Dumbass alot of things aren't specificly defined in the constitution, should all those laws be struck down?
By your logic, murder would be legal because the constitution doesn't say its not
Ummm...just so you know, in general murder is *not* prohibited by the Federal government. It's a state law, which is in line with the Constitution. To wit:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Amendment X, for the record)
what gives you the right to charge me more than the other guy over there?
They aren't charging you more. You're both being charged the same list price. Go look at the shelves and read the price tags; does it say anything about "$6.99, unless your Slashdot UID is 654768, in which case it's $7.99?" Didn't think so.
I smell a scam in the whole rebate card system. I can't prove it and I can't yet begin to think what purpose it serves but it just reeks of a scam. Any time strings are placed on discounts there's some old guy behind a curtain laughing his way to the bank at the participants' expense.
Scam, nothing, and the purpose is obvious. The "discounts" are the store buying data from the customer. "In exchange for some information that we find valuable, we'll give you this much money." It's quite clear what they're doing, and any customer who can't figure it out is a fool. It's an honest exchange in a fair market: the stores want data, the customers want money. The stores and customers agree on a price, and the deal is made. Some customers don't like what they're offered for their data, and decline to make the deal. I posit that you are one of those customers; congratulations, you're demonstrating the freedom of the market. If the store's desire for information really was backed up by "a strongarm government Guido-boy behind [it]," you wouldn't get to say "no, thanks."
Ignorant? I think not--the store knows quite well what it's getting, and what it's offering. Opportunistic? Well, duh; it's called "business," and when you are in business, you have to recognize and avail yourself of opportinities as they present themselves if you want to be successful. "The right to charge more?" Well, even though I've already answered your claim of discriminatory pricing, anybody has a right to charge whatever price he thinks the market will bear; just like any consumer has the right to decline that opportunity to buy, or to make a counteroffer. Now, I doubt the store will accept your counteroffer--most aren't set up to do such things, even if they wanted to--but you can do it. If enough people refuse to buy, the store will either A) realize that people don't like the offer it's presenting, and change it, or B) fail.
In any case, this all boils down to a free market; the store wants something, and most people are willing to take the deal offered. If you're not willing to do it, that's your prerogative. For the record, I'm unwilling to do it myself. That's my prerogative. I certainly don't go about whining that I'm being "strong-armed" by a "government Guido-boy," though, or that I'm being "scammed."
Hint: shooting someone just because they broke into your house might just be considered an overreaction by some people. If they're threatening you, or if you have reasonably grounds for thinking that deadly force is necessary in self-defense, you can put your.45 caliber holes in their chests....And I seriously doubt you'll find many juries who look on that sort of thing sympathetically.
Depends on the state; here in Oklahoma (motto: we're NOT Texas!), we have a law flippantly called the "make my day" law; under that law, anybody entering your house without permission is presumed to be there with the capability and intent to do you harm, and can be shot upon entry. This includes the neighbor-kid-breaking-in-on-a-lark, and that's been tested in court; the shooter was acquitted. The rationale for the law is that it is unreasonable for a man, in his own house, to be forced to take the time to ascertain whether the intruder, who is already breaking in (and thus has the tactical advantage of surprise), is friendly, or hostile. Many states have the same, or similar, laws.
The situation you give, the daughter's friend, is a little iffier, because she was there before you got home; by a strict reading of the law, it's a righteous shoot, but as a practical matter, it would be both legally and tactically wiser to back out of the house. As a practical matter, unless you carry your gun on your person (security/police officer, concealed carry permit, or other lawful carry), you'd have to go get the thing before you could shoot, and that would be sufficient time to ascertain the threat; further, in that situation, you'd be expected to have some clue of what the other people in your house are doing. If you live alone, though, or it's an intruder at night, you are legally empowered to shoot first and ask questions later, and that is tactically the wisest course of action. Check your state laws for details.
Bonus point: the etymology of the phrase "breaking an entering" has nothing to do with "breaking," as in damaging, anything. Rather, it comes from the idea of "breaking the threshold," or crossing the line defined by the plane of the doors and windows; it's really just another synonym for entering. As soon as you get one toe through the door, you've "broken" the threshold, and, at least in this state, you're a threat.
OK, I can play linky-linky too. For example, this one, showing Microsoft's total contributions, by party, since 1990. Things you might find interesting: this year, MS has given $428,545 to the Republicans; and $524,957 to Democrats. Yes, that's right, almost one hundred thousand dollars more to Democrats than to Republicans. In 2000 (when Bush was elected), their donations were fairly evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Prior to 1996, their donations favored Democrats, particularly in 1992, when 77% of donations went to Democrats. Significance? Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, and the MS antitrust suits started under his watch. Even in 1996, when Clinton was up for re-election, MS's giving slightly favored the Democrats.
