good god man, that post is hard to make any sense of. you're really waaay too thin skinned if you took any of this thread as a personal attack. get over it. =)
on a more serious note, english is obviously not your first language (and there's nothing wrong with that), but i think because of that, you are misreading many things. additionally, many things you are trying to say (and that you obviously think you're saying clearly) are very jumbled. i think that's why you're throwing a hissy fit. so relaaaax. =)
exactly- from your own post:
"**acceptance of railroads came quickly** in the 1830s, although there was *SOME* opposition... doctors warned of the excessive speed". so SOME people oppose it. some people oppose everything- there's no doubt about that. and that link still doesn't have any specific references whatsoever, nor any reference to the 20mph you mentioned.
No, thats all this stupid thread was about. The xmda guy in the beginning made just this statement.
no, that's how YOU took it.
Well the exact chance of getting shot is irrelevant, but the argument is not. The number is just as you said "pulled out of my ass", as your 50% get shot in hour argument is "pulled out of your ass".
you know the difference though- my 50% was clearly postulated as a hypothetical fact, whereas yours attempted to make it sound like it was rooted in reality when you said "example 0.000000000001% chance of getting shot when leaving the door (which might be actually true)". yeah, it *might* be true, and a broken watch is right twice a day. what's the point?
if you find the statement "pulling something out your ass" aggressive and vulgar, you're gonna have a tough time in the real world sonny! that statement is a common colloquialism, and there are much worse!
good god man; don't take it so personally. you *do* have a lot to learn about risk analysis. as you said, you've only discovered it recently- it's part of my job, day in, and day out. it wasn't a personal attack man.
that said, you're trying to toss up a straw man w/ your "0.000000000001% chance" argument; that's a number you pulled out your ass which is irrelevant. nobody made the argument that "better safe than sorry" applied under every situation.
no, you are confused, and you need to learn a bit more about risk-benefit analysis. the scenario i presented, as well as the "better safe than sorry" statement, ARE examples of risk-benefit analysis. the fact that you don't recognize that says you have a lot more to learn.
so? people can, and do claim anything. that doesn't mean it was commonly accepted, nor does it mean it was taken seriously by anyone. since the 20mph crap you're spouting was obviously incorrect wheneve it was spouted, what's the point of repeating it?
as far as "better safe than sorry", one (your crappy example) obviously wasn't a problem, but the other obviously may be. see the difference there skippy? as far as looking at "actual dangers" versus what's "possible", there's this thing called risk analysis. just because something's just "possible" rather than absolute doesn't mean you discount it. if i told you there was a 50% chance someone was going to be outside your door sometime in the next hour to shoot you, the prudent thing to do is to not go out in the next hour because of the *possible*, rather than *actual*.
The U.s>, apparently, "knew" about a remotely piloted drone aircraft that could be used to spread chemical weapons. Colin Powell made a big fuss about it in a speech, and the U.s. ambassador to the UN bitched that Hans Blix didn't do the same in a speech of his own. Turns out, the thing was made of plywood and duct-tape with some weed-whacker engines attached to a propellor. Maximum range: 5 miles. Chemical weapons? Yeah, right.
boy, have you bought into the iraqi propaganda. the "weed whacker" is what iraq trotted out. they haven't exactly been forthright about what weapons they do have, now have they? the initial speculation about the plane was based on a vehicle seen doing racetrack patterns over iraq ~1 year ago, that was a much larger vehicle; whether that was a drone or not, nobody seems to know for sure, but it obviously *wasn't* the same vehicle.
2) He has nukes! He doesn't have nukes. [salon.com]...
the gov't hasn't ever claimed that they have nukes; but nobody, nobody, denies they've tried to get them.
Take-home point: Bush's special information == bullshit.
you obviously have no idea how classified info works, eh? they don't tell you all the fun stuff they know dude...
Now I know you're going to attack me for having links to salon articles. Yes, salon is a liberal magazine. But read the articles, bucko -- they're AP, not salon.
Yes, it's meant to be condescending. This guy is no better than Bush, starting a war when he obviously does not have all the facts
So what info do you think Bush doesn't have? Do you have more? Whatever info Bush has, it's more info than 99.999999% of others out there, and certainly more than all the anti-war protestors. The government has a ridiculous amount of information, and even those w/ top secret clearances don't know a vast, vast majority of it, as all clasified information is on a "need to know" basis.
