If your army attacks a sovereign nation without you being attacked by their army first, you're the agressor.
Without taking one side or another, may I suggest that if I wanted to harm a sovereign nation without me being held accountable in a "war-crime court", I'd just hire some mercenaries to do the damage over and over again, then deny any knowledge of it. However, I'm also curious when Saddam Hussein will be brought to trial for his decades of torture and warcrimes against Kuwait in 1991.
The problem with some nations is they can't accept authority that might judge their actions as wrong, just like some offenders can't.
And why, exactly, does the UN get to state what the USA should and should not do? There are 10 members in the Security Counsel, right? Why should 7 of them dictate what the other 3 do (for instance)? Because it's a "consensus"? What if a group of 6 countries get together and decide that the world would be better off without the other 4? Are the other 4 supposed to roll over and die, just because it's a "consensus"? Or would you permit them to fight for their survival?
The United Nations is worthless, and has been for years. Their resolutions aren't followed, which makes them ineffective in enacting any global changes, and if they can't enact any global changes, the debating is just wasting time. It's already been proven that if someone defies the UN, nothing will happen.
If you're trying render global consensus meaningless, there will be global consensus in condemning you.
Exactly. The UN has tried to render global consensus meaningful, but lacked the ability to follow through with any of its decisions. Thus, there is now a growing consensus of the belief that the UN is meaningless.
There is just to many nukes and other dangerous stuff in the world to throw these moderating diplomatic structures overboard and fight it out.
If there are so many nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and if they're so easy to use (as you're implying... apparently you think that without the UN, everyone would just light the fuse and have it out), why let people like Saddam Hussein stay in power? The man murdered over a million people in his own country, using chemical weapons. What possible GOOD could come from him staying in power? What possible BAD could come from him staying in power? The worst-case scenario is that he has a bad day sometime, and uses all his weapons and kills over a billion people by feeding some of his biological weaponry into the water supply, or using his chemical weapons in India or China or something. The worst-case scenario if he is expelled from power is he hides his weapons and waits for a time to use them, hoping that the "good" guys won't get him first, with the possibility that the "good" guys find the weapons first, and he never gets the chance. I'd rather take option #2.
I don't agree. While I don't like the idea that Peter Jackson may not make The Hobbit, I still want the Tolkien family to allow talented people who actually give a shit about the story to make games, and not anyone who has deep pockets.
The only Tolkien that has a problem with Peter Jackson or the new movies is Christopher. His son, whose name I can't remember, is a grown man, and likes the idea of The Hobbit... and actually likes the new movies.
Besides, can you really say that the people that made the original animated Hobbit movie are talented, or that the movie somehow complemented the book?
But, really, isn't this year a shocker? There are no good games out right now.
Say WHAT? The article is pointing out how GOOD this year is. Prince of Persia, Jak II, Ratchet and Clank II, and Sphinx... just counting adventure games for the PS2. You want racing? How about Mario Kart: Double Dash for GameCube, or Project Gotham 2 for the Xbox, or Midnight Club II for the PS2? Almost every genre has a good game this year. Don't take my work for it, read about it on this article from Yahoo.
When MMORPG based on the LORD of the rings story will come out, that's when we'll know that the Tolkien family will have totally sold out.
First, there already IS a MMORPG based on LOTR... but that's already been mentioned.
Second, no offense, but FUCK THE TOLKIEN FAMILY. Especially Christopher Tolkien, the old piece of shit. It's HIS FAULT that Peter Jackson won't get to make The Hobbit. Although that article doesn't mention it, I've read other places that JRR's grandson, the son of Christopher Tolkien, DOES like the new trilogy, and wanted the movies to be made. Unfortunately, that probably means that if The Hobbit will ever be made into a movie, we'll have to wait until Christopher Tolkien dies.
Your letter appeared on my screen without any action on my part, with no End User License Agreement, explaining my legal options. This is due to Slashdot's moderation system, which permits certain posts to appear without the explicit permission from the user. Therefore, I must redirect your letter to Slashdot's moderators.
Furthermore, had I seen a EULA with a clear indication that I was about to see a letter from you, I would have immediately taken measures to prevent my eyes, and my brain, as you'll see in the next paragraph, from seeing the inane babble which you commonly spew to the media.
My brain, as you may or may not know, is gifted with the ability to identify and understand words when viewed by my eyes. Since I never had to sign a disclaimer for that action, I will have to forward your complaint to God. However, may I suggest that you use a discretion in approaching Him regarding errors in His work, as He is much more impatient than I.
