Mega Man has the same problem... you'd think after the 3rd or 4th game he'd figure out that Wily will keep getting out of prison and cranking out more robot masters to beat, so why start from scratch each time? Either keep the weapons from the previous games or jam a Crash Bomb up his ass and be done with it.
So basically, your argument is that a system organized around the weakest qualities of individuals will produce these same qualities in its leaders?
Perhaps certain qualities are an inseparable part of human nature. Our government has limited power by design. Major geek points to anyone who gets the references.
In poor articles I would tend to agree with you - however, in others, just about everything is sourced. Check out the article on Jack Thompson (attorney) - just about every other sentence has a source for it.
"...then seeks to find evidence that supports the hypothesis."
And right there we stopped being scientific, since we are only looking for evidence that supports the pre-determined conclusion. Science doesn't work that way, it starts by looking at ALL the evidence and THEN coming to a conclusion. This is the difference between good science and non-science.
No, old Ben just lived in a time where there was an oppressive regime in place attempting to take away the rights of its citizens in the colonies in order to make more profit off them. Our country was founded on this premise of having unalienable rights. Also, the headway is not just in being used domestically, but also in being used by misused by individuals or corrupt government groups for any purpose that is detrimental.
I mean that they would have "won" metaphorically, in that they are succeeding in spreading terror, ie. making us scared. Also, any reduction in our rights is a step towards fascism, and no matter how slippery or level the slope is we should not tolerate it. I do not fear the threats to our country from abroad, I fear the threats to the citizens from within.
I could mostly get behind that - although I'd want to make sure that those that owned machine guns had a more thorough background check and a bit of a waiting period, or at least some licensing procedure that most everyone could apply for. Not exactly "no hindrance" there but I think that one might be worth it - I am open to debate on that particular issue. I'd basically look at that one as the same sort of thing as getting a drivers license.
As for open carry of handguns, I'm all for it - provided that you are 18.
I didn't necessarily mean "winning" in the sense that they are achieving their goals - rather, they are succeeding at being terrorists, ie. spreading terror, making people scared, etc.
No, from their perspective a WIN is nothing short of complete eradication of any civilization or governmental structure that is not under their particular brand of fascist Islamist control. So, is not removing any of our own freedoms a step in that direction? If they scare us enough so as to remove all of our rights (slippery slope, I know), have we not done exactly what they wanted short of the religious goals? I agree with your stated long term goals (sans exporting freedom), but I do not think the ability to achieve those goals is worthwhile unless we are able to keep all our freedoms in the process - if we cannot do that then we should scrap this grand experiment called democracy and try something else.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." --Thomas Jefferson
Can you blame the administration for taking action?
I can't blame them for taking action in general, but its the types of actions that they take that I take issue with. I don't want to handcuff the government per se, but rather I want there to be leash or fence beyond which it cannot operate except in times of dire need. The systems we had in place prior to the events of 6 years ago were adequate to forewarn us of the impending attack, if only the individual intelligence agencies had the means to share the data they had collected (as discovered during that same post-attack questioning you mentioned). To bridge this communications gap, the Department of Homeland Defense was created - if that department was doing only the job it was created for in that respect, I believe we'd be fine.
Something that people fail to understand is that government has no interest nor the resources to monitor the actions of those that mean no harm. I realize this, my beef with the system comes from the fact that all of these systems have little to no non-executive oversight (FISA circumvention, etc), so the potential for abuse by a lone individual with an agenda is much higher.
If you are to say that you will give up no rights for protection, then why do you have locks on your doors? Having the locks on the doors is my choice. I could remove them if I so chose. I can't just tell anyone who may or may not be monitoring my use of the telecommunications infrastructure to cut it out.
I'm willing to give up some rights to prevent it. Of course, there are limits, but lets be reasonable. I'm of the opinion, given my above responses, that giving up our rights in unnecessary - I think the old maxim "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" holds true here. It is often bandied about that we fight to preserve our way of life - but are not these rights a fundamental part of that way of life? Further, when the time comes that we no longer need those protections, who is to say that the government will give those rights we traded back? Further still, if one listens to how certain pundits ("far right personalities" if you will) want to change the world into a fascist state, then removing any of our rights is a step in that direction regardless of the reasons for which they are relinquished, and should be opposed.
I understand that there is the possibility for abuse, but the second this is abused, the press is alerted and there is hell to pay.
The scary part is, with all the secrecy surrounding many of these abuses (and indeed, this administration's policies in general), we don't know what, if any, more secret abuses might have taken (or might be taking!) place. Also, in the case of a lone individual, you are only looking at a conspiracy of one, and that's a tough nut to crack. I believe this in itself is a good argument for a more transparent government.
Yeah, I think I stole it from you. Hope you don't mind. Not at all!
What is anti-American about protecting our rights? That's what this country was FOUNDED on, so I would think that protecting those liberties would be as American as it gets!
No, he didn't hang around Muslim extremists, he hung around British loyalists. He didn't have a country hijacked by a tyrannical regime, he was trying to MAKE a country free from those kinds of tyrannies.
No, not all past quotes are applicable in modern times. The sentiment expressed by this quote, however, rings true for all times.
Slashdot Mirror
I did something similar back with my ATI x800 Pro VIVO, throwing in the x800 XT BIOS to unlock the additional bit pipelines.
...Moral Hygiene...
So that means she shaves, then?
Nah, we'll be fine - he didn't divert power from life support.
Mega Man has the same problem... you'd think after the 3rd or 4th game he'd figure out that Wily will keep getting out of prison and cranking out more robot masters to beat, so why start from scratch each time? Either keep the weapons from the previous games or jam a Crash Bomb up his ass and be done with it.
Well, that *would* explain the pastel color schemes...