The point? You can't assume that MS's giving was the reason the breakup option was taken off the table. There could be many reasons--given the size of MS's bottom line, and market share, destroying the company could have significant negative consequences on the economy; such a breakup might have been an unattainable goal (legally or practically), so it wasn't worth wasting time on; other options might have been more corrective. The point is, you don't know why that option was removed from consideration, and your presentation of MS's political donation, out of context, is intellectually dishonest. I would suggest that anybody interested in the parent poster's comments follow the link I provided, and also look at the finance histories of all of the candidates for the past few cycles. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; a lot of knowledge will help you make informed decisions.
What exactly is your strategy for defending yourself against a government run amok when they possess tanks, heavy artilley, high-performance aircraft, a formidable navy, well-trained infantry, extremely capable commando units, high explosives, germ warfare stockpiles, and nuclear weapons?
Tell me what the following all have in common:
The US, circa 1776
Norht Vietnam, circa 1960
Mogadishu, circa 1993
Here's a hint: in all of the above, the stronger, more powerful force lost, because the weaker force A) was more determined, and B) used tactics designed to minimize the enemy's power and, in many cases, use his own strength against him. Good tactical planning is an amazing thing, and dogged determination is even more powerful. Don't underestimate the value of either; further, do you *really* think that an American F-16 driver is going to drop a nuke on the US? Certainly not any one I've ever met (and, as crew on an airshow aircraft, I've met quote a few). I honestly can't see a Tienenman Square situation in this country, because I think our officers would refuse to give such orders, and the tankers would refuse to follow them if given. The incident at Kent State sent a powerful message to the men and women of the armed forces, and I think they learned a lot from it, enough that they wouldn't do it again. Incidentally, the people with the most powerful weaponry, the most deadly training (i.e. SpecOps), the greatest ability to do damage, are also typically the smartest, most thoughtful people in the service; receiving an officer's commission generally requires a college degree, and training designed to not only familiarize the soldier with the weapon system, but the also the rules of warfare and the conditions of release of that weapon. Officers are encouraged to think critically, and are required to defy any illegal order--if they follow one, they are guilty of a crime under the UCMJ.
So yes, a smaller, less-capable force is entirely capable of beating the mighty US military; history has provided numerous examples of just how to do it.
Not necessarily. Several of mine are/designed/ to punch holes in paper at long range with phenomenal accuracy; chambered for.22 rimfire, they lack the power to be even remotely effective for killing anything larger than, say, a rabbit; furthermore, their construction (polished, carefully crafted wooden stocks, and polished, blued barrels) make them poorly suited for hunting purposes, which, as we've already established, is the only way they'd be effective in killing; these guns are/designed/ for target shooting (which, last I checked, is an Olympic sport; given that today is Superbowl Sunday, I think it bears reminder that (American) football isn't). I have shotguns of similar construction, very beautiful pieces of steel and walnut that would quickly rust or be damaged if taken hunting under less-than-ideal conditions (i.e. most hunting trips); they make great trap and skeet guns, though (which are also Olympic sports). Ditto with pistols; I've shot some that, while originally designed for military use (Colt 1911-framed.45 automatics), are so heavily modified that they are wholly unsuitable for carry; large scopes, extremely light triggers, added weight, and the like. Fine pistols for competition shooting, though. Guess what? Olympic sport (note: that link takes you to the list of Olympic shooting sports).
So no, I don't have to admit that guns are designed to kill. Some are, yes, but in reality, all guns are designed merely to deliver one or more projectiles to a target located some variable distance away in a predictable manner, and deliver energy to that target. How much energy and the choice of target are the questions; the amount of energy is determined by the designer when he writes the specifications (and also the shooter, when he chooses the caliber), and the choice of target is entirely up to the shooter. Blades are designed to separate one object into two or more; I haven't heard people call for knife or axe control laws, though.
make it so restrictive that even my microwave will buzz my connection (802.11).
Actually, that was the fault of the standard writers and manufacturers. 2.4 GHz was allocated years ago as unlicensed spectrum for "industrial" use, like microwave heating systems (i.e. ovens). It was some time after that designation that people realized "hey, this is unregulated; we can put our radios up here and not worry about licenses!" So they did. Now everybody's in there, and complaining about interference. If they'd just shown a little foresight, asked for a new frequency allocation, it wouldn't have been a problem.
I think he's entitled to lie about it, because IMHO the question should not have been asked.
Not even as part of an investigation into allegations of criminal rape (see also: Juanita Broaderick)?
The question was legitimate. And, even if it isn't, you're not entitled to lie about it while under oath; the appropriate course of action would be to decline to answer. But, as I said, the whole sordid affair came about in due course of a rape investigation, and an investigation into Clinton's obstruction of same.
The Florida election results clearly showed the problems with punch card voting.
Actually, according to a study by MIT and CalTech, punch cards are comparable to other voting methods, and, depending upon who you believe, possibly better. Though I've been unable to find the study itself, I've seen it mentioned by Neal Boortz and others. (I've not been able to find the study; nonetheless, I've found Boortz to be accurate in his facts more often than not.) Punch cards actually come out on top of the other methods.
