Use any means necessary to establish the rule of God.
The rule of their God. If it were just a matter of belief in God this would be a non-issue. It's the requirement that their particular dogma be accepted as fact, with death to those who don't.
Unless, of course, we as a people finally pull our heads out instead.
We, as in "the citizens of these here United States" may succeed in pulling our heads out of our collective ass. Maybe. I seriously doubt it, but I suppose it's technically possible (some sort of mass-hypnosis-induced outbreak of common sense or something like that.) On the other hand, the odds of our overarching, out-of-control Federal Government doing the same are effectively zero at this point, I think.
Ok, I see your point, but let be honest, Americans are more likely to construe this as 'OMG KILL: EVERYONE', then citizens of other countries more familiar with murderous lunatics.
So, ideally, who should change their outlook, and their behavior? The people of those other countries... or us Americans? It's somewhat ironic that this family wasn't from a country more familiar with murderous lunatics: they were born and raised here. This tells me we'd better start taking better care of our own: I'm a middle-aged white guy, but the reality is that that family is just as much American as I am, and no threat to anyone. The airline appears to be full of hooey, but to give the FBI some credit here, it didn't take them long to figure that out.
Sometimes I think we're just a bunch of bitchy little girls, afraid of our own shadows.
What it comes down to is, like it or not, we do need the institution of government.
What you're saying also explains why neither true Communism nor true Democracy have ever been implemented on a significant scale. They depend too much on altruism.
It's real simple. A white person shouldn't come into my black church and discuss the history of the KKK just as a Muslim shouldn't discuss blowing up airports in an airport. Bad things are going to happen.
That's true... but you should ask yourself, as an American, whether that's something of which we should be proud (or not.)
The stated purpose of most laws, including gun laws, is the intention of reducing crime.
Yes, well, the road to Hell, pavement, etc. Of course, the stated purpose of many laws has little or nothing to do with the intended purpose. Most people seem to forget that, for some reason.
No, but you can disband them and sell off their assets to the highest bidder. If that were to happen a little more frequently, there'd be a lot less abuse of the system. And you most certainly can put the people at the top in jail. That does happen now and then.
Incumbent short-sighted players have been able to hinder and harm progress, but they can't keep it down completely. That culture of improvement can't be stopped entirely.
But it can certainly be slowed to the point where it might as well be stopped. Critical mass must be maintained, or the entire economic engine will slow to a crawl.
Except that at least as phrased it is an invalid proof. I.e. it is circular on the assumption that it doesn't actually work, where as the Halting Problem proof is not circular; it is proof by contradiction.
Yes, but on the other hand, what the people who are promoting this high-tech clone of the polygraph are doing isn't particularly valid either.
Thats fine then don't get upset when I whip out my phone take a few boob pics and stare a little.
You're not particularly civilized, are you. A woman's legitimate right to feed her child should not be abridged by the mentally ill. Hardly her fault that you have to get your jollies by staring at breastfeeding women.
So that's fine then... if I happen to be in the vicinity when you're whipping out your camera phone, I hope you won't mind when I take that thing away from you and shove it down your throat, and then stick the battery up your ass. I know, that wouldn't be particularly civilized of me, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
There was a real flap in my hometown a couple of weeks before Christmas where a mother was breastfeeding in a restaurant, and the waitress asked her to stop.
Then the waitress was an ignorant twit and the cops more so. I hope she ends up having the same thing happen to her. Denying a woman the right to feed her child is something that even the most sexually-repressed right-wingers in our society haven't managed to do.
Many years ago, my aunt was at a restaurant breastfeeding her baby. It was a Mexican restaurant, as I recall, and many of the patrons were Hispanic. The waiter came over, saw the child, and leaned over to kiss it on the head. Everyone was somewhat shocked, but apparently he meant no disrespect... quite the opposite, in fact.
It was only the vestigial American prude in us that even made his gesture worthy of note, and the moment passed without incident. But different cultures have different standards. We should all remember that, and in a country that's as large and culturally-diverse as the United States, one-size-fits-all policies are generally more damaging than useful.
Facebook should remember that. Instead, they're taking the approach of trying to avoid giving offense to anyone, and that simply won't work. People will be more offended at having their images censored than they would ever be at a picture of a woman breastfeeding her child. Sheesh.
Facebook is run by monkeys, I'm convinced of that. Wizened old monkey prudes.
Yes, well, maybe it's time for some of that "civil disobedience" that Slashdotters are so fond of promoting. The fact that the religious right in the U.S. considers the female body to be an object of shame is, itself, shameful. Most (well, okay, all) Europeans I know consider our government's attitude towards sex in general, and the human female in particular, to be provincial at best, uncivilized at worst. This is one case where I'm in complete agreement with them.
