Didn't 2 Live crew get arrested for obscenity in Broward County in Florida? It seems like Florida has a general disrespect for Free Speech in the arts.
"To me it sounds like this has got to be against the law," Levinson said. "To tell people to kill a particular group of people? That has to violate some law."
It's FICTION, and thats protected speech. No one was telling people to kill Haitians! IT IS A V-I-D-E-O G-A-M-E.
I am losing more faith in the elected officials of Florida. Keep this moron away from butterfly ballots.
That's exactly the opposite of the stated purpose of swing. Can you provide documentation that this look and feel is implemented using native widgets? The entire point of swing (over AWT) was that widgets were lightweight rather than heavyweight, to ( maintain consistency over different platforms. That's also why Swing is ass-slow.)
What part of "taxation without representation" don't you understand? It wasn't rich people in the american colonies mad about paying taxes, it was people in the american colonies mad about paying EXORBITANT TAXES, with NO RECOURSE for doing anything about it.
Furthermore, if the rich men in the colonies simply wanted their own trade monopolies, they could have established any kind of government they wanted, rather than the one we have.
It's just implementing a feature set, not tying you to windows. Hell, Linux could use Trusted Computing features, and probably will.
Besides, are you saying that China wouldn't be interested in spying on its citizens? If every PC in china was tied into a mandatory trusted computing platform, like oh say, the OS they are developing (read about it in another slashdot article) thats the would pretty much eliminate the ability of someone to use their PC to spread dissident information.
I think China would have a HUGE interest in "trusted computing," just not necessarily in conjunction with the Windows operating system. Nothing precludes them from using a different one. Truth be told, nothing precludes them from using Windows in conjunction with trusted computing for consumer use, just not governmental use.
Oops, let me clarify: Oracle still won't let you insert emtpy string into a not null column BECAUSE it considers them the same. So it still does what you expect.
The problem is, "desktop" implies inclusiveness. So in that sense, your last statement makes no sense to me. The qualifier destroys any useful meaning. It makes me think of the shaking ground fallacy: "Linux is ready of the desktop." "I don't find it very easy to use." "well, it's ready for some people's desktops."
It's not exactly a fair argument I agree, but it is true. If I say "Linux is ready for the desktop," that means something, and it means that most people would be happy with it. right now, there's enough people that are full-fledged members of the linux community that fully admit that as a desktop its not so hot. I spend all my time in the CLI where it's more functional than Windows, but any particular desktop manager I use is merely tolerated. Various amenities like remote X and multiple desktops are things I can't live without anymore, so I happily plod through the rest. However, I don't think those things, however useful, "add value" to using an X desktop for most people. I don't even think it adds value in MY case as a desktop, because I see it more as an indispensable feature that makes me tolerate something I wouldn't have used otherwise. if I want to have a usable desktop on Linux at all, I use X, and I get those features. Thats good, but the rest of it, oh well.
Does this mean that everything rotten thing a company does is permissible UP TO the point they achieve market dominance (as long as they provide a helpful EULA)?
If this is the case, I never again want to hear complaints about the terrible things Microsoft has done before they were actually convicted of monopolistic practices, nor the terrible things they have done in markets where they don't have monopoly status.
Apple does this shit again and again, its despicable business practice, and I'm sick of people glossing over it. Maybe it's not "monoplistic", but its still a crap way of advancing your products over competitors.
Actually, it seems to be all dependant on what app you are using in X, which makes it all the more frustrating.
if I click in the address bar in firebird, it automatically highlights the URL. Now here's the kicker--if I want to copy and paste it to another part of firebird or various other apps, I have to use copy and paste functions. OK, thats fine. But as I found out the other day, it automatically blows away the buffer I use to middle-click paste in xterm! what the hell?!
What makes you think your freedom of speech would be worth anything in the event of a government coup?
What I find even more clear than the wording of the Second Amendment (which I disagree with your interpretation on) is the numerous and repeated acknowledgement by our founders that the second amendment is an individual right in their bids to the colonies for ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
By the way, neither the military nor the police are obligated to protect the individual, but the public at large.
DVD playing sucked ass under OS X for many machines, because Apple never bothered to add support for their own damn hardware acceleration.
