Terrorists are not trolls. Their purpose is not to scare us. It is to stop us from encroaching into their culture. They have not won if they just made us fearful. They only win when we stop building McDonald's there and their youths stop wearing jeans.
Not so, my friend. They don't win if they scare us... they win when we're all either dead or converted to Islam (preferably dead, I think.) I suppose that qualifies as stopping us from encroaching on their culture. So far as our influence goes, they just have to say "no". If their people and government institutions are not capable of saying "no", then the problem is theirs, and theirs alone. It's not like we're forcing them to sell us land for fast food restaurants at gunpoint, you know. Nor are we forcing them to patronize said establishments. They go there of their own free will because their people like it. The leaders may not, but again that's their problem. If you wish to trade on the global scene then you're just going to have to accept some external influences... if you can't, build a wall around yourselves and stop flying aircraft into our buildings.
This idea that cultures should never come together and learn from each other, that different societies should remain "pure" and unadulterated is the same sort of psychotic babble spewn forth by the Nazis. It also belies the fact that most of the greatest advances in civilization have been made because societies didn't keep themselves apart. The U.S. didn't prevent people that immigrated here from bringing their culture along with them: the key was getting along in spite those differences, and improving the quality of life for everyone. The fact that the Muslim world has proven incapable of a similar civilized outlook is their loss... and is certainly not our responsibility.
Furthermore, the fact that they don't like our culture, our value system, our clothing or our food is no justification for mass murder.
After seeing the movie Knowing [wikipedia.org]. I couldn't help but think how screwed Humanity would be if the planet would be in the Wrong Place, at the Wrong Time.
After seeing the movie Knowing, I couldn't help but think that I wanted my nine dollars back. As end-of-the-world scenarios go, that one was pretty weak.
Yes. The lenses will leap out of a moving vehicle just prior to impact, while the driver cries "It works, it works!". Eventually, he will wake up in the hospital believing that he's really Leon Trotsky.
and no "confession" extracted under torture is worth anything.
I think you're confusing confession with intelligence-gathering... not the same thing at all. Valuable information can be extracted by torture, particularly if that data can be independently verified. The real question is whether or not the United States of America should consider torture a legitimate tool of the intelligence game.
The answer is "no" for those of you who don't get rhetorical questions.
Yes, they do make peripherals. No, they aren't re-branded.
Of course they are. Microsoft is not now, and has never been, a manufacturing operation. Sure, they sell some nice stuff, but that just means they have the leverage to lean on their Chinese suppliers.
No, I don't expect Congress to "step in" on Obama either.
Oh, not on Obama... that would be political suicide at this point. But a few years down the road, when we have another President (who maybe isn't quite so worshipped) and some history of abuse of process by current law enforcement, we'll see someone willing to do something. Probably (as it was in J. Edgar's time) some members of Congress itself will have to get fucked over before they'll make some changes.
The law would be fine if it targeted specifically 'anonymizing' proxies, that the user deliberately sets up,
Um... why would that be fine? That's even worse, from a privacy perspective, than banning ISP or corporate proxies. The government has a habit of assuming that a. they have an intrinsic right to know everything about a citizen (they don't) and b. that any citizen trying to hide anything is, by definition, a criminal (he isn't.)
I understand that this is not being written into law just yet, but eventually it will be (out of ignorance if nothing else) and is just wrong on so many levels. Law enforcement in this country is once again in need of being reined in. It's happened before (anyone old enough to remember the FBI under Hoover?) but this President is obviously not going to do it. Things will have to get worse, much worse, for there to be any hope of Congress stepping in, as they did before. Of course, America and its leadership have change dramatically in the past half century, so I don't hold out much hope for that either.
And, you speak of the "gay community" as if homosexuals are some monolithic block
No, I didn't, I said, "If you try to tell some gay people..." in an (obviously fruitless) attempt to keep people from thinking that I was painting with an overbroad brush.
To compare sexual orientation to any other trait is a bit disingenuous
I didn't do that, either. Unless you're referring to my comment about the homo/heterosexual debate being as difficult to "win" as an argument about religion. That was not intended to be a comparison of homosexuality to religion. I also pointed out that "Sexuality is one of the most fundamental aspects of the human psyche, one that is vitally important to us for most of our lives."