I haven't tried it... but when he updated his site, there was mention of a search feature that he was going to add. Then again, he also mentioned a newsletter, but that's not starting until early next year.
On how many separate occasions have Muslim extremists killed Americans by hijacking airplanes? I honestly thought it was just those four planes on 9/11, but I could be wrong. If it was only those 19 guys, I don't see what you mean by persistent. I honestly don't see Muslim extremists to be the only significant threat to American passenger planes.
When I say persistent, I don't mean persistent in using airplanes... I mean persistent in the number of attacks on the US. They attacked the very same building back in 1993. I'm not going to list all the attacks by Muslims in the past decade, but there are FAR more than by Timothy McVeigh, or anyone that shares his beliefs.
You think that Timothy McVeigh was the only person that held his belief structure (and to such a degree)?
He's the only one that's blown up a building, that I know of.
I would, however, note that, after the bombing in Oklahoma, people were chomping at the bit to blame it on Muslims. When it proved to be the work of Christian US Militia members, there was not the kind of witch hunt there was against US muslems subsequent to 9/11.
You really don't understand that the Oklahoma City bombing was done ONCE by ONE MAN, do you?
You also really don't understand that it took 18 or 19 hijackers, all muslim, to carry out the four (4) attacks on September 11, do you?
If you include Central and South America in 'American Christian' then I think that we might have a pretty tight horse race in terms of government run/sanctioned torture, murder and mayhem. I was, however, mostly referring to things like USA citizens (predominantly christian) shooting each other.
Yet again, you're sidestepping the issue. The issue isn't whether a country that is predominantly christian still has murders. The issue is whether those christians join together and form a terrorist organization and plan massive attacks against innocent civilians.
Since September 11, the US has killed more civilians in each of Iraq and Afghanistan than died in the trade tower attacks. The US is now threatening similar treatment against Iran and Syria.
I call bullshit. Prove it. Or, even better, prove that Iraq or Afghanistan is worse off now than they were in 2000 or 2001.
Many people strongly believe that US intervention in tht area has far more to do with oil reserves and other 'strategic' interests than human rights or terrorism. This feeling is especially strong in the Middle East (including Iraq).
Right... of course they hate us. That's why they're having parades in our honor and all. Yeah, every day I turn on the TV and see all the riots and mass hysteria about the American Occupation of Iraq... by the Democrats. When they turn the cameras on in Iraq, however, they all seem to be doing just fine. Funny how that works.
The USA's studied inaction in places like Africa supports this contention.
Uh huh.
As for your constitutional question, it confers rights to people (or persons), not citizens. Similarly, the Declaration of Independence holds as self evident truths that 'all men are created equal' not just those men who happened to have carved out a home for themselves within the bounds of the USA.
It might come as a shock, but the Declaration of Independence is NOT the Constitution, nor has it ever been. I believe you might want to actually read the Constitution. It's the one that starts out with "We the people of the United States". Take note of the absense of the phrase "and the rest of the world". I think it says pretty clearly that it only really applies to citizens of the United States.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a coherent response. Your opponent is quite adept when it comes to arguing without consulting logic, or for that matter, facts. Most likely, he'll keep coming back with statements that effectively amount to "nuh uh!"
BTW, good job quoting Boortz... I was going to, but then I saw your post. It would be very nice if he would get a search feature to search through his fabulous Nealz Nuze blog. There have been many times that I wish I could refer to articles he's posted, or facts he's summed up, but had to go back through by each day. Also, if you're interested, you can hear him on these streaming stations.
Maybe. But why is he excluding non-religious terrorists? Religious groups aren't the only people that have attempted to kill Americans using airplanes. So if your goal is to hinder this particular Islamic fundamentalist jihad, searching Islamic fundamentalists would be a great place to start. However, if your goal is to prevent people from killing Americans using airplanes, you might want to search everyone.
Again, I have to point out that the religious groups, particularly muslim extremists, have been particularly persistent and successful in killing Americans. What other groups have been nearly as persistent, or successful?
Obviously, we're trying to prevent people from killing Americans using airplanes... but given that the most persistent and successful group is muslim extremists, the most obvious option is to search muslim extremists.
Timothy McVeigh's attack wasn't religious, but there's no reason to believe that his successors will not use an airplane. (Although I guess his particular brand of crazy is probably too busy hating Muslims right now to give a fuck about the excesses of the US federal gov't.)