This was rectified when It took a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT to get Apple to _partially_ follow through with their pledge to fully support old macs. you want to use 3D acceleration on your iMac? Apple said "f*ck you." It's officially desupported.
Last I heard there were two 16 year olds at the camp. They may have been let go now. They were segregated from the rest of the group for their safety.
In my opinion, the child rights violation was by whoever recruited these children. By they time they shoot at someone with an AK-47, there's no reason to consider them less dangerous than anyone else shooting you, or dedicated to destroying the enemies of Islam or whatever they believe.
It seems to me that the Geneva Conventions gives the U.S. the right to do this (the U.N. universal human rights declaration does not.) The Geneva Conventions are a crappy guide in this case, since Aghanistan 1) can't afford uniforms and 2) didn't have a government that the U.S.A. (or almost any other country) recognized.
Not that that's a justification, just that it can be argued otherwise. I also think it's pretty clear that we (the U.S.A.) are taking advantage of this legalism.
I was merely trying to demonstrate that someone who was detained in _truly_ abhorrent conditions would obviously prefer the camp that provided sufficient food and water, hygienic conditions, and reasonable accommodations of their religious needs.
If you are going to be detained, there are far worse places to be. That was the extent of my analogy. My estimation of the conditions of the camps are based on the word of the various human rights organizations that the U.S. government aquisced to and allowed to inspect them. Prisoners have a right to be treated humanely, but they don't have a right to not be prisoners, per se.
After the watchful eyes left for all we know, the rubber hose beating continued. The real issue at hand is, we just don't know what's going on down there. I'm probably at least as bothered by that as you are, so don't get me wrong.
There have been reports of suicides. Those could be explained either by assuming they are being massively mistreated, or alternately that they are religious fanatics, so that doesn't buy us much more information either, unfortunately.
The unfortunate part is, that would be decided by whoever wins. I can almost guarantee that a good number of people detained in Iraq were acting out of perceived self-defense--they probably saw American tanks and vehicles coming, and were acting out of self defense.
In my mind, this is the reason why nearly all of the non-soldier detainees in Iraq were let go, while we are still holding prisoners from Afghanistan. Based on the situation, we made a determination that most Iraqis were forced conscripts or otherwise unwilling combatants, while in Afghanistan they really were illegal combatants.
Either way, the parent post was correct in that the U.N. human rights declaration demands that they actually be charged with something if they are going to be detained. The current jibe is that they are still being interrogated--it seems to everyone like it's taking a really long time if that's even true.
As for mistreatment, so far the complaints have been lack of privacy, having their beards shaved for hygenic reasons, and having their daily care administered by females. If given a choice, I think I know which camp an Auschwitz detainee would choose.
While I agree that by now there ought to have been more transparency by the US govt regarding the Guantanamo Bay detainees by now, if you had SHOT at U.S. soldiers in an engagement in Great Britain, you'd be an illegal combatant. This is pretty much why these people are being detained.
These people were probably by and large draftees, which unfortunately in Afghanistan, meant they weren't going to _get_ a uniform. They certainly have a right to public trial, but by and large they were probably arrested legitimately. I see this more as an indictment of the unfairness of the Geneva Conventions with regard to poor nations, or forces that aren't backed by recognized governments.
It would be a lot easier to classify this as "disgusting" if we knew just what was happening down there. Right now, we don't really know much of anything, which is disturbing on several levels. But isn't disgusting in the way I'd classify the very well documented types of supression that were commonplace under the government these combatants were fighting for.
Generally whats wrong with it is what the speed limit is at any particular place. Statistically speaking, you could drive quite a bit faster than 55MPH on the highway and not increase your risk of accident. It's common sense how fast you can drive and feel safe, and thats why a lot of people break the speed limit within roughly ten miles an hour or so. It's also convenient for the local municipality, because then you can pull over and ticket lots of people, irregardless of the safety of their driving, but simply because they were "breaking the law."
By the way, "drug seizures" were the big way for many years to get extra revenue. The trick was pulling someone over, literally at random, and searching them on suspicion of drug trafficing. Even if nothing was found, they could (and did) impound your vehicle and sell it at auction, as well as confiscate any items or money you had on your person. Several people went to court over this and lost, because it was completely legal for the police to do this. Eventually it outraged enough people that legislatures banned the practice.