What makes homosexuality so special or different that if it's a choice we want to castigate those who choose it, or if it's biological we want to treat it like an illness and cure it?
Um... who did I castigate again?
I'm not sure you actually paid much attention to my post, which is certainly your choice. Nor did you really dispute anything I said. I'm a little annoyed that you're trying to paint me as anti-homosexual when I said nothing of the kind. Frankly, it sounds more like you have an axe to grind and simply used my post as a starting point. Whatever, you're more than welcome to your own soapbox.
There's an interesting theory [dbem.ws] on a possible mechanism for attraction that would integrate both nature and nurture.
When you get right down to it, it's going to be any or all of the above, depending upon the individual. Of course, that's how it is with most aspects of human behavior.
being gay isn't a personal preference, it's genetic.
If you try to tell some gay people that they're gay because they made a choice, they'll claim it's genetic (thereby forestalling comments about their having made a bad choice.) If you try to tell them it's genetic, they get upset because they think you're saying their brains are defective, and insist they're exercising a personal preference instead. Like arguing religion or politics, it's not an argument that can ever be won.
Me, I have no problem accepting that I'm straight because it's in my genes. Whatever, doesn't really matter: as the Great Popeye once said, "I am what I am, what's all that I am." Sexuality is one of the most fundamental aspects of the human psyche, one that is vitally important to us for most of our lives, no matter what side of the fence we're on. To say it's simply "a choice" is demeaning on the face of it. It's too much a part of who we are.
Eventually, technology is going to make our very genes a matter of personal preference. It will be interesting to see which side the gay community comes down on then, since even if homosexuality really is a strictly hereditary phenomenon, there will truly be a choice. Of course, that will work both ways.
Some of us have our own democratic systems not based on the US.
Indeed you do, and the GP was a bit insensitive in that regard, and it's not like the U.S. didn't crib a lot of our legal system from the British and others.
However, the current lingua franca for a good part of the industrialized world is English. Both the British Empire followed by American economic hegemony made a working knowledge of English a requirement for many people. That's been the case all throughout history, however: the dominant economic power's primary language is learned by others because they wish to do business with it.
Now, my understanding is that China currently has more people learning American English than there are people actually in the United States. If that's literally true, China may have a hard time keeping itself culturally and politically intact. Up 'til now, there was a considerable language barrier that existed between China and the rest of the world. Once a significant number of Chinese speak English, China may find it hard to keep all those evil Western ideals away from their people. Besides, many of their people have had a taste of what industry can do for them.. and to them for that matter.
The Great Firewall can only do so much. People can still talk, and since they wish to become a global superpower they're going to have to let them talk to people from other countries. In fact, they are planning for that. Sooner or later, this will have some effect: what that will be I can't say, but any way you slice it, China will never be the same again.
Still, the way things are going, we may all be studying Mandarin just to keep up.
An large unknown population of political prisoners are currently being held for 3 to 15 years in Thai prisons for being interpreted as insulting the monarchy.
Do not have a lawyer send the letters. It is considered unethical for a lawyer to send a letter to the another lawyer's cleint and it is really the client you want to get to.
I have no idea where you're pulling that from, but it's gotta be a place where the sun ain't shining too often.
How do you know? It could be he sunbathes in the raw.
Slashdot Mirror
Terrorists are not trolls. Their purpose is not to scare us. It is to stop us from encroaching into their culture. They have not won if they just made us fearful. They only win when we stop building McDonald's there and their youths stop wearing jeans.
Not so, my friend. They don't win if they scare us ... they win when we're all either dead or converted to Islam (preferably dead, I think.) I suppose that qualifies as stopping us from encroaching on their culture. So far as our influence goes, they just have to say "no". If their people and government institutions are not capable of saying "no", then the problem is theirs, and theirs alone. It's not like we're forcing them to sell us land for fast food restaurants at gunpoint, you know. Nor are we forcing them to patronize said establishments. They go there of their own free will because their people like it. The leaders may not, but again that's their problem. If you wish to trade on the global scene then you're just going to have to accept some external influences ... if you can't, build a wall around yourselves and stop flying aircraft into our buildings.