Timothy McVeigh was nuts, pure and simple... but I'm greatly offended that you might be comparing me to him. I don't hate muslims any more than I hate whites, blacks, jews, christians, buddhists, hinduists, or purple spacemen. Each race and religion has its extremist group... some are more active than others. When it comes to terrorist activity, muslim extremists tend to be more active than any other group.
You are correct in saying that Timothy McVeigh's successors could use an airplane to attack the government. However, again, since he was only 1 person, and he's dead now, maybe we should work on the people that are still alive, and still dedicated to killing as many Americans as possible.
I don't hate muslims. I hate muslim extremists who want to kill everyone that doesn't agree completely with them. It's same psychology that drove the Crusades. "Do you believe in god?" "No." BANG. "Do you believe in god?" "Yes." "Do you believe in MY god?" "No." BANG.
So let me get this straight... if a white guy commited a terrorist attack... say, like blowing up a federal building, you would say "from now on we need to keep an eye on any white people near federal buildings". Right?
No, I'm saying that if 15-20 white men blew up federal buildings we should start keeping an eye on any white men near federal buildings. Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me 15-20 times, I must be a fuckin idiot.
If you use the existence of the first idiot to 'prove' that only 300lb asians are homicidal maniacs, then you're setting yourself up to get 'capped by a 110lb redhead with a smoldering hatred for trolls -- or just ripped apart by the next sumo wrestler you try to strip-search.
You are correct, to a degree. If only 1 300lb asian man was guilty, I would agree whole-heartedly. However, I can name 18 (soon to be 20, counting the DC snipers) arab men that have given their lives in an attempt to destroy the US in the past 3 years.
Would you use the same argument if a gang of hundreds of 300lb asian men wanted to kill you, your friends, your family, and anyone else of your nationality? Or would you just assume that since you may have killed one or two that the threat is over?
It occurs to me that you're ignoring the facts, or distorting the facts until you're left assuming you're correct.
His argument is, and always was, that no religious-based group has ever attempted to kill Americans using airplanes in any way. You keep bringing up the IRA, but the IRA has NEVER attacked the United States using airplanes. Therefore, why would we search Irish people at the airports, since they've never posed a threat? You refuse to accept the religiously-based beliefs, and logically, motives of the hijackers on 9/11, therefore, you cannot create an effective defense on an attack you do not understand.
As for the IRA, they attack England... but even they have enough morals (generally) not to attack innocent civilians. I don't live in either Ireland or England, but my understanding is that they limit most of their activities to military targets.
The pentagon might have more real importance, but knocking over the whitehouse might have mobilized us for a larger war (which was the ultimate goal of the terrorists).
I strongly disagree. Their stated goal was to kill as many Americans as possible. Listen to any tape from Osama Bin Laden, and you'll hear him say it over and over again. In fact, I'm willing to bet they did NOT want a war. They, just like every other country on the planet right now, know that a direct war with the US would result in the other side losing. Like it or not, the US is the only superpower in the world... and the US is also the single largest economy in the world, with the third-largest amount of land in the world. No single attack could wipe us out, even if they hit the best possible place. The terrorists, I'll concede, are spread all over the world... but they're not as well organized as our military. For proof, add up all the US soldiers killed in Iraq (even when the terrorists know where we are), then add up all the terrorists killed in Iraq. Just this past week 50+ terrorists were killed...
More americans are killed by Christian Americans every year than have been killed by Muslim extremists in the last decade. Focusing on on the 'muslim' threat is little more than an excuse to infringe on constitutional and human rights across the board.
First question is an obvious one. Can you be more specific about the massive onslaught wrought upon the American people by the extremists in the Christian sects? Second question, which is actually more of a statement of fact, can you show me where in our Constitution it says that citizens of foreign countries are protected by it? Third, by my count, there are far more human rights violations in the middle-east Muslim countries than there are in the European or American Christian countries. Again, if you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please let me know. I can't remember the last time a Christian extremist flew a plane into a building or tried to hijack a plane with a bomb-laden shoe... However, once again, if you have evidence to the contrary, I'll be willing to hear you out.
I will state, for the record, that I am NOT a Christian, or Muslim, or Jew.
The KKK was killing a good number of Americans at the height of their power. Terror was definitely their game, and they had a couple of massacres under their belt.
I'm really hoping you're not suggesting that all the members of the KKK are Christian Americans...
The tobacco industry causes more US deaths in the averate week than died in the attacks of 9/11. Unlike the terrorists, tobacco executives don't do it for ideological reason -- unless you consider greed an ideology.