Most households transfer files daily and do you know what that means? It means the majority of America disagrees with the legal standards in place regarding copyrights
I would wager most households do not transfer files daily (other than say, emails and web pages, and those certainly don't generally infringe on copyright so are irrelevant to your comments). Do you have any facts to back up your assertion?
*I* am the one who decides when and where I want to be reachable.
you can only do that if you have a cell phone! with one, you can turn it on or off, screen calls via caller id, voice mail, etc. without a cell phone, how do you decide to be reachable when you're not home?
a lot of the cost / features tradeoff for the lindows laptop was due to it's small size; small laptops simply cost more. sure you can get a $799 dell or compaq that's "higher specced" from your point of view, but if you want a sub 3-lb laptop from dell or compaq, you're going to be paying a lot more!
Being allowed to discuss it is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that a great injustice is being done.
nope, but what it does do is show that we're not in an orwellian state.
Lets not forget the AMERICAN being denied rights that at the very least the constitution grants americans.
what you're missing is that the courts have repeatedly stated that those rights are not absolute. if you're a felon, you can't vote or have a gun. if you're fighting your country, you forfit some of your rights. thems the knocks.
I find this to be greatly disturbed. Whats next, are they going to arrest me b/c my neighbors have an arab friend?
that's just an absurd leap of logic.
rong, they DON'T require a subpoena, nor does the person have to be under active investigation; suspicion is enough.
you are just simple incorrect here. where are you getting your shoddy info? try readin up: http://www.llrx.com/features/usapatriotact.htm
Try reading what they wrote; and not just the bill of rights or the constitution.
i have read the federalist papers. have you? if you think there's something there that supports you, why not be a bit more specific in your argument?
They wanted to create a state the protected people's freedom. Had they insisted on no slavery, the south wouldn't have joined the union, and its likely that all of the colonies would be easily defeated. They knew that in order to have a chance they had to conceed, and hopefully fix things later.
that's bullcrap, as not only did they allowslavery, most of them owned slaves. even if what you said is true (which it isn't), if they were willing to compromise on the issue of human bondage, that would suggest to me that they wouldn't be rolling over in their graves over captured enemy being denied their civil rights!
women and non-landowners weren't allowed to voted
See above; also find where it says non-landowners aren't allowed to vote.
i didn't say the constitution didn't allow it- the subsequent governments set up by our forefathers didn't allow it.
See the bill of rights.
seen it. doesn't deal with civil rights (after all, slavery was stll legal...)
Also note that amendments 8-10 talk about not needing to enumerate anything.
yup- but they sure as heck enumerated what they thought was important! that's why i contend they surely would NOT be rolling over in their graves over the treatment of prisoners if they didn't find it important enough to enumerate that rights existed for anyone who wasn't a white male!
the "constitutional right to privacy" touted by many is based on interpretation of the constitution this century by the supreme court
See above. Just because they didn't list it, doesn't mean it wasn't important.
yeah, it was so important they didn't mention it at all!
I guess your one of the lucky ones who isn't being held without bail with no charges brought against and at the same time is being denid of any basic legal rights. I suppose you don't know any librarians either?
The fact that we can sit here and freely discuss those being held, debate whether they should be held without representation, and that we even *know* they're being held is proof that we are not what was depicted in "1984". as far as libraries, the federal government is required to get a subpoena to obtain records, and the person has to be under active investigation. what's wrong with that? sounds like the way they're supposed to get records from any source.
Your the one who is ignorant about what is going on. Our forefathers would be storming Washington right now if they were alive and demanding these widespread abuses of power and denying of civil right cease.
no, i don't think so. civil rights as we know it far exceed what our forefathers coded into law. remember, they allowed slavery, women and non-landowners weren't allowed to voted, etc. as far as civil rights, that wasn't codified by our forefathers either- the "constitutional right to privacy" touted by many is based on interpretation of the constitution this century by the supreme court- if it was a big sticking point for our forefathers, they wouldda probably explicitly put it in the bill of rights.
If they want the information, they should go get it on their own soil.
umm, you realize they're trying to catch terrorists *before* they get on the plane, right?
Demand all passengers landing in the US to disclose their credit card numbers, for example. That would lead to passenger uproar, you say?
they can already go through your belongings if all they wanted was your credit card number after you land. border patrol can do many, many things that other police organizations can't in order to protect the borders. there's a bigger picture.