... and is certainly not our responsibility.
This idea that cultures should never come together and learn from each other, that different societies should remain "pure" and unadulterated is the same sort of psychotic babble spewn forth by the Nazis. It also belies the fact that most of the greatest advances in civilization have been made because societies didn't keep themselves apart. The U.S. didn't prevent people that immigrated here from bringing their culture along with them: the key was getting along in spite those differences, and improving the quality of life for everyone. The fact that the Muslim world has proven incapable of a similar civilized outlook is their loss
Furthermore, the fact that they don't like our culture, our value system, our clothing or our food is no justification for mass murder.
After seeing the movie Knowing [wikipedia.org]. I couldn't help but think how screwed Humanity would be if the planet would be in the Wrong Place, at the Wrong Time.
After seeing the movie Knowing, I couldn't help but think that I wanted my nine dollars back. As end-of-the-world scenarios go, that one was pretty weak.
But does it turn dark in the presence of danger?
Yes. The lenses will leap out of a moving vehicle just prior to impact, while the driver cries "It works, it works!". Eventually, he will wake up in the hospital believing that he's really Leon Trotsky.
I personally realized that I am getting old when I had to JFGI Vanessa Blouin.
Yeah. Me too. Kinda glad I did though.
Oh yeah, well not only did I have JFGI Vanessa, I had to JFGI "JFGI". How do you think I feel now?
Better make sure your affairs are in order.
I personally realized that I am getting old when I had to JFGI Vanessa Blouin.
Yeah. Me too. Kinda glad I did though.
and no "confession" extracted under torture is worth anything.
I think you're confusing confession with intelligence-gathering ... not the same thing at all. Valuable information can be extracted by torture, particularly if that data can be independently verified. The real question is whether or not the United States of America should consider torture a legitimate tool of the intelligence game.
The answer is "no" for those of you who don't get rhetorical questions.
Yes, they do make peripherals. No, they aren't re-branded.
Of course they are. Microsoft is not now, and has never been, a manufacturing operation. Sure, they sell some nice stuff, but that just means they have the leverage to lean on their Chinese suppliers.
No, I don't expect Congress to "step in" on Obama either.
Oh, not on Obama ... that would be political suicide at this point. But a few years down the road, when we have another President (who maybe isn't quite so worshipped) and some history of abuse of process by current law enforcement, we'll see someone willing to do something. Probably (as it was in J. Edgar's time) some members of Congress itself will have to get fucked over before they'll make some changes.
Why are we rewarding stupidity?
I think you only have to look at Congress for an answer to your question.
The law would be fine if it targeted specifically 'anonymizing' proxies, that the user deliberately sets up,
Um ... why would that be fine? That's even worse, from a privacy perspective, than banning ISP or corporate proxies. The government has a habit of assuming that a. they have an intrinsic right to know everything about a citizen (they don't) and b. that any citizen trying to hide anything is, by definition, a criminal (he isn't.)
I understand that this is not being written into law just yet, but eventually it will be (out of ignorance if nothing else) and is just wrong on so many levels. Law enforcement in this country is once again in need of being reined in. It's happened before (anyone old enough to remember the FBI under Hoover?) but this President is obviously not going to do it. Things will have to get worse, much worse, for there to be any hope of Congress stepping in, as they did before. Of course, America and its leadership have change dramatically in the past half century, so I don't hold out much hope for that either.
And, you speak of the "gay community" as if homosexuals are some monolithic block
No, I didn't, I said, "If you try to tell some gay people ..." in an (obviously fruitless) attempt to keep people from thinking that I was painting with an overbroad brush.
To compare sexual orientation to any other trait is a bit disingenuous
I didn't do that, either. Unless you're referring to my comment about the homo/heterosexual debate being as difficult to "win" as an argument about religion. That was not intended to be a comparison of homosexuality to religion. I also pointed out that "Sexuality is one of the most fundamental aspects of the human psyche, one that is vitally important to us for most of our lives."
What makes homosexuality so special or different that if it's a choice we want to castigate those who choose it, or if it's biological we want to treat it like an illness and cure it?
Um ... who did I castigate again?