You are correct, but the people that smoke cigarettes made a decision to light that cigarette. I'm sure none of the peopl in the WTC made the decision to have a plane crash into their building. I may be wrong... I'm willing to accept that possibility, but you have to show me one person that never made a decision to smoke, or one person that made the decision for the WTC to get hit with a plane.
And just for the record, you're right... the tobacco executives DO do it for greed... but the last time I checked, greed is what drives the economy. Smoking, just like the lottery, is a tax on the stupid and weak.
Short answer: yes. Since you are testing Redhat 8 and you mentioned that you aren't considering Redhat Enterprise then you don't care about long-term vendor support; a SuSE release is supported for 2 years. You can easily purchase one copy of SuSE professional for $80 and install it as many times as you want wherever you want.
It's not the long-term vendor support I'm looking for... it's the community support, the brand name, and the program support that I'm more concerned about. I've never called Red Hat for support, and really don't intend on it.
SuSE is all of the above. Software updates can be automated using YaST or by using apt-rpm which kicks ass by the way.
I've been using up2date on RH8, which I really like. Does SuSE have something similar, that will keep it all updated automatically? (I've never used it, and I haven't ever been able to justify a $80 box set before.)
I'm really excited to see what Novell is going to do with Ximian + SuSE. So far I've been loving everything that's been released by the Ximian camp and now that they'll probably primarily support SuSE..... well that's just icing on the cake =)
I've used Ximian's desktop, and I was very impressed with it. If / when they add it to SuSe, I'll agree that it'll be user-friendly... but at the moment, I'm working with a couple hundred students who have (probably) never even seen Linux. It absolutely MUST be almost identical in operation to Windows, or it won't be worthwhile. I don't mind spending a few hours a day keeping the systems up to date and all, but I really don't want to spend 8 hours a day teaching students how to use Linux.
I've been using Red Hat 8 in a lab setting with 16 workstations and 1 server for over a year now, with no complaints... well, no BIG ones.
I've only been using 8 because it's more user-friendly than 7.3, and the software still works on 8 (it doesn't on 9... still testing Fedora). Of course, I asked them about Educational pricing a few weeks ago, but they never bothered to give me a REAL price... they actually told me that for 17 computers, it would be over $3500 per year. So, of course, once I spend a couple weeks testing Fedora and making sure almost everything works on it, they announce this, and now it looks like I might not have to upgrade after all.
BTW, I'm VERY happy with Fedora so far. It's very user-friendly (priority #1), secure (#2), and compatible with the software (#3). However, the University I work for is preparing to have a meeting for which version of Linux to standardize on and get support for... Red Hat (I'm assuming Enterprise), SuSe, or Fedora. Does anyone think SuSe would be a better choice than Fedora? I'm not really even considering RHE...
And since the terrorists know what will happen if they try to hijack planes in a similar fashion, they have much less reason to try.
Maybe you don't understand that The Terrorists Won. They caused that plane to fly into the ground and killed over 100 people on board. It took 2 or 3 terrorists to kill over 100 innocent civilians. They don't care if they missed the 500 they were probably aiming for because they still averaged about 50 each. For all the talk about Columbine, those 2 kids only killed 10 or so, and you're suggesting that the terrorists somehow lost when they killed 100?
You seem to forget that the second worst terrorist attack on US soil was comitted by a blonde-haired, blue-eyed ex-marine.
I haven't forgotten at all. You ignore the fact that Timothy McVeigh is one person. Obviously, it takes more than 1 person to destroy the reputation of several million (or billion). Given that the largest terrorist attack on US soil was comitted by 18 or 19 arab men, each with a history of hating the US, I think it's safe to say we should watch out for arab men with a history of hating the US.
if you're in the USA, you search every single person because only singling out the 300 lb people and the Asian people would get you in trouble for being prejudiced against Asians and against fat people.
My point exactly. The "politically correct" crowd that bitches when you try to search the most obvious people are going to get more people killed... but at least they won't offend anyone in the process, right?
The measures required to prevent 9/11 were in place 30 minutes after the second plane hit. The airlines didn't need to change a thing. All it took was cell phones, and the passengers on the third plane knew not to let the hijackers get their way. Problem solved.
Tell that to the people on the third plane. Oh wait... they're all dead. They wouldn't be if the terrorists never would have gotten on those planes.
Slashdot Mirror
If your army attacks a sovereign nation without you being attacked by their army first, you're the agressor.