However, many of these problems were due to poor ballot design...
Enh; I don't know. The infamous "butterfly ballot" certainly seemed simple enough to me, and to the third graders to whom it was shown, and to the Democratic Party officials who designed and approved it, and nobody seemed to complain when it was published in the newspaper, but I'm sure I'm missing something.
...poor maintenance of voting equipment...,
Imagine that...you have to maintain a mechanical device. This ought to be a crime, at least of negligence.
...or poor training or [should this be "of"] poll workers and voters.
Poor training of poll workers? Admittedly, I've not been one, but it seems simple enough. If not, then this falls under the same "negligence" bit, as above. Poor training of the voters? As I said, the ballot seemed clear enough; if the voters couldn't figure it out, then I suppose we ought to be pointing fingers at the schools for turning out uneducated graduates. Further, if they couldn't understand, and couldn't be arsed to ask the poll workers for help, well, if they don't care that much, if they can't be bothered to check their votes, do we really want them voting? I don't mean that as flamebait--if you take the time to consider your vote, and act carefully to get it right, why should somebody else, who had no idea for whom they voted, have just as much say?
A private pilots license, is required for operation of the TAERO.
That Private license also needs to include a type rating. As other people have correctly pointed out, the J85 is a turbofan engine. FAA regulations (I'm too lazy to go look up the specific code, but it's in Part 61) require that the pilot-in-command of any turbojet-powered aircraft have a type rating for the type (turbojet includes turbofan, in this case).
How many people are going to want to spend two weeks at FlightSafety so they can learn to drive their cars?
So I truly, honestly, believe that black people are inferior to whites and therefore I, in my official capacity as a government employee, do my best to ensure that benefits and such go to white people and not black people. Should I be punished for what I believe in?
No.
You should, however, be punished for what you do. There's a world of difference there; one is thoughtcrime, the other is an action. Or, to borrow a phrase, "Thier ACTIONS are reprehensible, at least to me. Thier motives aren't really relevent."
If you can find a single white person who believes that, then I'll believe you.
Sign me up.
As a would-be airline pilot and white male, I'd happily trade places with a black female. If I did so, UPS would hire me with only 800 hours, instead of the ~3500 hours they list as a "competitive minimum," which only applies to white males (this from a close personal friend, who is a captain for UPS, and who met the black women in captain school). Or just about any instructor; a black flight instructor of mind got a job with under a thousand hours flying for the regionals, when other instructors of my acquaintence can't get a job with 2500 hours, to say nothing of the fact that the black one had little-to-no turbine time.
So, where do I sign?
Re:Modern mail needed fast transportation.
on
Snail Mail Tech
·
· Score: 1
(the cargo holds of many airliners flying in the USA often carry large sacks of First Class letters and small packages)
Not anymore. A couple of years ago, FedEx got the contract to move all US Mail. Go to the Post Office, you're going FedEx. Most of the airlines were more than a little upset about this, as the gov't had been paying them to carry mail, and since there was no additional cost associated with doing so (since they were going anyway), it amounted to free money for them.
Interestingly enough, with all the debate about pilots carrying guns, it used to be required that they do so, and they were issued.38 revolvers. The rule was that anybody carrying mail had to be armed, and that included airline pilots whose aircraft were transporting mail.
scove [sic] your [sic] obviously missing that the government will help subsidize this cost and it wont [sic] cost people any where near this amount.
And you, Mr. Coward, are obviously missing the fact that we are the government. Government subsidies don't reduce costs. They merely disguise them. Think about it: where does the government get its money? Here's a free hint: April 15. If the government needs to subsidize this to the tune of a hundred bucks a month (using scoove's estimate, which I consider generous), then taxes will have to increase by $1200/year/subscriber.
When will people learn that government subsidies do not reduce costs. Ever. Government subsidies disguise costs, and shift costs to other people (people who may or may not benefit from the service), but they never reduce costs.
Many of the most interesting applications of the internet are based on the concept of many participants entering small bits of information and reviewing other information. You're using one of these systems right now.
And, in case you failed to notice, it's supported, in no small part, by banner ads.
If I said that *no* home invasions were prevented by gun ownership last year, it would be just as valid a claim.... And you just make that half up as you go along as well.
He's not making it up; the "official" number is approximately 2.5 million "defensive gun uses" per year. Yes, he should have backed up his claim; he didn't, so
I will. That link goes to a site with numerous citations from the National Self Defense Survey (conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994). Further, Handgun Control International, in association with the Clinton Justice Department, tried to discredit the study. Their findings supported the NSDS study, and in one marvelous paragraph even suggested that the study might dramatically understate the truth:
"Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender....Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs."