I'm not sure you actually paid much attention to my post, which is certainly your choice. Nor did you really dispute anything I said. I'm a little annoyed that you're trying to paint me as anti-homosexual when I said nothing of the kind. Frankly, it sounds more like you have an axe to grind and simply used my post as a starting point. Whatever, you're more than welcome to your own soapbox.
There's an interesting theory [dbem.ws] on a possible mechanism for attraction that would integrate both nature and nurture.
When you get right down to it, it's going to be any or all of the above, depending upon the individual. Of course, that's how it is with most aspects of human behavior.
you have acquired a full win, Sir. Interwebs +5
Indeed. As another poster put it once: +5 Fucking Epic.
being gay isn't a personal preference, it's genetic.
If you try to tell some gay people that they're gay because they made a choice, they'll claim it's genetic (thereby forestalling comments about their having made a bad choice.) If you try to tell them it's genetic, they get upset because they think you're saying their brains are defective, and insist they're exercising a personal preference instead. Like arguing religion or politics, it's not an argument that can ever be won.
Me, I have no problem accepting that I'm straight because it's in my genes. Whatever, doesn't really matter: as the Great Popeye once said, "I am what I am, what's all that I am." Sexuality is one of the most fundamental aspects of the human psyche, one that is vitally important to us for most of our lives, no matter what side of the fence we're on. To say it's simply "a choice" is demeaning on the face of it. It's too much a part of who we are.
Eventually, technology is going to make our very genes a matter of personal preference. It will be interesting to see which side the gay community comes down on then, since even if homosexuality really is a strictly hereditary phenomenon, there will truly be a choice. Of course, that will work both ways.
The fact that you attempt to compare the US government to au's and claim the US system is shit just shows how little you actually know about it.
True, but then again this is Slashdot, where idiots abound and ignorance truly is bliss.
Some of us have our own democratic systems not based on the US.
Indeed you do, and the GP was a bit insensitive in that regard, and it's not like the U.S. didn't crib a lot of our legal system from the British and others.
.. and to them for that matter.
However, the current lingua franca for a good part of the industrialized world is English. Both the British Empire followed by American economic hegemony made a working knowledge of English a requirement for many people. That's been the case all throughout history, however: the dominant economic power's primary language is learned by others because they wish to do business with it.
Now, my understanding is that China currently has more people learning American English than there are people actually in the United States. If that's literally true, China may have a hard time keeping itself culturally and politically intact. Up 'til now, there was a considerable language barrier that existed between China and the rest of the world. Once a significant number of Chinese speak English, China may find it hard to keep all those evil Western ideals away from their people. Besides, many of their people have had a taste of what industry can do for them
The Great Firewall can only do so much. People can still talk, and since they wish to become a global superpower they're going to have to let them talk to people from other countries. In fact, they are planning for that. Sooner or later, this will have some effect: what that will be I can't say, but any way you slice it, China will never be the same again.
Still, the way things are going, we may all be studying Mandarin just to keep up.
If she isn't speaking for others, why does/did the media care about her?
Because they're not interested in facts anymore, not interested in making fine distinctions, they just want to sell advertising.
Personally, I blame George Washington.
Me too. If he'd just let himself be elected King of the United States of America, none of this would have happened.
Uh, don't you mean "Nolth Kolea Brog"?
Ha ha, wow, those crazy Asians sure do talk funny! Man! That one never gets old!
Hey, he said it first.
How do you know that's true if you're not reading the official North Kolea Blog?
Uh, don't you mean "Nolth Kolea Brog"?
An large unknown population of political prisoners are currently being held for 3 to 15 years in Thai prisons for being interpreted as insulting the monarchy.
Two words: grow up.
You know, the credibility of your argument would be a lot greater if your username wasn't "psychodave". I'm just sayin'...
Just because he's nuts doesn't mean he's wrong.
...you mean 1 billable hour.
No, you mean 59.3752 minutes.
Do not have a lawyer send the letters. It is considered unethical for a lawyer to send a letter to the another lawyer's cleint and it is really the client you want to get to.
I have no idea where you're pulling that from, but it's gotta be a place where the sun ain't shining too often.
How do you know? It could be he sunbathes in the raw.
I accuse you of theft.
Prove it.