Apple does fileserving really well; 500MB a minute over AFP.
You must be talking about old-fashioned 100BASE-T. Over Gigabit, I usually see about 40 MB/s, and I suspect that the limiting factor there might be the hard drive in our server. (We don't have a RAID attached, just an internal disk for our non-critical day-to-day work.)
Panther Server makes an excellent general-purpose small business server. I set one up for a friend a few weekends ago. It's their directory server, provides DHCP, runs a web server, hosts the company's mail (installing SpamAssassin was the usual pain in the ass, but I see now that it's included in Tiger Server), is their FTP server, supports VPN connections via IPsec, and provides file services via AppleShare, NFS, and SMB. It's also their database (with FileMaker Pro, but Oracle or PostgreSQL or Sybase would work too) and their scheduling hub (MeetingMaker).
And it's all running on a 500 MHz Power Mac G4.
I don't know about targeting that market, but it's a great solution for that market.
Video editors and - especially - motion graphics designers use every pixel of those huge screens.
Absolutely. The 30" display is big enough to have a full-size HD window with plenty of round around it for UI stuff like your timeline.
On a 1920x1200 monitor, you either have to work in proxy view (ugh) or you have to live with a tiny strip of UI at the very bottom. The 30" screen fixes this.
Since P2P was legal in Germany, this sounds rather weird.
It most certainly was not. If Germany didn't have laws that prohibited it, Germany should have, because Germany is a signatory nation to the Berne Convention, the WIPO treaty, and other binding international conventions relating to the protection of property rights.
Property was invented because some things are scarce.
Property wasn't invented at all. It just is. I told you to go read your Locke. You evidently didn't.
(Economics, incidentally, is the thing that was "invented" because some things are scarce.)
But then, what am I talking to you? Pearls before the swine.
Oink, oink.
A message on a box doesn't make for a valid contract, and it never did.
Never said "contract." Said "license." (At least, I never meant to. If I did, I misspoke, and I apologize and retract.) The differences between a license and a contract are myriad and important. One major difference is that you don't have to make any overt act in acceptance of a license. It can be implicit in a transaction. Which is why you didn't have to sign anything.
Just because you would start calling your president "Santa Claus" doesn't mean that Santa Claus actually exists.
Is this some kind of German idiom that makes no sense whatsoever when translated into English? Or is this just one of those things that, you know, makes no sense whatsoever?
As I said, I'm still learning, and I definitely learned something from this discussion
You need to be a lot less sure of yourself. You've been wrong about just about everything here. (No offense.) Seriously: go school yourself.
Re:posting this in sev. parts because /. complains
on
Xgrid Agent for Unix
·
· Score: 1
Again, no references. Learn to use Google, pal.
Good grief. Not another one. Why do all the dim bulbs seem to think that I'm their own personal news clipping service? If you're going to try to make an argument, it's your responsibility to know the facts behind it.
Yes, and it does not require the technology to be waterproof, just like I said
Keep reading, bubba. Refer in particular to the relevant case law. US v. Elcom is a good place to start. The opinion in that case should be on the required reading list for everybody who still whines about the DMCA. Read the opinion, realize that you're making a lot of noise about nothing at all, and then shut the hell up, okay?
They have - freedom of speech and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I'd love to hear how you could possibly link this argument to anything related to free speech. If the fair use exception disappeared tomorrow, free speech would not be harmed in the slightest. You're still just as free to comment on something whether you quote from it or not.
(The UDHR, incidentally, carries no legal weight. It's not enforced by any law or body, and there's no court in the land in which you can receive redress of grievances based upon it. For instance, the UDHR says, "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." I have never received my check from the all-loving state, but I can't seem to find a court to hear my complaint. So if you want to be taken seriously, please don't mention the UDHR in any serious contexts. It's a joke.)
The only one who's really restricted in his possibilities is the law-abiding customer.
So you're saying that because somebody can break the law, the law itself is "bogus?"
Doesn't that strike you as kinda... well, stupid?
You mean there are still legal ways to do it, although they are working hard on banning those, too.
Are your tin-foil hats on nice and tight? Good. Because without one, THEY CAN SEE INTO YOUR MIND!
Learn to read, fool. That's exactly what I complained about.
No, you did not. You complained that it's illegal to watch a DVD on a computer that's running Linux. I told you that it most certainly is not. Now you're retroactively changing your argument: what you really meant was that it's illegal to watch a DVD on a computer running Linux if you refuse to use the widely available, licensed, legal tools and choose instead to use tools that were written by people who's express purpose was to break the law.
Well, duh.
Yes, who should care if The Coca Cola Company outlaws Pepsi?
If we ever get anywhere near something that might happen in reality, somebody wake me up, okay?
I'm just not into this for a long time, only like a couple of months, and I'm still learning.
Clearly.
(Of course, if you're a German citizen, please don't waste my legislature's valuable time with your drivel. If you're not a citizen of the United States, Congress doesn't give two shits what you have to say. So please don't clog up the system with letters that will never be read anyway.)
Let's check the posting history:
I can't believe you took the time to dig up all that stuff. That's amazing. And a little pathetic, I think.
Ok, that's not a strict requirement
The Constitution of the United States is not a strict requirement?
If you read my post I said I didn't know how you were going to deal with the tribal areas since Pakistan is obviously unwilling.
Sigh. You base this "obviously unwilling" thing on what? Another Seymour Hersch article? Because it's clearly not based on the facts. Pakistan cracked down severely on Jihadist groups inside their borders after 9/11. In fact, in some ways, they were more brutal than the United States was willing to support.
I ask you again: why do you have such a hard-on for Pakistan? Are you Indian? Are you a Jihadist yourself? Where does this fervent (and, incidentally, sudden) froth and bile for Pakistan come from?
Musharraf gave A.Q. Khan a full pardon.
Once again, your information is out of date. Have you picked up a newspaper in the past six months? That was old news in... oh, what was it? Late January? Early February? It was months and months ago.
The pardon that Musharraf gave A.Q. Khan only covered his statements regarding giving nuclear secrets to other nations, and was in return for his full disclosure. It was not "full pardon." It was not a blanket immunity. He's been under custody ever since.
In point of fact, I misspoke when I said he was in a cell. Turns out he's been under close house arrest. (I forgot that detail. So many things to remember.) Up until the last week of May, he hadn't been out of his house in Islamabad for around six months. Hell, back when he had a heart attack in February or March, he wasn't even allowed out to go to a hospital. Instead, the Pakistani security forces brought doctors and medical equipment to his house and treated him there.
I have here a Times of India article that I found in my file; it was published on May 29. Here are the first two grafs:
In a significant move, Pakistan has relaxed the restrictions on its top nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, under house detention after his confession that he transferred nuclear technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea.
"Khan, known as the father of the Islamic bomb, for his contribution to Pakistan's nuclear programme has been allowed to go out of his house in protective custody for one hour a day and meet his family members," local daily Dawn said quoting officials. It said that Khan's daughter, her children, and other members of his family had also been allowed to meet him once a day for an hour.
Who knows? You might even be able to find this clipping somewhere on the Internet if you search for it. I don't expect you to, or if you do I don't expect you to mention it, but what the hey.
Once again your hypocrisy is amazing in praising Pakistan.
Once again your inability to comprehend matters of degrees is equally amazing.
Pakistan is also harboring terrorists, Al Qaeda in their tribal areas and not making a creditable effort to deal with.
"Not making a credible effort" is obviously a point about which you and I disagree.
But you haven't gotten to the heart of the matter yet. Are you advocating that we invade Pakistan? If so, why? If not, then just what are you advocating?