Wow, there were a lot of unsubstantiated allegations in there! As long as we're gonna take that route, Here's a few "facts" that I think PROVE France's weaseliness:
1. France funded both sides of the Aliens vs. Predator war. 2. France had 30% ownership in the Death Star. When Israeli TIE-fighters destroyed it, France was PISSED. 3. France has the world's largest stockpile of green kryptonite, Superman's only weakness. WHY? 4. I have it on good authority that Jaques Chirac stomps smurfs.
The flying wing has to be scaled up to a ridiculous size to accommodate the passenger capacity of a 747. Additionally, flying wings are inherently unstable. They lack rudder mechanism and since the whole body acts as lift, it is massively disrupted by flight conditions in ways that commercial passenger craft aren't. The Stealth F-117A "Wobblin' Goblin" was well known for its erratic flight, and its believed that there have been several more stealth bomber/fighter crashes than the government lets on.
The delta wing is only effective at higher speeds is my understanding. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to try to pilot one of these things in crash landing conditions. It probably has no control if its engine is out, like fighter craft and unlike passenger craft. Thats just not safe enough for commercial carrier flight.
They also haven't caught on because flying wing technology has dragged its feet since the advantages have been limited. Add the fact that they are expensive to design and test (especially when your prototypes are crashing all the time), and the only people really left that might be interested is the military.
There is a lot you can do with this technology to make flight faster and more energy efficient, but not really safer or more practical or cheaper.
Re:the real terrorists are governments and media
on
Cyber-Attacks?
·
· Score: 1
Point by point.
I don't think you realize just how large the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are. A missile is expected to be intercepted far off the coast, in the upper atmosphere.
We will know pretty quick when a missile is launched. We would've know within seconds if the USSR at the time launched an attack on us, so we could retaliate. Of course, you are right that its hard to hit a missile in midair. Thats another good reason to use lots of them, which is a standard strategy for more reasons than just that. Big bombs are impractical; the blast radius decreases significantly as the tonnage goes up, and is a single point of failure. So...we should do nothing to defend ourselves because we might miss one out of a volley of 20? Good plan. As for who they might be attacking, its a sure bet its not Bangladesh.
People suffering from obesity and high life-expectancy related health problems are still worse off dead from nuclear attack.
China has MFN status because it makes our goods cheaper in peacetime. Obviously trade will be ceased in a war with China. It will not be the end of the United States, because wartime economies supplant lost industries, and it is not common practice to promote blatant commercialism in wartime anyway. MFN status is a convenience for the United States, but you are right in that its ethics are debatable. No consolation for your argument, however.
Incidentally, they already have missiles, so its not foolish to worry they might use them. Anyone who trusts China is dumber than their SAT score insinuates.
I don't believe you even have any understanding of the functions of a nuclear bomb, fallout, or how nuclear missile interceptions work. I responded to your nonsense so it wouldn't pass as an acceptance of incorrectness on my part. I'm not going to bother twice.
Re:the real terrorists are governments and media
on
Cyber-Attacks?
·
· Score: 1
Ironic that you would claim that I don't understand missile defense.
First of all, nuclear attacks are ALWAYS intended to be air bursts--they do more damage. If the missile defense intercepts the missile over the Pacific ocean, bordering the edge of space, we can assume that it will not affect the mainland as much as if its burst a mile over the ground. That is what missile defense DOES. The radiation is minimal, especially compared to a fallout producing ground burst. Air burst does produce fallout, but not nearly as much, especially if its in the upper atmosphere.
We used to do plenty of upper-atmosphere tests like this. Yes, for particularly large ones, there was an EM pulse. Again, over the ocean it deosn't effect the mainland as much, unless its a REALLY REALLY big one, which China probably wouldn't use, instead using several smaller ones to try to get through the defense.
These pretty much invalidate your "terminally ill" argument. Incidentally, fallout shelters will protect you from most radiaton, but won't do a damn bit of good against the destructive capacity of a direct explosion.
I'm not going to address your moronic economic argument.