Without taking one side or another, may I suggest that if I wanted to harm a sovereign nation without me being held accountable in a "war-crime court", I'd just hire some mercenaries to do the damage over and over again, then deny any knowledge of it. However, I'm also curious when Saddam Hussein will be brought to trial for his decades of torture and warcrimes against Kuwait in 1991.
The problem with some nations is they can't accept authority that might judge their actions as wrong, just like some offenders can't.
And why, exactly, does the UN get to state what the USA should and should not do? There are 10 members in the Security Counsel, right? Why should 7 of them dictate what the other 3 do (for instance)? Because it's a "consensus"? What if a group of 6 countries get together and decide that the world would be better off without the other 4? Are the other 4 supposed to roll over and die, just because it's a "consensus"? Or would you permit them to fight for their survival?
The United Nations is worthless, and has been for years. Their resolutions aren't followed, which makes them ineffective in enacting any global changes, and if they can't enact any global changes, the debating is just wasting time. It's already been proven that if someone defies the UN, nothing will happen.
If you're trying render global consensus meaningless, there will be global consensus in condemning you.
Exactly. The UN has tried to render global consensus meaningful, but lacked the ability to follow through with any of its decisions. Thus, there is now a growing consensus of the belief that the UN is meaningless.
There is just to many nukes and other dangerous stuff in the world to throw these moderating diplomatic structures overboard and fight it out.
If there are so many nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and if they're so easy to use (as you're implying... apparently you think that without the UN, everyone would just light the fuse and have it out), why let people like Saddam Hussein stay in power? The man murdered over a million people in his own country, using chemical weapons. What possible GOOD could come from him staying in power? What possible BAD could come from him staying in power? The worst-case scenario is that he has a bad day sometime, and uses all his weapons and kills over a billion people by feeding some of his biological weaponry into the water supply, or using his chemical weapons in India or China or something. The worst-case scenario if he is expelled from power is he hides his weapons and waits for a time to use them, hoping that the "good" guys won't get him first, with the possibility that the "good" guys find the weapons first, and he never gets the chance. I'd rather take option #2.
I don't agree. While I don't like the idea that Peter Jackson may not make The Hobbit, I still want the Tolkien family to allow talented people who actually give a shit about the story to make games, and not anyone who has deep pockets.
The only Tolkien that has a problem with Peter Jackson or the new movies is Christopher. His son, whose name I can't remember, is a grown man, and likes the idea of The Hobbit... and actually likes the new movies.
Besides, can you really say that the people that made the original animated Hobbit movie are talented, or that the movie somehow complemented the book?
But, really, isn't this year a shocker? There are no good games out right now.
Say WHAT? The article is pointing out how GOOD this year is. Prince of Persia, Jak II, Ratchet and Clank II, and Sphinx... just counting adventure games for the PS2. You want racing? How about Mario Kart: Double Dash for GameCube, or Project Gotham 2 for the Xbox, or Midnight Club II for the PS2? Almost every genre has a good game this year. Don't take my work for it, read about it on this article from Yahoo.
When MMORPG based on the LORD of the rings story will come out, that's when we'll know that the Tolkien family will have totally sold out.
First, there already IS a MMORPG based on LOTR... but that's already been mentioned.
Second, no offense, but FUCK THE TOLKIEN FAMILY. Especially Christopher Tolkien, the old piece of shit. It's HIS FAULT that Peter Jackson won't get to make The Hobbit. Although that article doesn't mention it, I've read other places that JRR's grandson, the son of Christopher Tolkien, DOES like the new trilogy, and wanted the movies to be made. Unfortunately, that probably means that if The Hobbit will ever be made into a movie, we'll have to wait until Christopher Tolkien dies.
Dr. Asshat McBride,
Your letter appeared on my screen without any action on my part, with no End User License Agreement, explaining my legal options. This is due to Slashdot's moderation system, which permits certain posts to appear without the explicit permission from the user. Therefore, I must redirect your letter to Slashdot's moderators.
Furthermore, had I seen a EULA with a clear indication that I was about to see a letter from you, I would have immediately taken measures to prevent my eyes, and my brain, as you'll see in the next paragraph, from seeing the inane babble which you commonly spew to the media.
My brain, as you may or may not know, is gifted with the ability to identify and understand words when viewed by my eyes. Since I never had to sign a disclaimer for that action, I will have to forward your complaint to God. However, may I suggest that you use a discretion in approaching Him regarding errors in His work, as He is much more impatient than I.
Sincerely,
matrix272
P.S. Blow me, asshat.