Say something positive for a change. Say "we should" instead of "we shouldn't" for a change. I'm sick to death of your relentless negativism.
You've invaded countries based on a lot less.
Just couldn't resist lobbing another blatant lie over the fence, could you?
I am just trying to stick to the facts.
You haven't stuck to a single fact yet! You've posted shameful lies which you assured me were facts, then dropped the matter entirely when presented with refutations of those alleged facts. Most recently, you stuck to the "fact" that A.Q. Khan was given a full pardon; he wasn't, and has been under arrest ever since, and is likely to remain under arrest for the rest of his life.
As if that weren't enough, let's talk about the Vice President's misstatement and retraction from last we
You were trying to prove that it was as safe in Chicago as it was in Iraq.
No, I wasn't. Where did you get that idea? I wasn't saying anything at all about safe or unsafe. I was trying to put the sheer number of US deaths in Iraq in proportion. If you're going to get outraged about 1000 deaths in Iraq and not get equally outraged about 1000 murders in one US city in about the same period of time, something ain't right.
Um, your argument was that it isn't any more dangerous in Iraq than it is in Chicago
Um, my argument evidently slipped past you like the proverbial thief in the night.
So what is your argument? That only 800 died?
Well, basically, yeah. I wouldn't put it in such dismissive terms, but that's the nut of it. While any death is sad, and any death of an American soldier is tragic, the losses we've suffered in Iraq have hardly been overwhelming to the war effort as a whole.
However, by your logic then a thief is to be commended because after he broke into a the house of a sleeping family, he only killed the man and injured the woman.
Huh?
Just like Dubya, the thief in our little story, had no business being in Iraq.
I really am getting cynical in my old age. It used to be that I honestly believed that people who didn't understand the importance of Iraq in the war against terrorism were just uninformed. I mean, the average American spends, what, five minutes a day with a newspaper? Maybe watches twenty minutes of the evening news? In order to understand the complex situation in the Middle East, central Asia, and elsewhere, you have to actively study the situation, the relationships between various allied and enemy factions, and the events that affect them.
So I used to think that people who, you know, just didn't get it were simply uninformed, and that being exposed to the facts would change their opinions.
Now I've come to see that in some cases at least, this just isn't true. Some people believe that Iraq was a quaint little country full of peaceful villages before March 2003, and that the US war machine rolled over that land like a fleet of bulldozers over a field full of puppies.
And nothing anybody can say or do will ever change their minds.
What can you say about somebody who remains willfully attached to the same false conclusions despite overwhelming evidence?
By your "logic", and I use that term loosely, if a city of 500,000 has 600 murders in a year, it is as dangerous as Chicago.
Sigh. You're saying one thing. I was saying another. If you want to keep arguing, you'll have to find another opponent.
I ignored most of what you wrote. If I accidentally skimmed over something relevant in your sea of senseless rambling, please call my attention to it so I can reply.
The main reason why I'm pro P2P is that it promotes competition in a market-place tightly controlled using pay for play on limited airwaves by an oligopoly found guilty of price fixing.
By definition, no competition can apply in this circumstance. Copyright is a legally sanctioned monopoly. There's no way to make "P2P" legal unless you abolish copyright law entirely.
Oh, geez. I think I just stumbled upon your agenda, didn't I?
But property in the traditional sense is either something material (e.g. a TV set, or a house, or a pack of razorblades), or to something immaterial that shall not be copied by anyone but a governmental agency, and the scarceness of which is benefitial (if it's not too scarce, but that's another issue).
Yeah... see, the things is, people who lived before you already figured out what "property" means. It's not left to you to construct your own definition. Consequently, all of your reasoning, sound or unsound, is trumped by centuries of social tradition.
Property includes both tangible and intangible assets, whether you like this fact or not. Go read your Locke.
The reason why the property analogy is obviously flawed, is that, if I take your property, you don't have it anymore.
Locke specifically considered and rejected the economic theory of property. (The economic theory is based on the principle of scarcity, that is to say, the idea that when I take it you don't have it any more. Whole libraries of books have been written on economics in non-scarcity situations. I have never read any of them. Too dense for me. But suffice it to say that better minds than yours or mine have already been down that track and found it didn't lead them anywhere useful.)
CDs and DVDs don't come with a license
CD's, no. But have you ever looked at the box a DVD comes in? Or, for that matter, watched it? There's a message right there that says, in essence, that unauthorized reproduction or distribution is prohibited.
If you buy a boxed version of let's say Microsoft Office, you're acquiring a copy, not a license.
The courts disagree. You're trying to construct this theory of intangible economics entirely out of whole cloth. While that might be a diverting exercise, it's not something I want to waste my time on. I prefer to discuss the state of property rights as they exist in the real world.
Yes, but then, I don't understand why all of a sudden the law should say that fair use, though still legal in principle, should be made technically illegal by imposing anti-circumvention restrictions on me as the user.
You don't have to understand it. It's not a complicated idea, but if grasping it is beyond your faculties (or, I strongly suspect, simply beyond your stubbornness), that's your own problem.
If I never had had the right to do "it", then they could just have left the law as it was.
Property rights are better protected with the new law.
I'm not stealing it since there's no such thing as intellectual property.
"La la la la, I can't here you, there's no such thing, la la la la." You know, you could have made your position much more tenable simply by saying "There should not be" instead of "There is no." If you'd said that, you would have been making an argument instead of an ass of yourself.
Of course, all you would have heard back in response would have been, "Get back to the library and read your Locke, you dilettante," but what the hey.
I did when it was legal
It was never legal.
which you want to call stealing for some reason that I fail to comprehend.
And we're back here again. Your failure to comprehend simple facts about the world is your problem. Stop trying to foist it off ont
Re:posting this in sev. parts because /. complains
on
Xgrid Agent for Unix
·
· Score: 1
Not with macrovision in place
The courts have found (twice, I think, but don't quote me on that point) that Macrovision is not an effective access control mechanism, and therefore is not covered by the relevant parts of Title 17.
the law does not require them to be waterproof in any manner
That's not the case. Go read the statue. There is a clear definition in there for "access control mechanism."
You said if it's illegal, it's always illegitimate, and I pointed out that there should be exceptions.
OK, this is getting muddied, so let me be clear. I am not in the "civil disobedience" crowd. I do not like the idea of breaking a law that you think is unjust or improper. Why? Because I do not like the idea of individual citizens deciding for themselves which laws they'll obey and which they won't. When that happens, in any context, the rule of law itself is weakened, and that's a bad thing.
We have systems in place for putting the law itself on trial. These systems exist for a reason, and they should be utilized.
Inevitably, when the discussion turns this way, somebody brings up Rosa Parks. And I always point out the shocking and disappointing arrogance of a rich white kid putting himself in the same class as Rosa Parks. So just don't even bother going there.
I have no right to make fair use of e.g. the music I bought?
Yes, you have "rights" under the fair use clause. (They're not "rights," but rather exceptions to a prohibition. To call them "rights" implies that they have some basis in natural law, which you seem to believe is true but actually is not. But I'll use your term just to keep you following along.) Making perfect digital reproductions of encrypted works is not expressly allowed under fair use, and it is prohibited under other sections of the statute. And for very good reasons, reasons which you refuse to acknowledge. Because you are free to make other kinds of copies, fair use doesn't even come into it.
I'll just assume that you only pretend to be obtuse, and that you actually know full well that I didn't claim these to have a DVD-CCA license.
Well, then, they're not perfectly fine, are they? They are, in fact, illegal, aren't they? And when faced with the fact that myriad alternatives exist that are not illegal, then these non-licensed items become essentially irrelevant, don't they?
