You're on my list, but, like the GPP, I have no interest in killing people on my list.
So why the hell should I care? Most people who would make such a list are not going to act on it anyhow. I live in reality and in reality, do people really want to kill me? I'd say such people are incredibly rare and the ones that really want it are not going to be stopped by the law in most cases.
In response to your signature, I'd say that just because people are out to get you doesn't mean you need to be paranoid about it.
This argument assumes people are all chomping at the bit to break the laws. If this is the case, perhaps we should review the law. Most laws to me seem reasonable and I have no urge to break them. Most people are moral and if there were no law for a day I think life would go on surprisingly normal. Now if it were extended for a week or a month, you might have trouble.
I'm a musician, but I think this is awesome. Maybe now we can get past our bizarre obsession with entertainers and start focusing on curing cancer, getting nuclear fusion working, etc.
I find it ironic that in a command and control kind of political system, where the government is supposed to take care of its citizens and protect them against the ravages of capitalist unfairness, you have rampant worker abuse.
Just give me any Mac configuration (laptop or desktop) and I'll match it with better performance and lower price.
Go ahead, pick one yourself and prove it.
Personally, I've always been happy to pay a "Mac tax" for the same reason I pay an "Acura tax" instead of buying a Honda.
I for one have full confidence in the government that after reorganizing their data centers, they will have a lean, optimized, efficient operation. Who's with me?
Well, you're getting closer. I said what I said, not what you say I said. It's tough to discuss if you cannot read my words for simply what they are. I think this is a good exercise for you. My words were clear. I honestly don't know what to say to make them clearer for you, sorry. It's not that I want 36% of the country to rule 64%, though. That would pretty a pretty odd opinion, wouldn't it?
I know why it turns out that way, that's the way our system works. But I'm saying it's a flaw in our system that something that 30% of us would like to see enacted is blocked from having any discussion or action taken on it at all by the winner-take all two party system we have in place.
And of course, given a choice, they choose winning elections over doing what's best for society, which is a strong indication that they are corrupt and the perks of office are too lucrative.
So if 36% of Americans favor legalization, why aren't there 30% of congress or the senate voting for it? We need to reform the electoral process to provide more choices. Maybe proportional representation plus instant runoff voting
Just for the record, yes I was being sarcastic. Sorry about that. It is sad how many in our country now are turning to international violence as a supposed solution to "terrorism," which is an undefined term in international law, conveniently for any nation that wants to start a war. Even Iran uses it to justify their actions now. You cannot wage a war on terrorists, any more than you can wage a war on poverty or on drugs, except figuratively. There is no end to this so-called war and the main casualties are foreign civilians and U.S. civil rights.
try to persuade the general population to play nice with us.
I don't think we are doing a great job of that lately. We are losing our friendly face and honor with the collateral damage from every well-intended military action we take. I know, we have to kill people to stay safe. It's the only way, right? Terrorists are not human, they are unfathomably evil beings from hell and we cannot ever talk to or try to understand them. Time for our 5 minute hate now.
Well, sure, in theory. But in reality, as you can see, there are people here who believe he is protected by the First Amendment here. That is a matter for the court to decide. You are making a legal argument, and we decide these disputes in court. By definition in America, you are innocent until proven guilty where? Everybody together: "in a court of law. "
I think my argument still holds, so it kind of does again.:-) Young can argue that he needs to get the original out there in all its glory as it has much more weight that way than an article about the document, which would inevitably come across as an opinion piece. A major point of whistle blowing is to get original documents and actual insider information into the light of day to expose wrongdoing. The original document is much more convincing as a news source.
Slashdot Mirror
and how do you recoat the tube with fuel?
You're on my list, but, like the GPP, I have no interest in killing people on my list.
So why the hell should I care? Most people who would make such a list are not going to act on it anyhow. I live in reality and in reality, do people really want to kill me? I'd say such people are incredibly rare and the ones that really want it are not going to be stopped by the law in most cases.
In response to your signature, I'd say that just because people are out to get you doesn't mean you need to be paranoid about it.