You should just shut up now, you are embarrasing yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't 2 Live crew get arrested for obscenity in Broward County in Florida? It seems like Florida has a general disrespect for Free Speech in the arts.
"To me it sounds like this has got to be against the law," Levinson said. "To tell people to kill a particular group of people? That has to violate some law."
It's FICTION, and thats protected speech. No one was telling people to kill Haitians! IT IS A V-I-D-E-O G-A-M-E.
I am losing more faith in the elected officials of Florida. Keep this moron away from butterfly ballots.
That's exactly the opposite of the stated purpose of swing. Can you provide documentation that this look and feel is implemented using native widgets? The entire point of swing (over AWT) was that widgets were lightweight rather than heavyweight, to ( maintain consistency over different platforms. That's also why Swing is ass-slow.)
every 18 months, create a newer longer key, and sign it with your old one.
Just an idea. I agree with your post.
What part of "taxation without representation" don't you understand? It wasn't rich people in the american colonies mad about paying taxes, it was people in the american colonies mad about paying EXORBITANT TAXES, with NO RECOURSE for doing anything about it.
Furthermore, if the rich men in the colonies simply wanted their own trade monopolies, they could have established any kind of government they wanted, rather than the one we have.
It's just implementing a feature set, not tying you to windows. Hell, Linux could use Trusted Computing features, and probably will.
Besides, are you saying that China wouldn't be interested in spying on its citizens? If every PC in china was tied into a mandatory trusted computing platform, like oh say, the OS they are developing (read about it in another slashdot article) thats the would pretty much eliminate the ability of someone to use their PC to spread dissident information.
I think China would have a HUGE interest in "trusted computing," just not necessarily in conjunction with the Windows operating system. Nothing precludes them from using a different one. Truth be told, nothing precludes them from using Windows in conjunction with trusted computing for consumer use, just not governmental use.
Oops, let me clarify: Oracle still won't let you insert emtpy string into a not null column BECAUSE it considers them the same. So it still does what you expect.
FYI, Oracle doesn't discern the difference between empty string and null. Apparently it did at some point in the past.
The problem is, "desktop" implies inclusiveness. So in that sense, your last statement makes no sense to me. The qualifier destroys any useful meaning. It makes me think of the shaking ground fallacy: "Linux is ready of the desktop." "I don't find it very easy to use." "well, it's ready for some people's desktops."
It's not exactly a fair argument I agree, but it is true. If I say "Linux is ready for the desktop," that means something, and it means that most people would be happy with it. right now, there's enough people that are full-fledged members of the linux community that fully admit that as a desktop its not so hot. I spend all my time in the CLI where it's more functional than Windows, but any particular desktop manager I use is merely tolerated. Various amenities like remote X and multiple desktops are things I can't live without anymore, so I happily plod through the rest. However, I don't think those things, however useful, "add value" to using an X desktop for most people. I don't even think it adds value in MY case as a desktop, because I see it more as an indispensable feature that makes me tolerate something I wouldn't have used otherwise. if I want to have a usable desktop on Linux at all, I use X, and I get those features. Thats good, but the rest of it, oh well.
Does this mean that everything rotten thing a company does is permissible UP TO the point they achieve market dominance (as long as they provide a helpful EULA)?
If this is the case, I never again want to hear complaints about the terrible things Microsoft has done before they were actually convicted of monopolistic practices, nor the terrible things they have done in markets where they don't have monopoly status.
Apple does this shit again and again, its despicable business practice, and I'm sick of people glossing over it. Maybe it's not "monoplistic", but its still a crap way of advancing your products over competitors.
Actually, it seems to be all dependant on what app you are using in X, which makes it all the more frustrating.
if I click in the address bar in firebird, it automatically highlights the URL. Now here's the kicker--if I want to copy and paste it to another part of firebird or various other apps, I have to use copy and paste functions. OK, thats fine. But as I found out the other day, it automatically blows away the buffer I use to middle-click paste in xterm! what the hell?!
What makes you think your freedom of speech would be worth anything in the event of a government coup?