So where is the difference between candidly asking a passenger his credit card number, and sneakily procuring it from his airline company behind his back and without his explicit consent or even knowledge?
the difference is they're trying to prevent terrorists from getting on the planes; the goal is not to simply have credit card numbers!
whatever your politics, to suggest that america has turned into the state depicted in "1984" is absolutely absurd and ignorant. you may argue that it's headed that way, but to suggest it's there is ridiculous.
border patrol has more liberties in obtaining data about you than other police organizations (since waaay before 9/11 or the bush administration), and you haven't had any protection for right to privacy, searches that would be considered unreasonable elsewhere, etc, etc. this is only a *very* small extension of that- they're obtaining the info from the airlines rather than from you.
the gov't *shouldn't* push the deadlines back, because if people don't buy the hdtv's, but that's all that's available, the manufacturer's *WILL* lower the prices!
cd-r/w's are running into the $40 range these days- yamaha doesn't want to / can't compete at those prices, so they'll stick with higher margin dvd burners. makes good business sense.
are you sure you deserve the jobs you're applying for? we're hiring *hundreds* of people a week. maybe you just don't have the right skills. or maybe you don't interview well. or your resume sucks.
we hire tons of college hires- in fact, all our new hire reqs right now are for college hires.
there are *lots* of good jobs out there- it ain't the boomin' 90's, but unemployment is still relatively low at 5.7% you know... if you can't find a job, it may be time to re-examine how attractive you are to employeres, and perhaps work on enhancing that!
it actually *DOES* have a compact flash slot- they just don't provide drivers for using storage devices on it (because they obviously want to sell memory sticks). the slot is the so called wireless communications slot. sony engineers have acknowleged all that's needed to use the "wireless communication" slot for other CF devices is someone enterprising enough to write the freakin' driver...
Slashdot Mirror
except launching something into space has very, very little to do with flight!
good god man, that post is hard to make any sense of. you're really waaay too thin skinned if you took any of this thread as a personal attack. get over it. =)
on a more serious note, english is obviously not your first language (and there's nothing wrong with that), but i think because of that, you are misreading many things. additionally, many things you are trying to say (and that you obviously think you're saying clearly) are very jumbled. i think that's why you're throwing a hissy fit. so relaaaax. =)
exactly- from your own post:
"**acceptance of railroads came quickly** in the 1830s, although there was *SOME* opposition... doctors warned of the excessive speed". so SOME people oppose it. some people oppose everything- there's no doubt about that. and that link still doesn't have any specific references whatsoever, nor any reference to the 20mph you mentioned.
No, thats all this stupid thread was about. The xmda guy in the beginning made just this statement.
no, that's how YOU took it.
Well the exact chance of getting shot is irrelevant, but the argument is not. The number is just as you said "pulled out of my ass", as your 50% get shot in hour argument is "pulled out of your ass".
you know the difference though- my 50% was clearly postulated as a hypothetical fact, whereas yours attempted to make it sound like it was rooted in reality when you said "example 0.000000000001% chance of getting shot when leaving the door (which might be actually true)". yeah, it *might* be true, and a broken watch is right twice a day. what's the point?
if you find the statement "pulling something out your ass" aggressive and vulgar, you're gonna have a tough time in the real world sonny! that statement is a common colloquialism, and there are much worse!
good god man; don't take it so personally. you *do* have a lot to learn about risk analysis. as you said, you've only discovered it recently- it's part of my job, day in, and day out. it wasn't a personal attack man. that said, you're trying to toss up a straw man w/ your "0.000000000001% chance" argument; that's a number you pulled out your ass which is irrelevant. nobody made the argument that "better safe than sorry" applied under every situation.
no, you are confused, and you need to learn a bit more about risk-benefit analysis. the scenario i presented, as well as the "better safe than sorry" statement, ARE examples of risk-benefit analysis. the fact that you don't recognize that says you have a lot more to learn.
so? people can, and do claim anything. that doesn't mean it was commonly accepted, nor does it mean it was taken seriously by anyone. since the 20mph crap you're spouting was obviously incorrect wheneve it was spouted, what's the point of repeating it?
as far as "better safe than sorry", one (your crappy example) obviously wasn't a problem, but the other obviously may be. see the difference there skippy? as far as looking at "actual dangers" versus what's "possible", there's this thing called risk analysis. just because something's just "possible" rather than absolute doesn't mean you discount it. if i told you there was a 50% chance someone was going to be outside your door sometime in the next hour to shoot you, the prudent thing to do is to not go out in the next hour because of the *possible*, rather than *actual*.