Ok, that makes sense, and I'll comply with that.
Whew. Finally. I swear, you make this like giving birth.
But I think it's legitimate for me to oppose this law, and it's introduction of "DMCAACIPT licenses" even if content industry fanboys like you say that in a democracy, laws should never be criticized.
1. It's not a democracy, I keep telling you! It's a republic!
2. Fine, oppose! Sue! Write your Congressman! But do not break the law, and do not get on an Internet message board and talk about exciting new technologies like Xgrid that have the potential to drastically reduce the cost and complexity of computational chemistry and molecular genetics--fields in which researchers routinely cure diseases and save lives--in the context of how you can most effectively use them to pirate music and movies!
A public debate, in my eyes, is one that involves the public as an active party.
You're free to attend the Congress or watch it on television and participate in the debate by writing to, calling, or visiting your elected representatives, but they're not going to come after you actively seeking your input. Doesn't work like that.
Not that federal law would require states to offer democratic elections to their citizens, but de facto, all of them do.
You know what the best part was? You know what the very, very bestest part was? The way you wrote some funny things and then tried to make it look like you were quoting me. Man, that had me rolling. You're a real wit, you know that? You're wasting your talents here.
I vote. So do most of the people at those rallies.
Good for you. If you ever get anywhere near shouting distance of a plurality, please poke me with a pointed stick so I will know to start paying attention to your politics.
You may be willing to lock them all up and throw away the key, but without giving our captives rights, the world cannot know if they are truly guilty of anything.
Yawn. You're just jumping up and down on the same point, a point to which I have responded already. We can't turn them over to the civilian justice system: Posse Comitatus and myriad problems of jurisdiction. We can't treat them as prisoners of war: the Geneva convention prohibits it. So what should we do?
I've asked you more than once. Won't you please deign either to give me an answer or to kindly shut the fuck up about it?
You smell funny.
Look, it was hot out today, and the lawn needed mowing, and I was just on my way to the shower, and... besides, you're no prize yourself.
You don't know either.
I'm arguing for the status quo. With a few very specific and minor exceptions, I think we're doing pretty much the right thing across the board. That is to say, I can't think of a better idea, so I advocate what we're presently doing.
You, on the other hand, insist that what we're presently doing is wrong, wrong, wrong, and yet you have no suggestions for what we should be doing instead. Well, other than shoveling greenbacks into Jihadists' pockets.
There is a wealth of expert knowledge that is being ignored or overridden at every step of the way.
Right. That's because the people we elected to make these kinds of decisions have to listen to all the suggestions and then pick the one that they think is right. No matter what they choose, most everybody's suggestions are going to be left by the wayside.
I mean, at any point in history you could say exactly the same thing. It's a meaningless criticism that only serves to communicate your unspoken point: the people that you agree with are suggesting plans that aren't getting approval, and this disappoints and angers you. Well, friend, that in and of itself isn't very compelling.
Under that plan, we make friends only with people who throw themselves at our feet.
Remember, kids: there are only two possible courses of action for any nation-state. Either wage open war against us, or throw yourselves at our feet. I know this is how international relations works because some guy on Slashdot told me so.
I and a lot of people are quite angry because we believe that we'd be much better off if we'd been listened to by our own government a while ago.
What were they supposed to listen to? All you've been saying is "No!"
I didn't say "against" Pakistan, I said "in" Pakistan.
How can you fight a war "in" Pakistan without fighting a war "against" Pakistan? Pakistan is a sovereign nation. And, incidentally, our ally. We can't just march the Third ID in there and start clearing villages. So just what exactly are you proposing here?
its my opinion that Pakistan hasn't been doing nearly enough in dealing with Al Qaeda within its borders.
So you're suggesting that we invade Pakistan, our ally, because you don't think they're doing enough? If they'd been doing nothing at all, I'd go along with that in a heartbeat. But that simply isn't the case. Don't you remember the out-and-out battle the Pakistanis fought against terrorists on the Afghan border just this past winter? Hundreds of Pakistani soldiers lost their lives. Thousands of terrorists were killed. Does this constitute "not doing enough?"
I could talk about Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed, but should I bother? Would you even recognize the name without having to do an Internet search?
You were aware that Pakistan was the world biggest nuclear proliferater to Iran, North Korea, etc.
The government of Pakistan did not itself engage in proliferation. That was the act of a single individual inside their government, Abdul Qadeer Khan. You might as well accuse the United States of proliferation because of the Rosenbergs.
The A.Q. Khan incident was terrible. But it wasn't enough to destroy the close alliance that we've built with Pakistan over the past several years, and alliance that, incidentally, has gone a long way toward easing tensions in Kashmir, which was long believed to be the most volatile spot on the face of the Earth.
I know you will now retort with what a great job the CIA and Pakistan did breaking up the ring but you will note that the head of the ring is still living in luxury in Pakistan, free as a bird, and a revered hero there.
I guess, if you consider "free as a bird" to mean "in a 6' x 6' cell for the rest of his life without even so much as a show-trial."
You seem to have something of a double standard on Iraq, who has no nukes and Pakistan whose been shopping them to all your worst nightmares.
What do you suggest Pakistan do differently?
Pakistan is our ally in this war. Like it or not--and it's clear that you don't--they are our ally. Are they a perfect ally? Of course not; what ally ever is? But they're on our side. Calling for war with them is ludicrous.
You didn't say revenge but thats sure what I thought you were talking about
Haven't we already indicted, tried and convicted your reading comprehension skills? Is it really necessary to go through the motions again?
In case you haven't figured it out by now, my main motivation at the moment, until I get bored, is to follow you around in slashdot and pick fights with you every time you spew venom at anyone you disagrees with you.
Knock yourself out. Have you ever heard the old expression, "Never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel?"
I'm sure anybody who happens to read this will note the short amount of time it's taken you to go from actually trying to advance an argument to "take your meds." I think that's actually some kind of record for me. I can't recall ever reducing a radical left-winger to froth and bile in so short a time.
Is that because I'm getting more acerbic in my old age, or is it because the radical left-wingers are living closer to the edge all the time?
In the last week I've seen you call people liars time after time based on nothing but "definitions, semantics and trivialities"
OK.
I imagine some of the families of the dead and the thousands of seriously wounded probably don't appreciate your efforts to trivialize them out of one side of your mouth and praise them out the other.
You wouldn't recognize my intention if it climbed up your leg and bit you on your ass.
The chicken hawks in the White House went out of their way to get those guys killed in Iraq fighting a war that was extremely optional.
Ladies and gentlemen: "Demachina."
Just in case, you know, anybody had managed to forget your true feelings on the matter.
You still haven't answered my questions about your motives, you know. What is it that motivates you to go so far as to lie to paint the war effort in the worst possible light? I mean, I know that you're trying to undermine popular support for the effort, but why? Are you actively working for the terrorists, or is it something more subtle? I mean, I would prefer to believe that it's something else, but you never know, do you? Al-Qaida and other groups have used web sites in the past to spread their message of hate. Maybe...
Nah. Couldn't be. That's just silly of me. Forget I said anything.
A. 9/11 would have been better avenged
Revenge was never our motive. That's just silly.
B. The War on Terrorism might have been won early
I'd love to know how fighting a war against Pakistan, our ally in this war, would have captured, killed, or dissuaded terrorists working out of Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, the Sudan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania...
This is going to be a long fight. The government and the people of the United States are prepared for that. Why don't you understand this?
C. A lot of brave guys would be alive today or not missing arms and legs, or if they had died in Afghanistan they would have died for a good reason, avenging 9/11.
Revenge is not a good reason. Obliterating terrorism as a military doctrine is a good reason.