Wow, you live in a scary world. No, I don't have a list of people I wish to kill. Perhaps you should get some help with that.
This argument assumes people are all chomping at the bit to break the laws. If this is the case, perhaps we should review the law. Most laws to me seem reasonable and I have no urge to break them. Most people are moral and if there were no law for a day I think life would go on surprisingly normal. Now if it were extended for a week or a month, you might have trouble.
They used to investigate the dead zones, now they're dead themselves.
I'm a musician, but I think this is awesome. Maybe now we can get past our bizarre obsession with entertainers and start focusing on curing cancer, getting nuclear fusion working, etc.
I find it ironic that in a command and control kind of political system, where the government is supposed to take care of its citizens and protect them against the ravages of capitalist unfairness, you have rampant worker abuse.
Just give me any Mac configuration (laptop or desktop) and I'll match it with better performance and lower price.
Go ahead, pick one yourself and prove it.
Personally, I've always been happy to pay a "Mac tax" for the same reason I pay an "Acura tax" instead of buying a Honda.
Well, I wouldn't say it's not good enough. More like it's not perfect, but it's way better than not having the logs at all.
Irony is not the same thing as sarcasm. I guess you might be right about the education thing. LOL
Also, save all errors in a common log file with a time stamp that can be reviewed by knowledgeable peeps later.
I for one have full confidence in the government that after reorganizing their data centers, they will have a lean, optimized, efficient operation. Who's with me?
But even the "good" bills are laden with pork and side issues to get it passed. It's such a corrupt mess.
Well, you're getting closer. I said what I said, not what you say I said. It's tough to discuss if you cannot read my words for simply what they are. I think this is a good exercise for you. My words were clear. I honestly don't know what to say to make them clearer for you, sorry. It's not that I want 36% of the country to rule 64%, though. That would pretty a pretty odd opinion, wouldn't it?
LOL, I would invite you to reread my post and respond to what it says instead of what you think it says.
I know why it turns out that way, that's the way our system works. But I'm saying it's a flaw in our system that something that 30% of us would like to see enacted is blocked from having any discussion or action taken on it at all by the winner-take all two party system we have in place.
And of course, given a choice, they choose winning elections over doing what's best for society, which is a strong indication that they are corrupt and the perks of office are too lucrative.
So if 36% of Americans favor legalization, why aren't there 30% of congress or the senate voting for it? We need to reform the electoral process to provide more choices. Maybe proportional representation plus instant runoff voting
Just for the record, yes I was being sarcastic. Sorry about that. It is sad how many in our country now are turning to international violence as a supposed solution to "terrorism," which is an undefined term in international law, conveniently for any nation that wants to start a war. Even Iran uses it to justify their actions now. You cannot wage a war on terrorists, any more than you can wage a war on poverty or on drugs, except figuratively. There is no end to this so-called war and the main casualties are foreign civilians and U.S. civil rights.
No, you missed the joke. It's because Exchange is such an a piece of crap that their economy and IT infrastructure will crumble. Mwa haha
try to persuade the general population to play nice with us.
I don't think we are doing a great job of that lately. We are losing our friendly face and honor with the collateral damage from every well-intended military action we take. I know, we have to kill people to stay safe. It's the only way, right? Terrorists are not human, they are unfathomably evil beings from hell and we cannot ever talk to or try to understand them. Time for our 5 minute hate now.
I don't even understand how Google can "pull out of China." Does China have their own Internet?
An even better solution for the scientists would be if they had total freedom of speech.
Well, sure, in theory. But in reality, as you can see, there are people here who believe he is protected by the First Amendment here. That is a matter for the court to decide. You are making a legal argument, and we decide these disputes in court. By definition in America, you are innocent until proven guilty where? Everybody together: "in a court of law. "
I think my argument still holds, so it kind of does again. :-) Young can argue that he needs to get the original out there in all its glory as it has much more weight that way than an article about the document, which would inevitably come across as an opinion piece. A major point of whistle blowing is to get original documents and actual insider information into the light of day to expose wrongdoing. The original document is much more convincing as a news source.