What I find even more clear than the wording of the Second Amendment (which I disagree with your interpretation on) is the numerous and repeated acknowledgement by our founders that the second amendment is an individual right in their bids to the colonies for ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
By the way, neither the military nor the police are obligated to protect the individual, but the public at large.
DVD playing sucked ass under OS X for many machines, because Apple never bothered to add support for their own damn hardware acceleration.
This was rectified when It took a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT to get Apple to _partially_ follow through with their pledge to fully support old macs. you want to use 3D acceleration on your iMac? Apple said "f*ck you." It's officially desupported.
The USA is a human rights violator, fine, that can be argued in this case. I don't disagree.
It's just very frustrating. Where were you guys protesting when the Taliban was killing people for owning handheld radios, because I didn't see you.
Last I heard there were two 16 year olds at the camp. They may have been let go now. They were segregated from the rest of the group for their safety.
In my opinion, the child rights violation was by whoever recruited these children. By they time they shoot at someone with an AK-47, there's no reason to consider them less dangerous than anyone else shooting you, or dedicated to destroying the enemies of Islam or whatever they believe.
It seems to me that the Geneva Conventions gives the U.S. the right to do this (the U.N. universal human rights declaration does not.) The Geneva Conventions are a crappy guide in this case, since Aghanistan 1) can't afford uniforms and 2) didn't have a government that the U.S.A. (or almost any other country) recognized.
Not that that's a justification, just that it can be argued otherwise. I also think it's pretty clear that we (the U.S.A.) are taking advantage of this legalism.
I was merely trying to demonstrate that someone who was detained in _truly_ abhorrent conditions would obviously prefer the camp that provided sufficient food and water, hygienic conditions, and reasonable accommodations of their religious needs.
If you are going to be detained, there are far worse places to be. That was the extent of my analogy. My estimation of the conditions of the camps are based on the word of the various human rights organizations that the U.S. government aquisced to and allowed to inspect them. Prisoners have a right to be treated humanely, but they don't have a right to not be prisoners, per se.
After the watchful eyes left for all we know, the rubber hose beating continued. The real issue at hand is, we just don't know what's going on down there. I'm probably at least as bothered by that as you are, so don't get me wrong.
There have been reports of suicides. Those could be explained either by assuming they are being massively mistreated, or alternately that they are religious fanatics, so that doesn't buy us much more information either, unfortunately.
The unfortunate part is, that would be decided by whoever wins. I can almost guarantee that a good number of people detained in Iraq were acting out of perceived self-defense--they probably saw American tanks and vehicles coming, and were acting out of self defense.
In my mind, this is the reason why nearly all of the non-soldier detainees in Iraq were let go, while we are still holding prisoners from Afghanistan. Based on the situation, we made a determination that most Iraqis were forced conscripts or otherwise unwilling combatants, while in Afghanistan they really were illegal combatants.
Either way, the parent post was correct in that the U.N. human rights declaration demands that they actually be charged with something if they are going to be detained. The current jibe is that they are still being interrogated--it seems to everyone like it's taking a really long time if that's even true.
As for mistreatment, so far the complaints have been lack of privacy, having their beards shaved for hygenic reasons, and having their daily care administered by females. If given a choice, I think I know which camp an Auschwitz detainee would choose.
While I agree that by now there ought to have been more transparency by the US govt regarding the Guantanamo Bay detainees by now, if you had SHOT at U.S. soldiers in an engagement in Great Britain, you'd be an illegal combatant. This is pretty much why these people are being detained.
These people were probably by and large draftees, which unfortunately in Afghanistan, meant they weren't going to _get_ a uniform. They certainly have a right to public trial, but by and large they were probably arrested legitimately. I see this more as an indictment of the unfairness of the Geneva Conventions with regard to poor nations, or forces that aren't backed by recognized governments.
It would be a lot easier to classify this as "disgusting" if we knew just what was happening down there. Right now, we don't really know much of anything, which is disturbing on several levels. But isn't disgusting in the way I'd classify the very well documented types of supression that were commonplace under the government these combatants were fighting for.
Generally whats wrong with it is what the speed limit is at any particular place. Statistically speaking, you could drive quite a bit faster than 55MPH on the highway and not increase your risk of accident. It's common sense how fast you can drive and feel safe, and thats why a lot of people break the speed limit within roughly ten miles an hour or so. It's also convenient for the local municipality, because then you can pull over and ticket lots of people, irregardless of the safety of their driving, but simply because they were "breaking the law."