D. Moderate arabs wouldn't have been pushed in to the arms of the extremist out of the swelling hatred of the U.S.
There's absolutely no evidence that a single "moderate Arab" has been "pushed into" anything. In fact, I contend that the moderate Arabs have been pushed toward the position of the West thanks to ill-thought-out terrorist attacks on the Iraqi people and the governments of Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Instead the chicken hawks blew off Afghanistan and Pakistan before the job was done
Well, we've already covered how you're so wrong about Afghanistan as to be laughable, and we've already covered how Pakistan is our ally. I swear, if this were 1943, you'd be calling on the United States to invade Great Britain.
Hey... come to think of it... are you just trying to drive a wedge between us and our ally, Pakistan? Sounds about right to me... after all, that's the same tactic al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula tried last week when they accused Saudi security of helping them kidnap Paul Johnson. It's as much a war of disinformation as it is a shooting war, and right now, you're toeing the terrorist party line pretty damned well.
You know, even if (benefit of the doubt kicks in here) you're not actively aiding the terrorists, shouldn't the fact that you're arguing their position for them give you a moment of pause?
Again, that's giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm starting to think that it's increasingly likely you are an Islamist, a Jihadist, or a terrorist yourself, because...
No. No, that's just paranoid of me. Forget I said anything.
I'll have to assume you were the one lying until you prove otherwise.
OK.
If I am wrong I was hoping you would help me see the light.
Not my job, man. "If I haven't seen it, it's a lie!!!" doesn't fool anybody any more.
Until Bush drafted them
Another lie. We haven't had a draft in this country since 1973. You're getting desperate now.
Its a common nickname and I imagine they use it themselves.
You imagine wrong. It's a pejorative term. I have no problem at all believing that you used it out of ignorance; ignorance is your calling card. But that doesn't change the fact that you so obviously hold our soldiers in such contempt that you couldn't possibly pass on an opportunity to trivialize their efforts.
If you looked at the quotes you would see those were a bunch of quotes from major papers on Colonel Pappas.
Yeah, we've seen how "quotes from major papers" have really bolstered your case thus far.
Look, let me be perfectly clear on this. Time and again, you have tried to take quotes out of context to prove your point. You tried it with David Kay, ignoring the context of the report in which those remarks were made and the context of the events that have transpired since. You tried it with Seymour Hersch, ignoring the context the he's a freaking liar who when he isn't just making stuff up is drawing conclusions that are so wrong they're laughable. You tried it with Janice "Waa waa!" Karpinski, ignoring the context that she was held responsible for the very acts you were trying to blame on somebody else, and that she got all pissy when she was relieved of command and sent stateside. And most recently you tried it with the Vice President of the United States, pulling out two inconsistent remarks and ignoring the context of the retraction that the White House issued the very next day.
So you think "quotes from major papers" are going to persuade anybody after you've established that kind of track record? For shame.
There once was a time when I felt a certain duty to point out your lies. Point by point, I took you to school. Now it's reached the level where it's just not funny anymore. Your feeble attempts to try to paint the administration and the United States in the worst possible light are just plain sad.
And you know, come to think of it, you never did answer my questions about your motives. What's your goal here? To try to undermine confidence in the war effort? To damage home-front morale? Just what's your angle, anyway?
Hopefully this will shatter your illusion that the people in the Bush administration never lie.
Wow. Way to read the first line of my post and nothing further.
Hey, if you want to pull the old tactic of just repeating the same thing over and over and not actually, you know, dealing with the correction that the White House issued the very next day, that's cool by me.
"Par for the course," I think, is the expression that applies here.
As you recall I though the wording was slightly different so he might get off on a technicality but the wordoing was exactly the same so he was definitely lying in the second interview and may well have been in the first one.
Definitely lying. Definitely, definitely lying. No question about it, definitely lying.
Sigh.
I guess that last bastion of objective journalism, "The Daily Show," and hard-hitting investigator Larry King both neglected to mention the correction that Scott McClellan gave at the press gaggle the next day. (That was Friday the 18th, just a week ago.)
MR. McCLELLAN: In an interview with CNBC last night, the Vice President denied ever saying the words "pretty well confirmed" in relation to Mohammed Atta. In fact he did use those words in an interview on "Meet the Press" last December. The Vice President regrets his error and has asked me to reiterate his statement that no evidence has been found to date to contradict the report.
Scott then went into a pretty long statement about the 9/11 commission report that I don't feel like transcribing right now. I'm sure you can find it yourself with your mad research skillz. The same ones with which you apparently inexplicably unable to locate any of Seymour Hersch's old columns except for the one that you copied-and-pasted from.
Everybody needs to pay very close attention to this. This is why the Democratic party can't be taken seriously. They, and their supporters, are so dead-set on catching the administration in a lie that they're willing to take a simple error, which was corrected on the record the next day, and blow the living hell out of it just to try to make our elected leaders look bad.
This is almost as good a time as when the left made a huge stink about Scott's statement, "This is about an imminent threat." They trumpeted that one from the rooftops, swearing that it was conclusive proof that the administration said Iraq was an imminent threat, an allegation the administration has always flatly denied.
Of course, the fact that Scott wasn't even talking about Iraq, but rather about Turkey's request for additional NATO air defenses, is never brought up.
I've said this before and I'll say it again until it no longer becomes necessary: stop trying so hard to make your point, and just concentrate on the facts. You'll look much less like a colossal ass that way.
Well if you point me to the exact text of what he said I will be glad to look at it and if you are correct that he lied I will be the first to pat you on the back.
If I gave two shits about garnering your approval, that might be a tempting offer. As it is... not so much.
I haven't studied his work in the extraordinary detail you apparently have so maybe he is a bold faced liar.
Yet again, it's "bald-faced." Not "bold faced."
And if you haven't studied his work very closely, why were you so excited about citing his highly negative article on Afghanistan? Is it possibly because you're more concerned about finding people who have said bad things about the United States than you are about speaking truthfully?
Again if you point me to the text of the 16 AC-130's statement I would like to review it
Then go find it. Hersch's columns are hardly hidden from public view.
I can't dig up an online reference for that. I got that from cable news.
This is old ground: you cannot watch five minutes of CNN and consider yourself an informed citizen. Please stop spreading rumors. It just makes you look silly.
Since it says the facilities were severely overcrowded and part of the problem was due to not being able to release detainees who should not be in custody you can deduce people were being picked up that shouldn't have been.
Nobody has ever argued otherwise. Of course some of the people in custody didn't belong there. So? You're expecting them to be perfect, maybe?
But the thing is, what the General said in his report and what you said were not even similar. He said that it takes too long to identify and release people who didn't belong there. You said that the military "admitted" that they "swept up large numbers of" blah blah blah. You said things that the General didn't say, and then tried to attribute them to the General. That's a lie.
She certainly had problems in her command but she was commanding weekend warriors
Never miss an opportunity to slander people who leave their homes and families and put their lives in danger to protect you from the people who want to blow you into tiny smithereens, do you?
From disinfopedia
Is that supposed to be funny, or was it funny all on its own?
Then you just copied-and-pasted a bunch of stuff that had no relation to your position or argument, or to anything that I said.
Pretty weak, overall. You're losing your touch, I think. Being taken to school on the Hersch question seems to have really taken the wind out of your sails. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Why don't you go take a little nap, and when you wake up I'll have milk and cookies for you. Does that sound good?
This may be just crazy liberal talk, but I interpret rate to be number of murders per unit of population.
It's crazy liberal talk to the extent that you're trying to argue definitions, semantics, and trivialities instead of meaningful points.
For the record, "murders per unit time per geographical area" is a perfectly acceptable definition of "murder rate."