Further, other criminologists reviewed the study; self-avowed gun-control advocate Marvin Wolfgang, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, said of the study:
"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police....The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator....I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected....The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
I don't care for the format of that site; it is emotional and, at times, inflammatory (not to mention gaudy as all hell), but the data cited has survived criticism by some of the toughest and most agenda-minded individuals around. Since the previous poster failed to mention these studies to back up his claims, I've done so here for your perusal.
"...one must consider the worst-case scenario with such things."
True, worst-case must be considered. Far more important, though, is the "average case." This is the weighted average of all of the possibilities, accounting for their likelihood. Essentially, this minimizes the effects of the worst-case scenario in proportion to its chance of occurring.
By way of (entirely hypothetical, made-up, no-actual-valid-data) example, say the worst-case scenario with this nuclear device is to kill ten thousand people, and it has a probability of one in ten-million (obviously, this would be a once-in-the-lifetime-of-the-device event). Say also that diesel exhaust kills one person over the life of the generator (depending on the size of the generator, but remember, this is entirely made up). This happens fifty percent of the time. Using these totally random numbers, the nuclear device is favorable: it kills an average of 1/1000 person, while the diesel generator kills 1/2.
Obviously, we don't want to kill anybody. However, remember that those diesels pollute constantly (as a consequence of internal combustion), and that pollution has consequences. By correlating the events with their probabilities, we get a much more accurate picture of the situation, and can make an informed judgement.
(Another, less hypothetical example. Tomorrow, a hijacker takes over an airplane. There's a non-zero chance (though not absolutely certain) that he wants to pull a WTC. Given that the airplane has fifty people on board, and there are ten thousand in the building, do you, as the C-in-C, tell the F-16 driver to shoot it down?)
Here's a thought for ya. Culled mostly from other posts here on Slashdot, with a little bit of glue code to really make it hurt.
Take, say, Nachi. Exploits a remote roothole to infect without any interaction from the user. Now, write it so that it doesn't crash the system (which it doesn't; Nachi applies the patch to close the hole behind itself, then starts blast-casting itself). You now have a system that will run arbitrary code for an indefinite period of time. So far, nothing new. Here's the scary part:
The arbitrary code wipes your drive. As pointed out in this post (I don't vouch for its veracity; I'm not a programmer, 'specially not in ASM), the code to wipe a drive is about 12 lines of ASM. You could also mess with the BIOS.
Now, put that code on a delay of random(1-5) days from date of infection, so it doesn't get caught immediately. Also, add a two or three days from the time of initial release to give it some spreading time before anything starts getting deleted. This way, it propagates thoroughly before people really know what's going on. All this time, it should be blast-casting itself to infect as many hosts as possible.
Now, the really fun part: when it infects a host, it should open a port (possibly random) and run a daemon to listen for incoming connections. As the infected system broadcasts itself, it should modify the code with its own IP address. The new client will then call home, back to the machine that infected it, to check on its status. If the host is unreachable for, say, two hours, it should assume that its parent has been discovered, and that efforts are underway to clean it. (It should try to contact the server upon initial infection to ensure there's a path back, to prevent premature triggering as a result of NAT, firewalls, etc.) It should also look for attempts to find its directory, run virus scanners, patch the original hole, disconnect it from the network (have it ping its router or somesuch), etc. If it detects a threat to itself, it will run its payload immediately, destroying the data on the machine, preferably in a manner such that recovering the virus code will be impossible (to slow reverse-engineering); possibly combine with encrypted code and cryptographic wiping. You could also pass data to it through this connection, to change the code or give immediate execution instructions. This would have to be done carefully, lest a bad host or a dialup user trigger premature execution.
For bonus points, have the virus silently make minor changes to files, instead of simply wiping the drive. Maybe some of those changes can make it to the backup snapshots before things are discovered. Depends on which is more damaging. Alternatively, write a client that will run for an hour, change a few files and infect the world, then securely delete itself (but leave the hole open), so that the damage, and even the infection, goes unnoticed.
This is a hardcore malicious attack. So far, everything's been skript kiddiez, just playing around. Anybody who's going to write something like this is going for the jugular, so assume he'll do the same thing for the initial infection. Give him about three dozen people (hrm, where could we possibly find three dozen people who'd like to bring the USA to an economic standstill?) armed with laptops with ethernet and 802.11b connections. Send a half-dozen to Washington, DC; New York; Dallas; LA; and Seattle with a list of wireless hotspots (go through the airports: business travellers with laptops. Score!) and public access areas (libraries, universities (the student union and libraries are popular places to have open access), Starbucks, and cybercafes). Send the rest out roaming; universities are great (University of Oklahoma has publicly-avialable connections in the union, both wired and wireless). Have them all start operating at about the same time, and infecting every available host. Hitting laptops and suc
Really? I was thinking of a different word: "ridiculous."
Honestly, I don't see why it's so difficult to use a dictionary, especially when there's a perfectly good one available on the web, a medium to which you clearly have access.
Slashdot Mirror
Dumbass alot of things aren't specificly defined in the constitution, should all those laws be struck down?