By the way, "drug seizures" were the big way for many years to get extra revenue. The trick was pulling someone over, literally at random, and searching them on suspicion of drug trafficing. Even if nothing was found, they could (and did) impound your vehicle and sell it at auction, as well as confiscate any items or money you had on your person. Several people went to court over this and lost, because it was completely legal for the police to do this. Eventually it outraged enough people that legislatures banned the practice.
Instead of the English classes reading '1984', maybe the f*cking administration should.
Lately I have a hard time believing the slippery slope "fallacy" is actually a fallacy. It's pretty clear where this path is going to take us.
Wow, there were a lot of unsubstantiated allegations in there! As long as we're gonna take that route, Here's a few "facts" that I think PROVE France's weaseliness:
1. France funded both sides of the Aliens vs. Predator war.
2. France had 30% ownership in the Death Star. When Israeli TIE-fighters destroyed it, France was PISSED.
3. France has the world's largest stockpile of green kryptonite, Superman's only weakness. WHY?
4. I have it on good authority that Jaques Chirac stomps smurfs.
I think I've made my point.
The delta wing is only effective at higher speeds is my understanding. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to try to pilot one of these things in crash landing conditions. It probably has no control if its engine is out, like fighter craft and unlike passenger craft. Thats just not safe enough for commercial carrier flight.
They also haven't caught on because flying wing technology has dragged its feet since the advantages have been limited. Add the fact that they are expensive to design and test (especially when your prototypes are crashing all the time), and the only people really left that might be interested is the military.
There is a lot you can do with this technology to make flight faster and more energy efficient, but not really safer or more practical or cheaper.
I don't think you realize just how large the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are. A missile is expected to be intercepted far off the coast, in the upper atmosphere.
We will know pretty quick when a missile is launched. We would've know within seconds if the USSR at the time launched an attack on us, so we could retaliate. Of course, you are right that its hard to hit a missile in midair. Thats another good reason to use lots of them, which is a standard strategy for more reasons than just that. Big bombs are impractical; the blast radius decreases significantly as the tonnage goes up, and is a single point of failure. So...we should do nothing to defend ourselves because we might miss one out of a volley of 20? Good plan. As for who they might be attacking, its a sure bet its not Bangladesh.
People suffering from obesity and high life-expectancy related health problems are still worse off dead from nuclear attack.
China has MFN status because it makes our goods cheaper in peacetime. Obviously trade will be ceased in a war with China. It will not be the end of the United States, because wartime economies supplant lost industries, and it is not common practice to promote blatant commercialism in wartime anyway. MFN status is a convenience for the United States, but you are right in that its ethics are debatable. No consolation for your argument, however.
Incidentally, they already have missiles, so its not foolish to worry they might use them. Anyone who trusts China is dumber than their SAT score insinuates.
I don't believe you even have any understanding of the functions of a nuclear bomb, fallout, or how nuclear missile interceptions work. I responded to your nonsense so it wouldn't pass as an acceptance of incorrectness on my part. I'm not going to bother twice.
First of all, nuclear attacks are ALWAYS intended to be air bursts--they do more damage. If the missile defense intercepts the missile over the Pacific ocean, bordering the edge of space, we can assume that it will not affect the mainland as much as if its burst a mile over the ground. That is what missile defense DOES. The radiation is minimal, especially compared to a fallout producing ground burst. Air burst does produce fallout, but not nearly as much, especially if its in the upper atmosphere.
We used to do plenty of upper-atmosphere tests like this. Yes, for particularly large ones, there was an EM pulse. Again, over the ocean it deosn't effect the mainland as much, unless its a REALLY REALLY big one, which China probably wouldn't use, instead using several smaller ones to try to get through the defense.
These pretty much invalidate your "terminally ill" argument. Incidentally, fallout shelters will protect you from most radiaton, but won't do a damn bit of good against the destructive capacity of a direct explosion.
I'm not going to address your moronic economic argument.
You should just shut up now, you are embarrasing yourself.