The larger issue remains untouched: the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq is not overwhelming. Every soldier's death is a tragedy, but there's no need to look at the total number and predict doom and gloom.
Next time, do some real research before opening your mouth, you just might be surprised to see that you were being lied to.
Next time, try focusing on something meaningful instead of trying your best to poke holes in the periphery of an argument.
Interesting.. what political agenda could/would that be?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Random House defines "propaganda" as information, rumors, et cetera, deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, et cetera. By that definition, Fahrenheit 911 is propaganda, isn't it?
MOORE: Well, it's an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. And that's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism, even though those who use the words "fair and balanced" often aren't that, but--
STEPHANOPOULOS: And your goal is to defeat President Bush.
MOORE: I would like to see Mr. Bush removed from the White House.
It's a matter of interpretation whether e.g. a full, high-quality analog copy of a music CD is covered by the fair use guidelines.
Oh, I see your point. Yes, I agree. In fact, when you put it that way, I'd have to conclude that a full-length copy would probably not automatically be covered by the fair use exception. But case law says that making full-length copies for home use is not infringing (Universal v. Sony, the Betamax case), so that's a case where the statute itself doesn't tell the whole story.
I hate to brag about my IQ, but 159 is definitely more than that of the average dumbass.
Good for you. Want to talk about penis sizes next?
Intellectual property is a lie
Wow. Deja vu.
See the Wikipedia link I posted.
Not a chance.:-)
You'll also note that the original constitution does not mention private property at all
(Original Constitution? Is there a new one I need to know about?)
It's one of those standard omissions. You'll notice that the Constitution doesn't mention a right to life or a right to liberty, either. The right to property was just taken as a given. It was never suspected by the founders that it would come into question.
The closest thing you're going to find to an enshrinement of property rights in the Constitution is the fourth amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Hey, look at that. Papers. Sounds like they're talking about writings. Intellectual property. The big lie. Neat, huh?
The irony is that US musicians in 90%+ of cases no longer have any rights to their own works, because the record labels impose "work for hire" clauses on them.
Woah, there. Let's haul our little butts back in the general direction of the truth, shall we? Nobody imposes anything on anybody. If I have a guitar and I think I sing pretty well, I can call up a record label and ask for a contract. If they offer me one, I'm free to read it, thereby being informed about its contents. If I can't understand it, I can retain counsel to explain it to me. If, and only if, I accept the terms of the contract, I sign it. I wasn't forced to do anything.
Now, why do record labels insist that they have rights over the music they publish? Easy: money! It costs a fortune to record, produce, and promote a record. Hell, recording studio time alone can run up into the thousands of dollars per hour. Somebody has to put that money out there up front. Does the artist have the wherewithal? No. Who does? The label.
The label is like an investor. And like an investor, the label demands a return on their investment. And what's more, the return on a single successful record must be many, many times the cost of making that record. Why? Because most records are not successful. Let's say for every ten records, one succeeds and the others fail. That is, the others fail to generate enough profits to cover the costs involved in making them. Somebody loses money on nine records out of ten. Well, the only way to keep things going, then, is to make sure that tenth record, the successful one, generates ten times more money than what was invested into it.
When you buy a Britney Spears CD, you're not just paying for that CD. You're also contributing a tiny amount of money toward all the CD's put out by all the artists on Britney's label that will never turn a profit. You're essentially subsidizing all music any time you buy any music.
Oh, those evil, evil record labels. We hate them, don't we, Al?
This directly contradicts US Constitution section 8.
Woah. Talk about a drastic misreading of the text. Article I section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress. Not of the people. The people are sovereign in the United States. The law grants them n
You said Seymour lied when he said the Taguba report said 60%. Once again I proved to you it did say that.
Yes, the words "sixty percent" are indeed to be found in MG Taguba's report. They are not, however, to be found in any context even remotely similar to what Hersch said they were. So that was a lie.
Messing up chain of command like that was bad and against military doctrine so its not suprising it went really bad.
You've got your timeline confused. Operational control over the prison was taken from Janice "It wasn't my fault!" Karpinski after the abuses took place. It was her lack of leadership and discipline that allowed the abuses to happen in the first place. She was ultimately relieved of command over it.
Well we had all that in Vietnam too.
Wow. Every time I think we've hit the bottom of the well of your ignorance, you get right in there with a shovel.
In Afghanistan, we had a regime in power that was removed from power by force. The supporters of that regime were captured, killed, fled across the border, or escaped into the remote parts of the country. The few who remained inside the borders have been carrying out a completely ineffective guerilla war. They have no popular support and they lack the ability to operate in a coordinated fashion.
In Vietnam, we had an entire army that was carrying out coordinated, effective operations from a position of safety north of the border. They had extensive support, both materially and logistically, from the communist regime in Hanoi, which in turn was supported by other communist governments.
Oh, and by the way, in Vietnam the decision was made at the highest levels of our government to fight toward a stalemate rather than to achieve victory. In Afghanistan, the opposite is true.
There are no parallels between Vietnam and Afghanistan. There just aren't any. Using the history of Vietnam as a data point to try to predict the future of Afghanistan is just plain dumb.
It could happen in Afghanistan and Iraq too unless the Bush administration gets their heads screwed on straight or are thrown out in November though I have zero confidence Kerry would do any better.
Doom and gloom, doom and gloom. Ignore the fact that things are going incredibly well as a whole. Concentrate instead on the small setbacks. Or, in this case, on the things that might, possibly, maybe could go wrong in the future.
Once again I don't think I'm lying. I'm just referring to the memos the White House itself released this week.
Well, that's not what I was referring to, but whatever, I'll bite. So what? The memos authorized the use of techniques inducing fear, humiliation, anger, and discomfort. These are part and parcel of interrogation. Do you think interrogation should be soft pillows and cups of tea?
Even so, they show that in December, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved the use of techniques, such as the use of guard dogs to instill fear in detainees, stripping detainees nude, and the use of painful stress positions, that violate the law.
These techniques do not violate the law. These techniques do not fit the legal definition of torture. (Torture is defined in 18 USC as being the deliberate infliction of severe mental or physical pain. Discomfort doesn't count. Fear doesn't count.)
Besides, SecDef rescinded that authorization just six weeks later, on January 15, after the DoD received news of the abuses at Abu Ghraib. After a thorough review of the legal issues, SecDef further restricted the authorized interrogation techniques.
If anything, this point proves that SecDef is a good guy who's trying to do his job to the best of his ability while making sure that his staff and our military forces do not cross the line. When they cross the line, he reigns 'em back in as necessary. Pretty damned hard to find fault there.
Just like I thought - you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.
Right. I'm the clueless one.
Or maybe you're confused about the word "explicitely"
That was unintentionally hilarious.
Yes, and the anti-circumvention provisions restrict that right, don't they?
Yes. But they do not obliterate it. You can still exercise your "fair use rights" (ugh) without circumventing digital access controls to make perfect copies.
It's below my dignity to point out to such an obstinate person that Section 1201 nowhere mentions such a thing as "perfect digital copies", which means that the anti-circumvention provisions are universal.
Is it also below your dignity to understand what you read? There is no analog process or system yet known that can effectively control access to a work. That entire portion of the statute refers only to circumventing access control measures, which can only apply in a digital context.
You would've made for a good East German "Mauerschütze" - the soldiers who shot their compatriots in the back for trying to flee to West Germany.
Ah, yes. I knew something was out of place. The fucking idiot hadn't accused me of being a fascist Nazi yet. Now I feel much better.
The difference is subtle, and you're too dim, so I won't take the pains of explaining it to you.