By your logic, murder would be legal because the constitution doesn't say its not
Ummm...just so you know, in general murder is *not* prohibited by the Federal government. It's a state law, which is in line with the Constitution. To wit:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Amendment X, for the record)
is that they have a version that is licensed as a motorvehicle in California.
You're impressed that California found a way to tax this thing? I'd be impressed if the builders found a way to avoid it.
what gives you the right to charge me more than the other guy over there?
They aren't charging you more. You're both being charged the same list price. Go look at the shelves and read the price tags; does it say anything about "$6.99, unless your Slashdot UID is 654768, in which case it's $7.99?" Didn't think so.
I smell a scam in the whole rebate card system. I can't prove it and I can't yet begin to think what purpose it serves but it just reeks of a scam. Any time strings are placed on discounts there's some old guy behind a curtain laughing his way to the bank at the participants' expense.
Scam, nothing, and the purpose is obvious. The "discounts" are the store buying data from the customer. "In exchange for some information that we find valuable, we'll give you this much money." It's quite clear what they're doing, and any customer who can't figure it out is a fool. It's an honest exchange in a fair market: the stores want data, the customers want money. The stores and customers agree on a price, and the deal is made. Some customers don't like what they're offered for their data, and decline to make the deal. I posit that you are one of those customers; congratulations, you're demonstrating the freedom of the market. If the store's desire for information really was backed up by "a strongarm government Guido-boy behind [it]," you wouldn't get to say "no, thanks."
Ignorant? I think not--the store knows quite well what it's getting, and what it's offering. Opportunistic? Well, duh; it's called "business," and when you are in business, you have to recognize and avail yourself of opportinities as they present themselves if you want to be successful. "The right to charge more?" Well, even though I've already answered your claim of discriminatory pricing, anybody has a right to charge whatever price he thinks the market will bear; just like any consumer has the right to decline that opportunity to buy, or to make a counteroffer. Now, I doubt the store will accept your counteroffer--most aren't set up to do such things, even if they wanted to--but you can do it. If enough people refuse to buy, the store will either A) realize that people don't like the offer it's presenting, and change it, or B) fail.
In any case, this all boils down to a free market; the store wants something, and most people are willing to take the deal offered. If you're not willing to do it, that's your prerogative. For the record, I'm unwilling to do it myself. That's my prerogative. I certainly don't go about whining that I'm being "strong-armed" by a "government Guido-boy," though, or that I'm being "scammed."
Hint: shooting someone just because they broke into your house might just be considered an overreaction by some people. If they're threatening you, or if you have reasonably grounds for thinking that deadly force is necessary in self-defense, you can put your .45 caliber holes in their chests....And I seriously doubt you'll find many juries who look on that sort of thing sympathetically.
Depends on the state; here in Oklahoma (motto: we're NOT Texas!), we have a law flippantly called the "make my day" law; under that law, anybody entering your house without permission is presumed to be there with the capability and intent to do you harm, and can be shot upon entry. This includes the neighbor-kid-breaking-in-on-a-lark, and that's been tested in court; the shooter was acquitted. The rationale for the law is that it is unreasonable for a man, in his own house, to be forced to take the time to ascertain whether the intruder, who is already breaking in (and thus has the tactical advantage of surprise), is friendly, or hostile. Many states have the same, or similar, laws.
The situation you give, the daughter's friend, is a little iffier, because she was there before you got home; by a strict reading of the law, it's a righteous shoot, but as a practical matter, it would be both legally and tactically wiser to back out of the house. As a practical matter, unless you carry your gun on your person (security/police officer, concealed carry permit, or other lawful carry), you'd have to go get the thing before you could shoot, and that would be sufficient time to ascertain the threat; further, in that situation, you'd be expected to have some clue of what the other people in your house are doing. If you live alone, though, or it's an intruder at night, you are legally empowered to shoot first and ask questions later, and that is tactically the wisest course of action. Check your state laws for details.
Bonus point: the etymology of the phrase "breaking an entering" has nothing to do with "breaking," as in damaging, anything. Rather, it comes from the idea of "breaking the threshold," or crossing the line defined by the plane of the doors and windows; it's really just another synonym for entering. As soon as you get one toe through the door, you've "broken" the threshold, and, at least in this state, you're a threat.
OK, I can play linky-linky too. For example, this one, showing Microsoft's total contributions, by party, since 1990. Things you might find interesting: this year, MS has given $428,545 to the Republicans; and $524,957 to Democrats. Yes, that's right, almost one hundred thousand dollars more to Democrats than to Republicans. In 2000 (when Bush was elected), their donations were fairly evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Prior to 1996, their donations favored Democrats, particularly in 1992, when 77% of donations went to Democrats. Significance? Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, and the MS antitrust suits started under his watch. Even in 1996, when Clinton was up for re-election, MS's giving slightly favored the Democrats.