I haven't tried it... but when he updated his site, there was mention of a search feature that he was going to add. Then again, he also mentioned a newsletter, but that's not starting until early next year.
It's just a shame that no good games are for the N-Gage. Any games that are even remotely interesting are already out for other systems.
On how many separate occasions have Muslim extremists killed Americans by hijacking airplanes? I honestly thought it was just those four planes on 9/11, but I could be wrong. If it was only those 19 guys, I don't see what you mean by persistent. I honestly don't see Muslim extremists to be the only significant threat to American passenger planes.
When I say persistent, I don't mean persistent in using airplanes... I mean persistent in the number of attacks on the US. They attacked the very same building back in 1993. I'm not going to list all the attacks by Muslims in the past decade, but there are FAR more than by Timothy McVeigh, or anyone that shares his beliefs.
You think that Timothy McVeigh was the only person that held his belief structure (and to such a degree)?
He's the only one that's blown up a building, that I know of.
I would, however, note that, after the bombing in Oklahoma, people were chomping at the bit to blame it on Muslims. When it proved to be the work of Christian US Militia members, there was not the kind of witch hunt there was against US muslems subsequent to 9/11.
You really don't understand that the Oklahoma City bombing was done ONCE by ONE MAN, do you?
You also really don't understand that it took 18 or 19 hijackers, all muslim, to carry out the four (4) attacks on September 11, do you?
If you include Central and South America in 'American Christian' then I think that we might have a pretty tight horse race in terms of government run/sanctioned torture, murder and mayhem. I was, however, mostly referring to things like USA citizens (predominantly christian) shooting each other.
Yet again, you're sidestepping the issue. The issue isn't whether a country that is predominantly christian still has murders. The issue is whether those christians join together and form a terrorist organization and plan massive attacks against innocent civilians.
Since September 11, the US has killed more civilians in each of Iraq and Afghanistan than died in the trade tower attacks. The US is now threatening similar treatment against Iran and Syria.
I call bullshit. Prove it. Or, even better, prove that Iraq or Afghanistan is worse off now than they were in 2000 or 2001.
Many people strongly believe that US intervention in tht area has far more to do with oil reserves and other 'strategic' interests than human rights or terrorism. This feeling is especially strong in the Middle East (including Iraq).
Right... of course they hate us. That's why they're having parades in our honor and all. Yeah, every day I turn on the TV and see all the riots and mass hysteria about the American Occupation of Iraq... by the Democrats. When they turn the cameras on in Iraq, however, they all seem to be doing just fine. Funny how that works.
The USA's studied inaction in places like Africa supports this contention.
Uh huh.
As for your constitutional question, it confers rights to people (or persons), not citizens. Similarly, the Declaration of Independence holds as self evident truths that 'all men are created equal' not just those men who happened to have carved out a home for themselves within the bounds of the USA.
It might come as a shock, but the Declaration of Independence is NOT the Constitution, nor has it ever been. I believe you might want to actually read the Constitution. It's the one that starts out with "We the people of the United States". Take note of the absense of the phrase "and the rest of the world". I think it says pretty clearly that it only really applies to citizens of the United States.
It was SUPPOSED to be temporary, but well, poot.
So was Federal Withholding... aka Federal Income Tax... you know, the tax you have to pay that directly contradicts the original Constitution.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a coherent response. Your opponent is quite adept when it comes to arguing without consulting logic, or for that matter, facts. Most likely, he'll keep coming back with statements that effectively amount to "nuh uh!"
BTW, good job quoting Boortz... I was going to, but then I saw your post. It would be very nice if he would get a search feature to search through his fabulous Nealz Nuze blog. There have been many times that I wish I could refer to articles he's posted, or facts he's summed up, but had to go back through by each day. Also, if you're interested, you can hear him on these streaming stations.
Maybe. But why is he excluding non-religious terrorists? Religious groups aren't the only people that have attempted to kill Americans using airplanes. So if your goal is to hinder this particular Islamic fundamentalist jihad, searching Islamic fundamentalists would be a great place to start. However, if your goal is to prevent people from killing Americans using airplanes, you might want to search everyone.
Again, I have to point out that the religious groups, particularly muslim extremists, have been particularly persistent and successful in killing Americans. What other groups have been nearly as persistent, or successful?
Obviously, we're trying to prevent people from killing Americans using airplanes... but given that the most persistent and successful group is muslim extremists, the most obvious option is to search muslim extremists.