You know what's subtle? You know what's really, really subtle? Equating casual piracy of DVD's with murder. That's subtle.
Of course there are circumstances where it's necessary to oppose an unjust law. This isn't anywhere near one of them. This is nothing more or less than a case where you want to do something that you have ABSOLUTELY NO right to do, and it's pissing you off.
There are fine DVD players for Linux, Mr. Clueless.
Then what are you complaining about? How can it be illegal if fine licensed products exist to do it?
The DVD-CCA is in a monopoly position and can impose whatever licensing restrictions it wants, and their current ones are harsh to say the least. Most importantly, they are fundamentally incompatible with the concept of FOSS. That is the problem.
That's your problem. It's not a legal problem. If you're unwilling to accept the terms that DVD-CCA offers, then you cannot use their technology. Period.
But of course it's not a problem, because "there are fine DVD players for Linux." So off you go, then. Nothing to see here.
Another interesting aspect is how, in a purported democracy, a section of copyright law manages to introduce a whole new category of "intellectual property" without any public debate.
"Without any public debate?" We have a Senate and a House of Representatives, you know. They're on TV and everything. Everything they do is a part of the public record. Go read the debate for yourself, or watch it live on C-SPAN. New laws don't just happen. I mean, I can understand how you might have slept through class the day they taught you how a bill becomes a law, but didn't you ever even watch Schoolhouse Rock?
(The United States of America, incidentally, is not a democracy. Never was. It's a republic. Do you know the difference? And do you know why the distinction is important?)
Actually, I noticed that the "PowerDVD" player for Linux is approved by the DVD-CCA.
Hooray! Everybody's happy.
If they force me to install CSS where OSS would be just fine just to view a DVD, then my choice is simple: I won't buy anything from the people who lobby for these obscene laws.
Fantastic. Glad to hear it. Now... what can we do to get you to shut up about it? Your whining is an embarrassment to all.
Their lies are documented
Yes, all lies, all stinking filthy lies, dirty dirty liars, dirty filthy liars.
Actually, the fair use clause doesn't even guarantee the right to make analog copies.
Yes, it does. It says that making copies for such-n-such purposes is not infringement. Therefore copyright laws do not apply to those sorts of copies. Therefore the right to make those sorts of copies is not abridged by law.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.
Your tin-foil hat is on too tight. Or possibly you're just a dumbass.
The goal is to give copyright holders (which are only rarely nowadays the actual artists) enormous power even beyond that which they already wield.
Spoken like a true guy-who-doesn't-understand-basic-property-rights.
Copyright law exists for one purpose and one purpose only: to protect those rights that people already have. As long as those rights aren't being sufficiently protected by law, there will be more and better laws.
The purpose of law is not to "give power." It's to protect the "power" we already have by virtue of nature.
Yes, that's why even viewing a DVD is illegal.
Already covered this one. It's not illegal. It's just illegal to do it without a license. Can't find a licensed product you like? Make your own. Can't find investors to fund your effort? Blame your fellow idiots.
I need a better tool for handling mail SA has identified as spam, either server-side or client-side.
Yes, you sure do.
Odds are that this doesn't apply to you, but the Mac OS X mail program, Mail, does a brilliant job. It recognizes the YES or NO header that SpamAssassin adds to filtered messages and, depending on your preferences, filters accordingly. By default it merely flags spam messages with a little trash-bag icon and leaves them in your inbox. At the flip of a switch, you can have the program automatically move spams into a Junk folder that (again, depending on your prefs) can be automatically emptied every week or month or day or whatever.
If your mail program doesn't already do this, then your mail program sucks.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Apple does fileserving really well; 500MB a minute over AFP.
You must be talking about old-fashioned 100BASE-T. Over Gigabit, I usually see about 40 MB/s, and I suspect that the limiting factor there might be the hard drive in our server. (We don't have a RAID attached, just an internal disk for our non-critical day-to-day work.)
Panther Server makes an excellent general-purpose small business server. I set one up for a friend a few weekends ago. It's their directory server, provides DHCP, runs a web server, hosts the company's mail (installing SpamAssassin was the usual pain in the ass, but I see now that it's included in Tiger Server), is their FTP server, supports VPN connections via IPsec, and provides file services via AppleShare, NFS, and SMB. It's also their database (with FileMaker Pro, but Oracle or PostgreSQL or Sybase would work too) and their scheduling hub (MeetingMaker).
And it's all running on a 500 MHz Power Mac G4.
I don't know about targeting that market, but it's a great solution for that market.
Video editors and - especially - motion graphics designers use every pixel of those huge screens.
Absolutely. The 30" display is big enough to have a full-size HD window with plenty of round around it for UI stuff like your timeline.
On a 1920x1200 monitor, you either have to work in proxy view (ugh) or you have to live with a tiny strip of UI at the very bottom. The 30" screen fixes this.
Since P2P was legal in Germany, this sounds rather weird.
It most certainly was not. If Germany didn't have laws that prohibited it, Germany should have, because Germany is a signatory nation to the Berne Convention, the WIPO treaty, and other binding international conventions relating to the protection of property rights.
Property was invented because some things are scarce.
Property wasn't invented at all. It just is. I told you to go read your Locke. You evidently didn't.
(Economics, incidentally, is the thing that was "invented" because some things are scarce.)
But then, what am I talking to you? Pearls before the swine.
Oink, oink.
A message on a box doesn't make for a valid contract, and it never did.
Never said "contract." Said "license." (At least, I never meant to. If I did, I misspoke, and I apologize and retract.) The differences between a license and a contract are myriad and important. One major difference is that you don't have to make any overt act in acceptance of a license. It can be implicit in a transaction. Which is why you didn't have to sign anything.
Just because you would start calling your president "Santa Claus" doesn't mean that Santa Claus actually exists.
Is this some kind of German idiom that makes no sense whatsoever when translated into English? Or is this just one of those things that, you know, makes no sense whatsoever?
As I said, I'm still learning, and I definitely learned something from this discussion
You need to be a lot less sure of yourself. You've been wrong about just about everything here. (No offense.) Seriously: go school yourself.
Again, no references. Learn to use Google, pal.
Good grief. Not another one. Why do all the dim bulbs seem to think that I'm their own personal news clipping service? If you're going to try to make an argument, it's your responsibility to know the facts behind it.
Yes, and it does not require the technology to be waterproof, just like I said
Keep reading, bubba. Refer in particular to the relevant case law. US v. Elcom is a good place to start. The opinion in that case should be on the required reading list for everybody who still whines about the DMCA. Read the opinion, realize that you're making a lot of noise about nothing at all, and then shut the hell up, okay?
They have - freedom of speech and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I'd love to hear how you could possibly link this argument to anything related to free speech. If the fair use exception disappeared tomorrow, free speech would not be harmed in the slightest. You're still just as free to comment on something whether you quote from it or not.
(The UDHR, incidentally, carries no legal weight. It's not enforced by any law or body, and there's no court in the land in which you can receive redress of grievances based upon it. For instance, the UDHR says, "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." I have never received my check from the all-loving state, but I can't seem to find a court to hear my complaint. So if you want to be taken seriously, please don't mention the UDHR in any serious contexts. It's a joke.)
The only one who's really restricted in his possibilities is the law-abiding customer.
So you're saying that because somebody can break the law, the law itself is "bogus?"
Doesn't that strike you as kinda... well, stupid?
You mean there are still legal ways to do it, although they are working hard on banning those, too.
Are your tin-foil hats on nice and tight? Good. Because without one, THEY CAN SEE INTO YOUR MIND!
Learn to read, fool. That's exactly what I complained about.
