably means I got stuck on some hard problem, maybe had to rewrite or refactor some code, redesign some data models or data flow.
Which means that you are just as productive as before. kLocs is indicative of many things, but productivity is not one of them.
Now granted, NO is no NY.
But what it is is a major port for the southeast, and don't forget all the oil rigs that got nailed at the same time.
hell, we have the engineering means to build a major city 50 feet below the ocean in the first place!
Nah, the French quarter is above sea level, and the poor parts weren't 50 feet below sea level when they were built.
I notice you said "almost all" - so you can in fact buy a PC without Windows.
Basically, you have to go with a server box builder or buy volume from dell/hp in order to lose the OS (although the discount varies from $0 to $30). Anything you buy at best buy or from dell in quantities of 1 will have windows on it. As a matter of fact, it's been a number of years since you could buy a PC with some other OS on it (and then, it was IBM only). So, you have an entrenched OS, no competition, and almost anyone you'd like to sell to has already given money to MS - sounds like a monopoly to me.
Or take it another way, a retailer choosing what they want on their shelves. This isn't government censorship, it is strictly market forces now
Way to be obtuse. In many places, Walmart is the only place for this stuff, so banning a game means you can't get it. It's like moron pharmacists refusing to fill a day after pill prescription, knowing that they're the only game in town, only quite a bit less life-altering.
The fact that a radio broadcast was made is public knowledge. You do not have a right to forbid the police from listening to your radio broadcasts. Whining about what you want does not change this one bit.
This is different. He didn't hear your broadcast; he has a report that outs you as a communist, which may have an impact on how you are treated. This does cross a line, and should be illegal.
I stopped for gas and when I came back from paying a cop was there who wanted to know why my plate number came up with a different car. Turns out he was bored and so he begain typing in license plates of nearby cars int his terminal in the cruiser.
That much is perfectly reasonable. Your plates are visible to anybody that cares to look, and having them tied to another car is reasonable suspicion that someone stole some plates. I agree about the national search thing. It should only include criminal record/warrant stuff and should only be used when stopping someone as part of some other investigation.
You can go right on the web and check to see if your neighbor is a sex offender today.
And what if he isn't? He could still be in there because it was (wait for it) hacked.
Sure they do - windows is prebundled with almost all PCs today, and if you want to do business with the government, you use Office.
As the article says very clearly, Google is in a (near monopoly) position to direct users to "the best" of the web.
Do tell. Google has no way of erecting barriers to others entering the market - they've just a lot of things better than the competition. When Google can release crap and force you to use it, then they'll have a monopoly.
Never been to usenet, I take it.
My point is that most people don't mess with the defaults, since they rarely have reason to, so having a 192.168.x.x address is indicative of using a router with mostly default settings. Of course you can set your internal network to something public, but unless you know what you're doing, you'll just make pain for yourself later.
The question is how you can be assured that the IP address is a public one and does not address tying that address to the computer in question.
Because russia recently signed a treaty that allows them to sue allofmp3?
Because NAT is usually done on the 192.168.1.x network (default settings on every router I've had) and that's not a routable network.
Who gives a damn? Your dryer uses way more power than a GF8800 and that's only in use a few hours a week.
We could do much better if we dropped the clocks and dropped the instant on. Tube televisions took minutes to warm up. Solid State televisions take a few seconds to warm up. Instant On only saves me 3 seconds at most.
How were you planning on turning the thing on? Something has to listen to the remote.
I like the dev and testing environments to be different from each other... and from the production environment.
Simple solution that mostly works: run a lot of the dev stuff on your desktop. Depending on your environment, that can isolate developers from each other and free up a test server for 'more stable' code.
You really think that if polygraph didn't work, they would use it on people who would know this?! How would they get such people to confess?
Common criminals aren't known for their brilliance. I recall once where some cops rigged up a copier as a fake lie detector. When they hit the button, it spit out a piece of paper that said "He's lying", eliciting a confession. You think guys like this will see through an apparent scientific instrument with a 'skilled' operator?
No, Lie Detectors do not exist. What they have is basically a scam, as the FBI admit, and all they can really do is see how you react to a particular question and try to get you to confess.