Timothy McVeigh's attack wasn't religious, but there's no reason to believe that his successors will not use an airplane. (Although I guess his particular brand of crazy is probably too busy hating Muslims right now to give a fuck about the excesses of the US federal gov't.)
Timothy McVeigh was nuts, pure and simple... but I'm greatly offended that you might be comparing me to him. I don't hate muslims any more than I hate whites, blacks, jews, christians, buddhists, hinduists, or purple spacemen. Each race and religion has its extremist group... some are more active than others. When it comes to terrorist activity, muslim extremists tend to be more active than any other group.
You are correct in saying that Timothy McVeigh's successors could use an airplane to attack the government. However, again, since he was only 1 person, and he's dead now, maybe we should work on the people that are still alive, and still dedicated to killing as many Americans as possible.
I don't hate muslims. I hate muslim extremists who want to kill everyone that doesn't agree completely with them. It's same psychology that drove the Crusades. "Do you believe in god?" "No." BANG. "Do you believe in god?" "Yes." "Do you believe in MY god?" "No." BANG.
So let me get this straight... if a white guy commited a terrorist attack... say, like blowing up a federal building, you would say "from now on we need to keep an eye on any white people near federal buildings". Right?
No, I'm saying that if 15-20 white men blew up federal buildings we should start keeping an eye on any white men near federal buildings. Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me 15-20 times, I must be a fuckin idiot.
If you use the existence of the first idiot to 'prove' that only 300lb asians are homicidal maniacs, then you're setting yourself up to get 'capped by a 110lb redhead with a smoldering hatred for trolls -- or just ripped apart by the next sumo wrestler you try to strip-search.
You are correct, to a degree. If only 1 300lb asian man was guilty, I would agree whole-heartedly. However, I can name 18 (soon to be 20, counting the DC snipers) arab men that have given their lives in an attempt to destroy the US in the past 3 years.
Would you use the same argument if a gang of hundreds of 300lb asian men wanted to kill you, your friends, your family, and anyone else of your nationality? Or would you just assume that since you may have killed one or two that the threat is over?
It occurs to me that you're ignoring the facts, or distorting the facts until you're left assuming you're correct.
His argument is, and always was, that no religious-based group has ever attempted to kill Americans using airplanes in any way. You keep bringing up the IRA, but the IRA has NEVER attacked the United States using airplanes. Therefore, why would we search Irish people at the airports, since they've never posed a threat? You refuse to accept the religiously-based beliefs, and logically, motives of the hijackers on 9/11, therefore, you cannot create an effective defense on an attack you do not understand.
As for the IRA, they attack England... but even they have enough morals (generally) not to attack innocent civilians. I don't live in either Ireland or England, but my understanding is that they limit most of their activities to military targets.
The pentagon might have more real importance, but knocking over the whitehouse might have mobilized us for a larger war (which was the ultimate goal of the terrorists).
I strongly disagree. Their stated goal was to kill as many Americans as possible. Listen to any tape from Osama Bin Laden, and you'll hear him say it over and over again. In fact, I'm willing to bet they did NOT want a war. They, just like every other country on the planet right now, know that a direct war with the US would result in the other side losing. Like it or not, the US is the only superpower in the world... and the US is also the single largest economy in the world, with the third-largest amount of land in the world. No single attack could wipe us out, even if they hit the best possible place. The terrorists, I'll concede, are spread all over the world... but they're not as well organized as our military. For proof, add up all the US soldiers killed in Iraq (even when the terrorists know where we are), then add up all the terrorists killed in Iraq. Just this past week 50+ terrorists were killed...
More americans are killed by Christian Americans every year than have been killed by Muslim extremists in the last decade. Focusing on on the 'muslim' threat is little more than an excuse to infringe on constitutional and human rights across the board.
First question is an obvious one. Can you be more specific about the massive onslaught wrought upon the American people by the extremists in the Christian sects? Second question, which is actually more of a statement of fact, can you show me where in our Constitution it says that citizens of foreign countries are protected by it? Third, by my count, there are far more human rights violations in the middle-east Muslim countries than there are in the European or American Christian countries. Again, if you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please let me know. I can't remember the last time a Christian extremist flew a plane into a building or tried to hijack a plane with a bomb-laden shoe... However, once again, if you have evidence to the contrary, I'll be willing to hear you out.
I will state, for the record, that I am NOT a Christian, or Muslim, or Jew.
The KKK was killing a good number of Americans at the height of their power. Terror was definitely their game, and they had a couple of massacres under their belt.
I'm really hoping you're not suggesting that all the members of the KKK are Christian Americans...