No, you did not. You complained that it's illegal to watch a DVD on a computer that's running Linux. I told you that it most certainly is not. Now you're retroactively changing your argument: what you really meant was that it's illegal to watch a DVD on a computer running Linux if you refuse to use the widely available, licensed, legal tools and choose instead to use tools that were written by people who's express purpose was to break the law.
Well, duh.
Yes, who should care if The Coca Cola Company outlaws Pepsi?
If we ever get anywhere near something that might happen in reality, somebody wake me up, okay?
I'm just not into this for a long time, only like a couple of months, and I'm still learning.
Clearly.
(Of course, if you're a German citizen, please don't waste my legislature's valuable time with your drivel. If you're not a citizen of the United States, Congress doesn't give two shits what you have to say. So please don't clog up the system with letters that will never be read anyway.)
Let's check the posting history:
I can't believe you took the time to dig up all that stuff. That's amazing. And a little pathetic, I think.
Ok, that's not a strict requirement
The Constitution of the United States is not a strict requirement?
but my source or my memory was wrong then.
OK, no problem.
Sigh. You base this "obviously unwilling" thing on what? Another Seymour Hersch article? Because it's clearly not based on the facts. Pakistan cracked down severely on Jihadist groups inside their borders after 9/11. In fact, in some ways, they were more brutal than the United States was willing to support.
I ask you again: why do you have such a hard-on for Pakistan? Are you Indian? Are you a Jihadist yourself? Where does this fervent (and, incidentally, sudden) froth and bile for Pakistan come from?
Musharraf gave A.Q. Khan a full pardon.
Once again, your information is out of date. Have you picked up a newspaper in the past six months? That was old news in... oh, what was it? Late January? Early February? It was months and months ago.
The pardon that Musharraf gave A.Q. Khan only covered his statements regarding giving nuclear secrets to other nations, and was in return for his full disclosure. It was not "full pardon." It was not a blanket immunity. He's been under custody ever since.
In point of fact, I misspoke when I said he was in a cell. Turns out he's been under close house arrest. (I forgot that detail. So many things to remember.) Up until the last week of May, he hadn't been out of his house in Islamabad for around six months. Hell, back when he had a heart attack in February or March, he wasn't even allowed out to go to a hospital. Instead, the Pakistani security forces brought doctors and medical equipment to his house and treated him there.
I have here a Times of India article that I found in my file; it was published on May 29. Here are the first two grafs:
Who knows? You might even be able to find this clipping somewhere on the Internet if you search for it. I don't expect you to, or if you do I don't expect you to mention it, but what the hey.
Once again your hypocrisy is amazing in praising Pakistan.
Once again your inability to comprehend matters of degrees is equally amazing.
Pakistan is also harboring terrorists, Al Qaeda in their tribal areas and not making a creditable effort to deal with.
"Not making a credible effort" is obviously a point about which you and I disagree.
But you haven't gotten to the heart of the matter yet. Are you advocating that we invade Pakistan? If so, why? If not, then just what are you advocating?
Say something positive for a change. Say "we should" instead of "we shouldn't" for a change. I'm sick to death of your relentless negativism.
You've invaded countries based on a lot less.
Just couldn't resist lobbing another blatant lie over the fence, could you?
I am just trying to stick to the facts.
You haven't stuck to a single fact yet! You've posted shameful lies which you assured me were facts, then dropped the matter entirely when presented with refutations of those alleged facts. Most recently, you stuck to the "fact" that A.Q. Khan was given a full pardon; he wasn't, and has been under arrest ever since, and is likely to remain under arrest for the rest of his life.
As if that weren't enough, let's talk about the Vice President's misstatement and retraction from last we
You were trying to prove that it was as safe in Chicago as it was in Iraq.
No, I wasn't. Where did you get that idea? I wasn't saying anything at all about safe or unsafe. I was trying to put the sheer number of US deaths in Iraq in proportion. If you're going to get outraged about 1000 deaths in Iraq and not get equally outraged about 1000 murders in one US city in about the same period of time, something ain't right.
Um, your argument was that it isn't any more dangerous in Iraq than it is in Chicago
Um, my argument evidently slipped past you like the proverbial thief in the night.
So what is your argument? That only 800 died?
Well, basically, yeah. I wouldn't put it in such dismissive terms, but that's the nut of it. While any death is sad, and any death of an American soldier is tragic, the losses we've suffered in Iraq have hardly been overwhelming to the war effort as a whole.
However, by your logic then a thief is to be commended because after he broke into a the house of a sleeping family, he only killed the man and injured the woman.
Huh?
Just like Dubya, the thief in our little story, had no business being in Iraq.
I really am getting cynical in my old age. It used to be that I honestly believed that people who didn't understand the importance of Iraq in the war against terrorism were just uninformed. I mean, the average American spends, what, five minutes a day with a newspaper? Maybe watches twenty minutes of the evening news? In order to understand the complex situation in the Middle East, central Asia, and elsewhere, you have to actively study the situation, the relationships between various allied and enemy factions, and the events that affect them.
So I used to think that people who, you know, just didn't get it were simply uninformed, and that being exposed to the facts would change their opinions.
Now I've come to see that in some cases at least, this just isn't true. Some people believe that Iraq was a quaint little country full of peaceful villages before March 2003, and that the US war machine rolled over that land like a fleet of bulldozers over a field full of puppies.
And nothing anybody can say or do will ever change their minds.
What can you say about somebody who remains willfully attached to the same false conclusions despite overwhelming evidence?
By your "logic", and I use that term loosely, if a city of 500,000 has 600 murders in a year, it is as dangerous as Chicago.
Sigh. You're saying one thing. I was saying another. If you want to keep arguing, you'll have to find another opponent.
I ignored most of what you wrote. If I accidentally skimmed over something relevant in your sea of senseless rambling, please call my attention to it so I can reply.
The main reason why I'm pro P2P is that it promotes competition in a market-place tightly controlled using pay for play on limited airwaves by an oligopoly found guilty of price fixing.
By definition, no competition can apply in this circumstance. Copyright is a legally sanctioned monopoly. There's no way to make "P2P" legal unless you abolish copyright law entirely.
Oh, geez. I think I just stumbled upon your agenda, didn't I?
But property in the traditional sense is either something material (e.g. a TV set, or a house, or a pack of razorblades), or to something immaterial that shall not be copied by anyone but a governmental agency, and the scarceness of which is benefitial (if it's not too scarce, but that's another issue).
Yeah... see, the things is, people who lived before you already figured out what "property" means. It's not left to you to construct your own definition. Consequently, all of your reasoning, sound or unsound, is trumped by centuries of social tradition.
Property includes both tangible and intangible assets, whether you like this fact or not. Go read your Locke.
The reason why the property analogy is obviously flawed, is that, if I take your property, you don't have it anymore.
Locke specifically considered and rejected the economic theory of property. (The economic theory is based on the principle of scarcity, that is to say, the idea that when I take it you don't have it any more. Whole libraries of books have been written on economics in non-scarcity situations. I have never read any of them. Too dense for me. But suffice it to say that better minds than yours or mine have already been down that track and found it didn't lead them anywhere useful.)
CDs and DVDs don't come with a license
CD's, no. But have you ever looked at the box a DVD comes in? Or, for that matter, watched it? There's a message right there that says, in essence, that unauthorized reproduction or distribution is prohibited.
If you buy a boxed version of let's say Microsoft Office, you're acquiring a copy, not a license.
The courts disagree. You're trying to construct this theory of intangible economics entirely out of whole cloth. While that might be a diverting exercise, it's not something I want to waste my time on. I prefer to discuss the state of property rights as they exist in the real world.