Day-to-day challenges with a 10 million subscriber base? How about getting to his desk around the huge piles of MONEY?!
By the time I'm done, the war will be over. Shipping and media costs will bankrupt me. I'm just one man, I don't have the resources to do this!
So basically, your argument is that a system organized around the weakest qualities of individuals will produce these same qualities in its leaders?
Perhaps certain qualities are an inseparable part of human nature. Our government has limited power by design.
Major geek points to anyone who gets the references.
There's still one big reason not to switch back to IE - security. I don't want to go look at the open web using an integral part of my OS, thanks.
I agree - and I like your sig! Reminds me of my own.
Don't forget the obscene file copy times.
Customers don't want VBA to go away.
They want the damn ribbon to go away!
In poor articles I would tend to agree with you - however, in others, just about everything is sourced. Check out the article on Jack Thompson (attorney) - just about every other sentence has a source for it.
"...then seeks to find evidence that supports the hypothesis."
And right there we stopped being scientific, since we are only looking for evidence that supports the pre-determined conclusion. Science doesn't work that way, it starts by looking at ALL the evidence and THEN coming to a conclusion. This is the difference between good science and non-science.
No, old Ben just lived in a time where there was an oppressive regime in place attempting to take away the rights of its citizens in the colonies in order to make more profit off them. Our country was founded on this premise of having unalienable rights. Also, the headway is not just in being used domestically, but also in being used by misused by individuals or corrupt government groups for any purpose that is detrimental.
I mean that they would have "won" metaphorically, in that they are succeeding in spreading terror, ie. making us scared. Also, any reduction in our rights is a step towards fascism, and no matter how slippery or level the slope is we should not tolerate it. I do not fear the threats to our country from abroad, I fear the threats to the citizens from within.
Yeah, it's overused, but still appropriate.
I could mostly get behind that - although I'd want to make sure that those that owned machine guns had a more thorough background check and a bit of a waiting period, or at least some licensing procedure that most everyone could apply for. Not exactly "no hindrance" there but I think that one might be worth it - I am open to debate on that particular issue. I'd basically look at that one as the same sort of thing as getting a drivers license.
As for open carry of handguns, I'm all for it - provided that you are 18.
Again, I wasn't specifically referring to this case, but rather to the sentiment expressed by this thread.
If I understand things correctly, its due to an intelligence sharing plan between the US and various EU governments. I could be mistaken, however.
I didn't necessarily mean "winning" in the sense that they are achieving their goals - rather, they are succeeding at being terrorists, ie. spreading terror, making people scared, etc.
No, from their perspective a WIN is nothing short of complete eradication of any civilization or governmental structure that is not under their particular brand of fascist Islamist control.
So, is not removing any of our own freedoms a step in that direction? If they scare us enough so as to remove all of our rights (slippery slope, I know), have we not done exactly what they wanted short of the religious goals? I agree with your stated long term goals (sans exporting freedom), but I do not think the ability to achieve those goals is worthwhile unless we are able to keep all our freedoms in the process - if we cannot do that then we should scrap this grand experiment called democracy and try something else.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." --Thomas Jefferson
Can you blame the administration for taking action?
I can't blame them for taking action in general, but its the types of actions that they take that I take issue with. I don't want to handcuff the government per se, but rather I want there to be leash or fence beyond which it cannot operate except in times of dire need. The systems we had in place prior to the events of 6 years ago were adequate to forewarn us of the impending attack, if only the individual intelligence agencies had the means to share the data they had collected (as discovered during that same post-attack questioning you mentioned). To bridge this communications gap, the Department of Homeland Defense was created - if that department was doing only the job it was created for in that respect, I believe we'd be fine.
Something that people fail to understand is that government has no interest nor the resources to monitor the actions of those that mean no harm.
I realize this, my beef with the system comes from the fact that all of these systems have little to no non-executive oversight (FISA circumvention, etc), so the potential for abuse by a lone individual with an agenda is much higher.
If you are to say that you will give up no rights for protection, then why do you have locks on your doors?
Having the locks on the doors is my choice. I could remove them if I so chose. I can't just tell anyone who may or may not be monitoring my use of the telecommunications infrastructure to cut it out.
I'm willing to give up some rights to prevent it. Of course, there are limits, but lets be reasonable.
I'm of the opinion, given my above responses, that giving up our rights in unnecessary - I think the old maxim "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" holds true here. It is often bandied about that we fight to preserve our way of life - but are not these rights a fundamental part of that way of life? Further, when the time comes that we no longer need those protections, who is to say that the government will give those rights we traded back? Further still, if one listens to how certain pundits ("far right personalities" if you will) want to change the world into a fascist state, then removing any of our rights is a step in that direction regardless of the reasons for which they are relinquished, and should be opposed.
I understand that there is the possibility for abuse, but the second this is abused, the press is alerted and there is hell to pay.
The scary part is, with all the secrecy surrounding many of these abuses (and indeed, this administration's policies in general), we don't know what, if any, more secret abuses might have taken (or might be taking!) place. Also, in the case of a lone individual, you are only looking at a conspiracy of one, and that's a tough nut to crack. I believe this in itself is a good argument for a more transparent government.
Yeah, I think I stole it from you. Hope you don't mind.
Not at all!
I wasn't talking about the article so much as the sentiment expressed by this thread regarding suspending rights to "secure freedom".
BTW, I like your sig! The sentiment is very similar to my own.
What is anti-American about protecting our rights? That's what this country was FOUNDED on, so I would think that protecting those liberties would be as American as it gets!
No, he didn't hang around Muslim extremists, he hung around British loyalists. He didn't have a country hijacked by a tyrannical regime, he was trying to MAKE a country free from those kinds of tyrannies.
No, not all past quotes are applicable in modern times. The sentiment expressed by this quote, however, rings true for all times.