The point? You can't assume that MS's giving was the reason the breakup option was taken off the table. There could be many reasons--given the size of MS's bottom line, and market share, destroying the company could have significant negative consequences on the economy; such a breakup might have been an unattainable goal (legally or practically), so it wasn't worth wasting time on; other options might have been more corrective. The point is, you don't know why that option was removed from consideration, and your presentation of MS's political donation, out of context, is intellectually dishonest. I would suggest that anybody interested in the parent poster's comments follow the link I provided, and also look at the finance histories of all of the candidates for the past few cycles. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; a lot of knowledge will help you make informed decisions.
What exactly is your strategy for defending yourself against a government run amok when they possess tanks, heavy artilley, high-performance aircraft, a formidable navy, well-trained infantry, extremely capable commando units, high explosives, germ warfare stockpiles, and nuclear weapons?
Tell me what the following all have in common:
Here's a hint: in all of the above, the stronger, more powerful force lost, because the weaker force A) was more determined, and B) used tactics designed to minimize the enemy's power and, in many cases, use his own strength against him. Good tactical planning is an amazing thing, and dogged determination is even more powerful. Don't underestimate the value of either; further, do you *really* think that an American F-16 driver is going to drop a nuke on the US? Certainly not any one I've ever met (and, as crew on an airshow aircraft, I've met quote a few). I honestly can't see a Tienenman Square situation in this country, because I think our officers would refuse to give such orders, and the tankers would refuse to follow them if given. The incident at Kent State sent a powerful message to the men and women of the armed forces, and I think they learned a lot from it, enough that they wouldn't do it again. Incidentally, the people with the most powerful weaponry, the most deadly training (i.e. SpecOps), the greatest ability to do damage, are also typically the smartest, most thoughtful people in the service; receiving an officer's commission generally requires a college degree, and training designed to not only familiarize the soldier with the weapon system, but the also the rules of warfare and the conditions of release of that weapon. Officers are encouraged to think critically, and are required to defy any illegal order--if they follow one, they are guilty of a crime under the UCMJ.
So yes, a smaller, less-capable force is entirely capable of beating the mighty US military; history has provided numerous examples of just how to do it.
Guns are /designed/ to kill.
Not necessarily. Several of mine are /designed/ to punch holes in paper at long range with phenomenal accuracy; chambered for .22 rimfire, they lack the power to be even remotely effective for killing anything larger than, say, a rabbit; furthermore, their construction (polished, carefully crafted wooden stocks, and polished, blued barrels) make them poorly suited for hunting purposes, which, as we've already established, is the only way they'd be effective in killing; these guns are /designed/ for target shooting (which, last I checked, is an Olympic sport; given that today is Superbowl Sunday, I think it bears reminder that (American) football isn't). I have shotguns of similar construction, very beautiful pieces of steel and walnut that would quickly rust or be damaged if taken hunting under less-than-ideal conditions (i.e. most hunting trips); they make great trap and skeet guns, though (which are also Olympic sports). Ditto with pistols; I've shot some that, while originally designed for military use (Colt 1911-framed .45 automatics), are so heavily modified that they are wholly unsuitable for carry; large scopes, extremely light triggers, added weight, and the like. Fine pistols for competition shooting, though. Guess what? Olympic sport (note: that link takes you to the list of Olympic shooting sports).
So no, I don't have to admit that guns are designed to kill. Some are, yes, but in reality, all guns are designed merely to deliver one or more projectiles to a target located some variable distance away in a predictable manner, and deliver energy to that target. How much energy and the choice of target are the questions; the amount of energy is determined by the designer when he writes the specifications (and also the shooter, when he chooses the caliber), and the choice of target is entirely up to the shooter. Blades are designed to separate one object into two or more; I haven't heard people call for knife or axe control laws, though.
make it so restrictive that even my microwave will buzz my connection (802.11).
Actually, that was the fault of the standard writers and manufacturers. 2.4 GHz was allocated years ago as unlicensed spectrum for "industrial" use, like microwave heating systems (i.e. ovens). It was some time after that designation that people realized "hey, this is unregulated; we can put our radios up here and not worry about licenses!" So they did. Now everybody's in there, and complaining about interference. If they'd just shown a little foresight, asked for a new frequency allocation, it wouldn't have been a problem.
Were you bleeding from the rectum?
I think he's entitled to lie about it, because IMHO the question should not have been asked.
Not even as part of an investigation into allegations of criminal rape (see also: Juanita Broaderick)?
The question was legitimate. And, even if it isn't, you're not entitled to lie about it while under oath; the appropriate course of action would be to decline to answer. But, as I said, the whole sordid affair came about in due course of a rape investigation, and an investigation into Clinton's obstruction of same.
The Florida election results clearly showed the problems with punch card voting.
Actually, according to a study by MIT and CalTech, punch cards are comparable to other voting methods, and, depending upon who you believe, possibly better. Though I've been unable to find the study itself, I've seen it mentioned by Neal Boortz and others. (I've not been able to find the study; nonetheless, I've found Boortz to be accurate in his facts more often than not.) Punch cards actually come out on top of the other methods.