uhh, no, no i don't. do you have a source for that? keep in mind that:
a) fit people can hit speeds faster than that relatively easily. ~11.25s in the 100m dash is ~20mph.
b) people have been riding horses that can go faster than that for a long time. Kentucky Derby winners in the 1870's were running at about 35mph.
so basically i think you're full of it. =)
nope- you only get airmiles when you actually fly. if you but a ticket, but don't use 'em, no miles for you even though you paid!
has the t expanded it's hours? when i was there last year, the trains stopped at 12-1'sh i believe. way too early to get rid of the need for a car.
uhh, you've heard of "statistical data" right?
1) The weed whacker [salon.com].
The U.s>, apparently, "knew" about a remotely piloted drone aircraft that could be used to spread chemical weapons. Colin Powell made a big fuss about it in a speech, and the U.s. ambassador to the UN bitched that Hans Blix didn't do the same in a speech of his own. Turns out, the thing was made of plywood and duct-tape with some weed-whacker engines attached to a propellor. Maximum range: 5 miles. Chemical weapons? Yeah, right.
boy, have you bought into the iraqi propaganda. the "weed whacker" is what iraq trotted out. they haven't exactly been forthright about what weapons they do have, now have they? the initial speculation about the plane was based on a vehicle seen doing racetrack patterns over iraq ~1 year ago, that was a much larger vehicle; whether that was a drone or not, nobody seems to know for sure, but it obviously *wasn't* the same vehicle.
2) He has nukes! He doesn't have nukes. [salon.com]...
the gov't hasn't ever claimed that they have nukes; but nobody, nobody, denies they've tried to get them.
Take-home point: Bush's special information == bullshit.
you obviously have no idea how classified info works, eh? they don't tell you all the fun stuff they know dude...
Now I know you're going to attack me for having links to salon articles. Yes, salon is a liberal magazine. But read the articles, bucko -- they're AP, not salon.
why would i do that? salon generally
Yes, it's meant to be condescending. This guy is no better than Bush, starting a war when he obviously does not have all the facts
So what info do you think Bush doesn't have? Do you have more? Whatever info Bush has, it's more info than 99.999999% of others out there, and certainly more than all the anti-war protestors. The government has a ridiculous amount of information, and even those w/ top secret clearances don't know a vast, vast majority of it, as all clasified information is on a "need to know" basis.
Most households transfer files daily and do you know what that means? It means the majority of America disagrees with the legal standards in place regarding copyrights
I would wager most households do not transfer files daily (other than say, emails and web pages, and those certainly don't generally infringe on copyright so are irrelevant to your comments). Do you have any facts to back up your assertion?
there is a mac viewer
*I* am the one who decides when and where I want to be reachable.
you can only do that if you have a cell phone! with one, you can turn it on or off, screen calls via caller id, voice mail, etc. without a cell phone, how do you decide to be reachable when you're not home?
there's a cost / features / size tradeoff.
a lot of the cost / features tradeoff for the lindows laptop was due to it's small size; small laptops simply cost more. sure you can get a $799 dell or compaq that's "higher specced" from your point of view, but if you want a sub 3-lb laptop from dell or compaq, you're going to be paying a lot more!
Being allowed to discuss it is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that a great injustice is being done.
nope, but what it does do is show that we're not in an orwellian state.
Lets not forget the AMERICAN being denied rights that at the very least the constitution grants americans.
what you're missing is that the courts have repeatedly stated that those rights are not absolute. if you're a felon, you can't vote or have a gun. if you're fighting your country, you forfit some of your rights. thems the knocks.
I find this to be greatly disturbed. Whats next, are they going to arrest me b/c my neighbors have an arab friend?
that's just an absurd leap of logic.
rong, they DON'T require a subpoena, nor does the person have to be under active investigation; suspicion is enough.
you are just simple incorrect here. where are you getting your shoddy info? try readin up: http://www.llrx.com/features/usapatriotact.htm
Try reading what they wrote; and not just the bill of rights or the constitution.
i have read the federalist papers. have you? if you think there's something there that supports you, why not be a bit more specific in your argument?