Computing technology moves at a fast pace, the security aspect is moving even faster, and forcing white hats to slow to a slow bureaucratic pace will only put them at a serious disadvantage to the blackhats who have no such encumbrances.
No argument from me, but you'll never convince your typical bureaucrat of that.
Stick the designers in it and ask them if it can tell hostile intent from fear of flying (and base GAO investigation of the program upon the result, to make it more salient). They'll say yes. Either it'll trigger and show them to be lying, or it won't and so it doesn't work.
That might end up being the most valid and useful test of all. I like it.
I've given up on expecting most sites to be fluid, res. wise, but I still expect most to make reasonable choices.
Too many developers don't understand that HTML is not a page-definition language, that a Web site is not a PDF. Even in terms of regular software development (I don't do Web apps for a living) I keep a CRT around at work, so that I can run my software in different resolutions to see how it behaves under different conditions (LCDs interpolate when not running in their native res, which isn't good enough.) If more Web developers did that, the situations you're all describing might improve.
we were told to ditch all browsers except IE 6 from company PCs, FOR SECURITY REASONS.
I can believe it... I've seen stranger things. You have to wonder, though, did anyone in charge realize how stupid that sounds? I mean, imagine if they'd sent a message saying:
"All high-security door locks in place in all facilities are to be removed immediately and replaced with crummy cheapo locks that anyone can open with a toothpick, FOR SECURITY REASONS."
Gagh. My company implemented a much more secure solution: use any browser you want because we don't give you Internet access anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I need to dig up my old Keith Laumer books and flip them over to my kids. They read everything.
If I had any kids I'd do the same. And don't forget The Great Time Machine Hoax.
Use any means necessary to establish the rule of God.
The rule of their God. If it were just a matter of belief in God this would be a non-issue. It's the requirement that their particular dogma be accepted as fact, with death to those who don't.
I'm reasonably sure in Europe you could be sued if you refused to carry someone based on their religion or racial background
In Europe, we don't settle the score by lawsuits. You don't get rich by suing someone in Europe. At best you get revenge.
I find that sufficient in most cases.
Unless, of course, we as a people finally pull our heads out instead.
We, as in "the citizens of these here United States" may succeed in pulling our heads out of our collective ass. Maybe. I seriously doubt it, but I suppose it's technically possible (some sort of mass-hypnosis-induced outbreak of common sense or something like that.) On the other hand, the odds of our overarching, out-of-control Federal Government doing the same are effectively zero at this point, I think.
So you can be a professional terrorist?
Yes, and the job security is great. You'll hold the same position for the rest of your life.
Ok, I see your point, but let be honest, Americans are more likely to construe this as 'OMG KILL: EVERYONE', then citizens of other countries more familiar with murderous lunatics.
So, ideally, who should change their outlook, and their behavior? The people of those other countries ... or us Americans? It's somewhat ironic that this family wasn't from a country more familiar with murderous lunatics: they were born and raised here. This tells me we'd better start taking better care of our own: I'm a middle-aged white guy, but the reality is that that family is just as much American as I am, and no threat to anyone. The airline appears to be full of hooey, but to give the FBI some credit here, it didn't take them long to figure that out.
Sometimes I think we're just a bunch of bitchy little girls, afraid of our own shadows.
This was eventually found to be unconstitutional in Browder v. Gayle 142 F. Supp. 707 (1956).
And that's the thing, isn't it. Sometimes you have to wait for the law to catch up to current reality.
What it comes down to is, like it or not, we do need the institution of government.
What you're saying also explains why neither true Communism nor true Democracy have ever been implemented on a significant scale. They depend too much on altruism.
It wasn't the buses (ie, the free market) that decided where black people sat, it was state law (ie, government intervention).
I think that was the GP's point.
Are we really less capable than the various chat bots for understanding context?
You're on Slashdot and you have to ask that?
It's real simple. A white person shouldn't come into my black church and discuss the history of the KKK just as a Muslim shouldn't discuss blowing up airports in an airport. Bad things are going to happen.
That's true ... but you should ask yourself, as an American, whether that's something of which we should be proud (or not.)
Please. Everyone who reads it will say "And they where AMERICAN, too! My god, that country must be terrible!"
Its a loaded statement, jedi mind trick style.
These aren't the Muslims you're looking for.
The stated purpose of most laws, including gun laws, is the intention of reducing crime.
Yes, well, the road to Hell, pavement, etc. Of course, the stated purpose of many laws has little or nothing to do with the intended purpose. Most people seem to forget that, for some reason.
You can't send a corporation to jail.