However, many of these problems were due to poor ballot design...
Enh; I don't know. The infamous "butterfly ballot" certainly seemed simple enough to me, and to the third graders to whom it was shown, and to the Democratic Party officials who designed and approved it, and nobody seemed to complain when it was published in the newspaper, but I'm sure I'm missing something.
Imagine that...you have to maintain a mechanical device. This ought to be a crime, at least of negligence.
Poor training of poll workers? Admittedly, I've not been one, but it seems simple enough. If not, then this falls under the same "negligence" bit, as above. Poor training of the voters? As I said, the ballot seemed clear enough; if the voters couldn't figure it out, then I suppose we ought to be pointing fingers at the schools for turning out uneducated graduates. Further, if they couldn't understand, and couldn't be arsed to ask the poll workers for help, well, if they don't care that much, if they can't be bothered to check their votes, do we really want them voting? I don't mean that as flamebait--if you take the time to consider your vote, and act carefully to get it right, why should somebody else, who had no idea for whom they voted, have just as much say?
A private pilots license, is required for operation of the TAERO.
That Private license also needs to include a type rating. As other people have correctly pointed out, the J85 is a turbofan engine. FAA regulations (I'm too lazy to go look up the specific code, but it's in Part 61) require that the pilot-in-command of any turbojet-powered aircraft have a type rating for the type (turbojet includes turbofan, in this case).
How many people are going to want to spend two weeks at FlightSafety so they can learn to drive their cars?
Let me guess...you're a criminal defense lawyer, looking to build a new practice, right?
So I truly, honestly, believe that black people are inferior to whites and therefore I, in my official capacity as a government employee, do my best to ensure that benefits and such go to white people and not black people. Should I be punished for what I believe in?
No.
You should, however, be punished for what you do. There's a world of difference there; one is thoughtcrime, the other is an action. Or, to borrow a phrase, "Thier ACTIONS are reprehensible, at least to me. Thier motives aren't really relevent."
On any given page, there can be what seems like 50-100 links!
That's OK, nobody reads them anyway.
If you can find a single white person who believes that, then I'll believe you.
Sign me up.
As a would-be airline pilot and white male, I'd happily trade places with a black female. If I did so, UPS would hire me with only 800 hours, instead of the ~3500 hours they list as a "competitive minimum," which only applies to white males (this from a close personal friend, who is a captain for UPS, and who met the black women in captain school). Or just about any instructor; a black flight instructor of mind got a job with under a thousand hours flying for the regionals, when other instructors of my acquaintence can't get a job with 2500 hours, to say nothing of the fact that the black one had little-to-no turbine time.
So, where do I sign?
(the cargo holds of many airliners flying in the USA often carry large sacks of First Class letters and small packages)
Not anymore. A couple of years ago, FedEx got the contract to move all US Mail. Go to the Post Office, you're going FedEx. Most of the airlines were more than a little upset about this, as the gov't had been paying them to carry mail, and since there was no additional cost associated with doing so (since they were going anyway), it amounted to free money for them.
Interestingly enough, with all the debate about pilots carrying guns, it used to be required that they do so, and they were issued .38 revolvers. The rule was that anybody carrying mail had to be armed, and that included airline pilots whose aircraft were transporting mail.
scove [sic] your [sic] obviously missing that the government will help subsidize this cost and it wont [sic] cost people any where near this amount.
And you, Mr. Coward, are obviously missing the fact that we are the government. Government subsidies don't reduce costs. They merely disguise them. Think about it: where does the government get its money? Here's a free hint: April 15. If the government needs to subsidize this to the tune of a hundred bucks a month (using scoove's estimate, which I consider generous), then taxes will have to increase by $1200/year/subscriber.
When will people learn that government subsidies do not reduce costs. Ever. Government subsidies disguise costs, and shift costs to other people (people who may or may not benefit from the service), but they never reduce costs.
Slashdot editors? Journalists? I have no idea what you are talking about.
Neither do they.
Many of the most interesting applications of the internet are based on the concept of many participants entering small bits of information and reviewing other information. You're using one of these systems right now.
And, in case you failed to notice, it's supported, in no small part, by banner ads.
QED.
If I said that *no* home invasions were prevented by gun ownership last year, it would be just as valid a claim.... And you just make that half up as you go along as well.
He's not making it up; the "official" number is approximately 2.5 million "defensive gun uses" per year. Yes, he should have backed up his claim; he didn't, so I will. That link goes to a site with numerous citations from the National Self Defense Survey (conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994). Further, Handgun Control International, in association with the Clinton Justice Department, tried to discredit the study. Their findings supported the NSDS study, and in one marvelous paragraph even suggested that the study might dramatically understate the truth:
Further, other criminologists reviewed the study; self-avowed gun-control advocate Marvin Wolfgang, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, said of the study:
I don't care for the format of that site; it is emotional and, at times, inflammatory (not to mention gaudy as all hell), but the data cited has survived criticism by some of the toughest and most agenda-minded individuals around. Since the previous poster failed to mention these studies to back up his claims, I've done so here for your perusal.