The tobacco industry causes more US deaths in the averate week than died in the attacks of 9/11. Unlike the terrorists, tobacco executives don't do it for ideological reason -- unless you consider greed an ideology.
You are correct, but the people that smoke cigarettes made a decision to light that cigarette. I'm sure none of the peopl in the WTC made the decision to have a plane crash into their building. I may be wrong... I'm willing to accept that possibility, but you have to show me one person that never made a decision to smoke, or one person that made the decision for the WTC to get hit with a plane.
And just for the record, you're right... the tobacco executives DO do it for greed... but the last time I checked, greed is what drives the economy. Smoking, just like the lottery, is a tax on the stupid and weak.
Short answer: yes. Since you are testing Redhat 8 and you mentioned that you aren't considering Redhat Enterprise then you don't care about long-term vendor support; a SuSE release is supported for 2 years. You can easily purchase one copy of SuSE professional for $80 and install it as many times as you want wherever you want.
It's not the long-term vendor support I'm looking for... it's the community support, the brand name, and the program support that I'm more concerned about. I've never called Red Hat for support, and really don't intend on it.
SuSE is all of the above. Software updates can be automated using YaST or by using apt-rpm which kicks ass by the way.
I've been using up2date on RH8, which I really like. Does SuSE have something similar, that will keep it all updated automatically? (I've never used it, and I haven't ever been able to justify a $80 box set before.)
I'm really excited to see what Novell is going to do with Ximian + SuSE. So far I've been loving everything that's been released by the Ximian camp and now that they'll probably primarily support SuSE..... well that's just icing on the cake =)
I've used Ximian's desktop, and I was very impressed with it. If / when they add it to SuSe, I'll agree that it'll be user-friendly... but at the moment, I'm working with a couple hundred students who have (probably) never even seen Linux. It absolutely MUST be almost identical in operation to Windows, or it won't be worthwhile. I don't mind spending a few hours a day keeping the systems up to date and all, but I really don't want to spend 8 hours a day teaching students how to use Linux.
I've been using Red Hat 8 in a lab setting with 16 workstations and 1 server for over a year now, with no complaints ... well, no BIG ones.
I've only been using 8 because it's more user-friendly than 7.3, and the software still works on 8 (it doesn't on 9... still testing Fedora). Of course, I asked them about Educational pricing a few weeks ago, but they never bothered to give me a REAL price... they actually told me that for 17 computers, it would be over $3500 per year. So, of course, once I spend a couple weeks testing Fedora and making sure almost everything works on it, they announce this, and now it looks like I might not have to upgrade after all.
BTW, I'm VERY happy with Fedora so far. It's very user-friendly (priority #1), secure (#2), and compatible with the software (#3). However, the University I work for is preparing to have a meeting for which version of Linux to standardize on and get support for... Red Hat (I'm assuming Enterprise), SuSe, or Fedora. Does anyone think SuSe would be a better choice than Fedora? I'm not really even considering RHE...
And since the terrorists know what will happen if they try to hijack planes in a similar fashion, they have much less reason to try.
Maybe you don't understand that The Terrorists Won. They caused that plane to fly into the ground and killed over 100 people on board. It took 2 or 3 terrorists to kill over 100 innocent civilians. They don't care if they missed the 500 they were probably aiming for because they still averaged about 50 each. For all the talk about Columbine, those 2 kids only killed 10 or so, and you're suggesting that the terrorists somehow lost when they killed 100?
You seem to forget that the second worst terrorist attack on US soil was comitted by a blonde-haired, blue-eyed ex-marine.
I haven't forgotten at all. You ignore the fact that Timothy McVeigh is one person. Obviously, it takes more than 1 person to destroy the reputation of several million (or billion). Given that the largest terrorist attack on US soil was comitted by 18 or 19 arab men, each with a history of hating the US, I think it's safe to say we should watch out for arab men with a history of hating the US.
if you're in the USA, you search every single person because only singling out the 300 lb people and the Asian people would get you in trouble for being prejudiced against Asians and against fat people.
My point exactly. The "politically correct" crowd that bitches when you try to search the most obvious people are going to get more people killed... but at least they won't offend anyone in the process, right?
The measures required to prevent 9/11 were in place 30 minutes after the second plane hit. The airlines didn't need to change a thing. All it took was cell phones, and the passengers on the third plane knew not to let the hijackers get their way. Problem solved.
Tell that to the people on the third plane. Oh wait... they're all dead. They wouldn't be if the terrorists never would have gotten on those planes.