No, but you can disband them and sell off their assets to the highest bidder. If that were to happen a little more frequently, there'd be a lot less abuse of the system. And you most certainly can put the people at the top in jail. That does happen now and then.
Incumbent short-sighted players have been able to hinder and harm progress, but they can't keep it down completely. That culture of improvement can't be stopped entirely.
But it can certainly be slowed to the point where it might as well be stopped. Critical mass must be maintained, or the entire economic engine will slow to a crawl.
Get ready for DMCA/PIRATE/PRO-IP Act Part Deaux?
I took it to be a subtle Simpsons reference ... as in "Part Doh!"
Except that at least as phrased it is an invalid proof. I.e. it is circular on the assumption that it doesn't actually work, where as the Halting Problem proof is not circular; it is proof by contradiction.
Yes, but on the other hand, what the people who are promoting this high-tech clone of the polygraph are doing isn't particularly valid either.
This was a remarkably stupid statement even by slashdot standards. Last I checked, human males were "seriously perverted".
Yes, well ... it's a relative condition. In fact, sometimes it involves relatives.
Thats fine then don't get upset when I whip out my phone take a few boob pics and stare a little.
You're not particularly civilized, are you. A woman's legitimate right to feed her child should not be abridged by the mentally ill. Hardly her fault that you have to get your jollies by staring at breastfeeding women.
... if I happen to be in the vicinity when you're whipping out your camera phone, I hope you won't mind when I take that thing away from you and shove it down your throat, and then stick the battery up your ass. I know, that wouldn't be particularly civilized of me, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
So that's fine then
There was a real flap in my hometown a couple of weeks before Christmas where a mother was breastfeeding in a restaurant, and the waitress asked her to stop.
Then the waitress was an ignorant twit and the cops more so. I hope she ends up having the same thing happen to her. Denying a woman the right to feed her child is something that even the most sexually-repressed right-wingers in our society haven't managed to do.
... quite the opposite, in fact.
Many years ago, my aunt was at a restaurant breastfeeding her baby. It was a Mexican restaurant, as I recall, and many of the patrons were Hispanic. The waiter came over, saw the child, and leaned over to kiss it on the head. Everyone was somewhat shocked, but apparently he meant no disrespect
It was only the vestigial American prude in us that even made his gesture worthy of note, and the moment passed without incident. But different cultures have different standards. We should all remember that, and in a country that's as large and culturally-diverse as the United States, one-size-fits-all policies are generally more damaging than useful.
Facebook should remember that. Instead, they're taking the approach of trying to avoid giving offense to anyone, and that simply won't work. People will be more offended at having their images censored than they would ever be at a picture of a woman breastfeeding her child. Sheesh.
Facebook is run by monkeys, I'm convinced of that. Wizened old monkey prudes.
There's a difference between a statue and a picture of real tits.
Not according to the government.
Yes, well, maybe it's time for some of that "civil disobedience" that Slashdotters are so fond of promoting. The fact that the religious right in the U.S. considers the female body to be an object of shame is, itself, shameful. Most (well, okay, all) Europeans I know consider our government's attitude towards sex in general, and the human female in particular, to be provincial at best, uncivilized at worst. This is one case where I'm in complete agreement with them.
Computing technology moves at a fast pace, the security aspect is moving even faster, and forcing white hats to slow to a slow bureaucratic pace will only put them at a serious disadvantage to the blackhats who have no such encumbrances.
No argument from me, but you'll never convince your typical bureaucrat of that.
Stick the designers in it and ask them if it can tell hostile intent from fear of flying (and base GAO investigation of the program upon the result, to make it more salient). They'll say yes. Either it'll trigger and show them to be lying, or it won't and so it doesn't work.
That might end up being the most valid and useful test of all. I like it.
I've given up on expecting most sites to be fluid, res. wise, but I still expect most to make reasonable choices.
Too many developers don't understand that HTML is not a page-definition language, that a Web site is not a PDF. Even in terms of regular software development (I don't do Web apps for a living) I keep a CRT around at work, so that I can run my software in different resolutions to see how it behaves under different conditions (LCDs interpolate when not running in their native res, which isn't good enough.) If more Web developers did that, the situations you're all describing might improve.
we were told to ditch all browsers except IE 6 from company PCs, FOR SECURITY REASONS.
I can believe it ... I've seen stranger things. You have to wonder, though, did anyone in charge realize how stupid that sounds? I mean, imagine if they'd sent a message saying:
"All high-security door locks in place in all facilities are to be removed immediately and replaced with crummy cheapo locks that anyone can open with a toothpick, FOR SECURITY REASONS."
Gagh. My company implemented a much more secure solution: use any browser you want because we don't give you Internet access anyway.