"...one must consider the worst-case scenario with such things."
True, worst-case must be considered. Far more important, though, is the "average case." This is the weighted average of all of the possibilities, accounting for their likelihood. Essentially, this minimizes the effects of the worst-case scenario in proportion to its chance of occurring.
By way of (entirely hypothetical, made-up, no-actual-valid-data) example, say the worst-case scenario with this nuclear device is to kill ten thousand people, and it has a probability of one in ten-million (obviously, this would be a once-in-the-lifetime-of-the-device event). Say also that diesel exhaust kills one person over the life of the generator (depending on the size of the generator, but remember, this is entirely made up). This happens fifty percent of the time. Using these totally random numbers, the nuclear device is favorable: it kills an average of 1/1000 person, while the diesel generator kills 1/2.
Obviously, we don't want to kill anybody. However, remember that those diesels pollute constantly (as a consequence of internal combustion), and that pollution has consequences. By correlating the events with their probabilities, we get a much more accurate picture of the situation, and can make an informed judgement.
(Another, less hypothetical example. Tomorrow, a hijacker takes over an airplane. There's a non-zero chance (though not absolutely certain) that he wants to pull a WTC. Given that the airplane has fifty people on board, and there are ten thousand in the building, do you, as the C-in-C, tell the F-16 driver to shoot it down?)
This sounds like a Jon Katz piece!
Here's a thought for ya. Culled mostly from other posts here on Slashdot, with a little bit of glue code to really make it hurt.
Take, say, Nachi. Exploits a remote roothole to infect without any interaction from the user. Now, write it so that it doesn't crash the system (which it doesn't; Nachi applies the patch to close the hole behind itself, then starts blast-casting itself). You now have a system that will run arbitrary code for an indefinite period of time. So far, nothing new. Here's the scary part:
The arbitrary code wipes your drive. As pointed out in this post (I don't vouch for its veracity; I'm not a programmer, 'specially not in ASM), the code to wipe a drive is about 12 lines of ASM. You could also mess with the BIOS.
Now, put that code on a delay of random(1-5) days from date of infection, so it doesn't get caught immediately. Also, add a two or three days from the time of initial release to give it some spreading time before anything starts getting deleted. This way, it propagates thoroughly before people really know what's going on. All this time, it should be blast-casting itself to infect as many hosts as possible.
Now, the really fun part: when it infects a host, it should open a port (possibly random) and run a daemon to listen for incoming connections. As the infected system broadcasts itself, it should modify the code with its own IP address. The new client will then call home, back to the machine that infected it, to check on its status. If the host is unreachable for, say, two hours, it should assume that its parent has been discovered, and that efforts are underway to clean it. (It should try to contact the server upon initial infection to ensure there's a path back, to prevent premature triggering as a result of NAT, firewalls, etc.) It should also look for attempts to find its directory, run virus scanners, patch the original hole, disconnect it from the network (have it ping its router or somesuch), etc. If it detects a threat to itself, it will run its payload immediately, destroying the data on the machine, preferably in a manner such that recovering the virus code will be impossible (to slow reverse-engineering); possibly combine with encrypted code and cryptographic wiping. You could also pass data to it through this connection, to change the code or give immediate execution instructions. This would have to be done carefully, lest a bad host or a dialup user trigger premature execution.
For bonus points, have the virus silently make minor changes to files, instead of simply wiping the drive. Maybe some of those changes can make it to the backup snapshots before things are discovered. Depends on which is more damaging. Alternatively, write a client that will run for an hour, change a few files and infect the world, then securely delete itself (but leave the hole open), so that the damage, and even the infection, goes unnoticed.
This is a hardcore malicious attack. So far, everything's been skript kiddiez, just playing around. Anybody who's going to write something like this is going for the jugular, so assume he'll do the same thing for the initial infection. Give him about three dozen people (hrm, where could we possibly find three dozen people who'd like to bring the USA to an economic standstill?) armed with laptops with ethernet and 802.11b connections. Send a half-dozen to Washington, DC; New York; Dallas; LA; and Seattle with a list of wireless hotspots (go through the airports: business travellers with laptops. Score!) and public access areas (libraries, universities (the student union and libraries are popular places to have open access), Starbucks, and cybercafes). Send the rest out roaming; universities are great (University of Oklahoma has publicly-avialable connections in the union, both wired and wireless). Have them all start operating at about the same time, and infecting every available host. Hitting laptops and suc
"'Rediculous' would be a better word."
Really? I was thinking of a different word: "ridiculous."
Honestly, I don't see why it's so difficult to use a dictionary, especially when there's a perfectly good one available on the web, a medium to which you clearly have access.