They wanted to create a state the protected people's freedom. Had they insisted on no slavery, the south wouldn't have joined the union, and its likely that all of the colonies would be easily defeated. They knew that in order to have a chance they had to conceed, and hopefully fix things later.
that's bullcrap, as not only did they allowslavery, most of them owned slaves. even if what you said is true (which it isn't), if they were willing to compromise on the issue of human bondage, that would suggest to me that they wouldn't be rolling over in their graves over captured enemy being denied their civil rights!
women and non-landowners weren't allowed to voted
See above; also find where it says non-landowners aren't allowed to vote.
i didn't say the constitution didn't allow it- the subsequent governments set up by our forefathers didn't allow it.
See the bill of rights.
seen it. doesn't deal with civil rights (after all, slavery was stll legal...)
Also note that amendments 8-10 talk about not needing to enumerate anything.
yup- but they sure as heck enumerated what they thought was important! that's why i contend they surely would NOT be rolling over in their graves over the treatment of prisoners if they didn't find it important enough to enumerate that rights existed for anyone who wasn't a white male!
the "constitutional right to privacy" touted by many is based on interpretation of the constitution this century by the supreme court
See above. Just because they didn't list it, doesn't mean it wasn't important.
yeah, it was so important they didn't mention it at all!
that's why they're working with the EU- it's *their* jurisdiction.
I guess your one of the lucky ones who isn't being held without bail with no charges brought against and at the same time is being denid of any basic legal rights. I suppose you don't know any librarians either?
The fact that we can sit here and freely discuss those being held, debate whether they should be held without representation, and that we even *know* they're being held is proof that we are not what was depicted in "1984". as far as libraries, the federal government is required to get a subpoena to obtain records, and the person has to be under active investigation. what's wrong with that? sounds like the way they're supposed to get records from any source.
Your the one who is ignorant about what is going on. Our forefathers would be storming Washington right now if they were alive and demanding these widespread abuses of power and denying of civil right cease.
no, i don't think so. civil rights as we know it far exceed what our forefathers coded into law. remember, they allowed slavery, women and non-landowners weren't allowed to voted, etc. as far as civil rights, that wasn't codified by our forefathers either- the "constitutional right to privacy" touted by many is based on interpretation of the constitution this century by the supreme court- if it was a big sticking point for our forefathers, they wouldda probably explicitly put it in the bill of rights.If they want the information, they should go get it on their own soil.
umm, you realize they're trying to catch terrorists *before* they get on the plane, right?
Demand all passengers landing in the US to disclose their credit card numbers, for example. That would lead to passenger uproar, you say?
they can already go through your belongings if all they wanted was your credit card number after you land. border patrol can do many, many things that other police organizations can't in order to protect the borders. there's a bigger picture.
So where is the difference between candidly asking a passenger his credit card number, and sneakily procuring it from his airline company behind his back and without his explicit consent or even knowledge?
the difference is they're trying to prevent terrorists from getting on the planes; the goal is not to simply have credit card numbers!
whatever your politics, to suggest that america has turned into the state depicted in "1984" is absolutely absurd and ignorant. you may argue that it's headed that way, but to suggest it's there is ridiculous.
border patrol has more liberties in obtaining data about you than other police organizations (since waaay before 9/11 or the bush administration), and you haven't had any protection for right to privacy, searches that would be considered unreasonable elsewhere, etc, etc. this is only a *very* small extension of that- they're obtaining the info from the airlines rather than from you.
the gov't *shouldn't* push the deadlines back, because if people don't buy the hdtv's, but that's all that's available, the manufacturer's *WILL* lower the prices!
cd-r/w's are running into the $40 range these days- yamaha doesn't want to / can't compete at those prices, so they'll stick with higher margin dvd burners. makes good business sense.
are you sure you deserve the jobs you're applying for? we're hiring *hundreds* of people a week. maybe you just don't have the right skills. or maybe you don't interview well. or your resume sucks.
we hire tons of college hires- in fact, all our new hire reqs right now are for college hires.
there are *lots* of good jobs out there- it ain't the boomin' 90's, but unemployment is still relatively low at 5.7% you know... if you can't find a job, it may be time to re-examine how attractive you are to employeres, and perhaps work on enhancing that!
it actually *DOES* have a compact flash slot- they just don't provide drivers for using storage devices on it (because they obviously want to sell memory sticks). the slot is the so called wireless communications slot. sony engineers have acknowleged all that's needed to use the "wireless communication" slot for other CF devices is someone enterprising enough to write the freakin' driver...
java3D is *NOT* tied in with swing; in fact, java3d is a heavy weight component and care must be taken to get it to play nicely with swing...