Yes, but then, I don't understand why all of a sudden the law should say that fair use, though still legal in principle, should be made technically illegal by imposing anti-circumvention restrictions on me as the user.
You don't have to understand it. It's not a complicated idea, but if grasping it is beyond your faculties (or, I strongly suspect, simply beyond your stubbornness), that's your own problem.
If I never had had the right to do "it", then they could just have left the law as it was.
Property rights are better protected with the new law.
I'm not stealing it since there's no such thing as intellectual property.
"La la la la, I can't here you, there's no such thing, la la la la." You know, you could have made your position much more tenable simply by saying "There should not be" instead of "There is no." If you'd said that, you would have been making an argument instead of an ass of yourself.
Of course, all you would have heard back in response would have been, "Get back to the library and read your Locke, you dilettante," but what the hey.
I did when it was legal
It was never legal.
which you want to call stealing for some reason that I fail to comprehend.
And we're back here again. Your failure to comprehend simple facts about the world is your problem. Stop trying to foist it off ont
Not with macrovision in place
The courts have found (twice, I think, but don't quote me on that point) that Macrovision is not an effective access control mechanism, and therefore is not covered by the relevant parts of Title 17.
the law does not require them to be waterproof in any manner
That's not the case. Go read the statue. There is a clear definition in there for "access control mechanism."
You said if it's illegal, it's always illegitimate, and I pointed out that there should be exceptions.
OK, this is getting muddied, so let me be clear. I am not in the "civil disobedience" crowd. I do not like the idea of breaking a law that you think is unjust or improper. Why? Because I do not like the idea of individual citizens deciding for themselves which laws they'll obey and which they won't. When that happens, in any context, the rule of law itself is weakened, and that's a bad thing.
We have systems in place for putting the law itself on trial. These systems exist for a reason, and they should be utilized.
Inevitably, when the discussion turns this way, somebody brings up Rosa Parks. And I always point out the shocking and disappointing arrogance of a rich white kid putting himself in the same class as Rosa Parks. So just don't even bother going there.
I have no right to make fair use of e.g. the music I bought?
Yes, you have "rights" under the fair use clause. (They're not "rights," but rather exceptions to a prohibition. To call them "rights" implies that they have some basis in natural law, which you seem to believe is true but actually is not. But I'll use your term just to keep you following along.) Making perfect digital reproductions of encrypted works is not expressly allowed under fair use, and it is prohibited under other sections of the statute. And for very good reasons, reasons which you refuse to acknowledge. Because you are free to make other kinds of copies, fair use doesn't even come into it.
I'll just assume that you only pretend to be obtuse, and that you actually know full well that I didn't claim these to have a DVD-CCA license.
Well, then, they're not perfectly fine, are they? They are, in fact, illegal, aren't they? And when faced with the fact that myriad alternatives exist that are not illegal, then these non-licensed items become essentially irrelevant, don't they?
Ok, that makes sense, and I'll comply with that.
Whew. Finally. I swear, you make this like giving birth.
But I think it's legitimate for me to oppose this law, and it's introduction of "DMCAACIPT licenses" even if content industry fanboys like you say that in a democracy, laws should never be criticized.
1. It's not a democracy, I keep telling you! It's a republic!
2. Fine, oppose! Sue! Write your Congressman! But do not break the law, and do not get on an Internet message board and talk about exciting new technologies like Xgrid that have the potential to drastically reduce the cost and complexity of computational chemistry and molecular genetics--fields in which researchers routinely cure diseases and save lives--in the context of how you can most effectively use them to pirate music and movies!
A public debate, in my eyes, is one that involves the public as an active party.
You're free to attend the Congress or watch it on television and participate in the debate by writing to, calling, or visiting your elected representatives, but they're not going to come after you actively seeking your input. Doesn't work like that.
Not that federal law would require states to offer democratic elections to their citizens, but de facto, all of them do.
Ahem. Fourteenth Amendment, among other places.
You know what the best part was? You know what the very, very bestest part was? The way you wrote some funny things and then tried to make it look like you were quoting me. Man, that had me rolling. You're a real wit, you know that? You're wasting your talents here.
I vote. So do most of the people at those rallies.
Good for you. If you ever get anywhere near shouting distance of a plurality, please poke me with a pointed stick so I will know to start paying attention to your politics.
You may be willing to lock them all up and throw away the key, but without giving our captives rights, the world cannot know if they are truly guilty of anything.
Yawn. You're just jumping up and down on the same point, a point to which I have responded already. We can't turn them over to the civilian justice system: Posse Comitatus and myriad problems of jurisdiction. We can't treat them as prisoners of war: the Geneva convention prohibits it. So what should we do?
I've asked you more than once. Won't you please deign either to give me an answer or to kindly shut the fuck up about it?
You smell funny.
Look, it was hot out today, and the lawn needed mowing, and I was just on my way to the shower, and... besides, you're no prize yourself.
You don't know either.
I'm arguing for the status quo. With a few very specific and minor exceptions, I think we're doing pretty much the right thing across the board. That is to say, I can't think of a better idea, so I advocate what we're presently doing.
You, on the other hand, insist that what we're presently doing is wrong, wrong, wrong, and yet you have no suggestions for what we should be doing instead. Well, other than shoveling greenbacks into Jihadists' pockets.
There is a wealth of expert knowledge that is being ignored or overridden at every step of the way.
Right. That's because the people we elected to make these kinds of decisions have to listen to all the suggestions and then pick the one that they think is right. No matter what they choose, most everybody's suggestions are going to be left by the wayside.
I mean, at any point in history you could say exactly the same thing. It's a meaningless criticism that only serves to communicate your unspoken point: the people that you agree with are suggesting plans that aren't getting approval, and this disappoints and angers you. Well, friend, that in and of itself isn't very compelling.
Under that plan, we make friends only with people who throw themselves at our feet.
Remember, kids: there are only two possible courses of action for any nation-state. Either wage open war against us, or throw yourselves at our feet. I know this is how international relations works because some guy on Slashdot told me so.
I and a lot of people are quite angry because we believe that we'd be much better off if we'd been listened to by our own government a while ago.
What were they supposed to listen to? All you've been saying is "No!"
I didn't say "against" Pakistan, I said "in" Pakistan.
How can you fight a war "in" Pakistan without fighting a war "against" Pakistan? Pakistan is a sovereign nation. And, incidentally, our ally. We can't just march the Third ID in there and start clearing villages. So just what exactly are you proposing here?
its my opinion that Pakistan hasn't been doing nearly enough in dealing with Al Qaeda within its borders.
So you're suggesting that we invade Pakistan, our ally, because you don't think they're doing enough? If they'd been doing nothing at all, I'd go along with that in a heartbeat. But that simply isn't the case. Don't you remember the out-and-out battle the Pakistanis fought against terrorists on the Afghan border just this past winter? Hundreds of Pakistani soldiers lost their lives. Thousands of terrorists were killed. Does this constitute "not doing enough?"
I could talk about Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed, but should I bother? Would you even recognize the name without having to do an Internet search?
You were aware that Pakistan was the world biggest nuclear proliferater to Iran, North Korea, etc.
The government of Pakistan did not itself engage in proliferation. That was the act of a single individual inside their government, Abdul Qadeer Khan. You might as well accuse the United States of proliferation because of the Rosenbergs.
The A.Q. Khan incident was terrible. But it wasn't enough to destroy the close alliance that we've built with Pakistan over the past several years, and alliance that, incidentally, has gone a long way toward easing tensions in Kashmir, which was long believed to be the most volatile spot on the face of the Earth.
I know you will now retort with what a great job the CIA and Pakistan did breaking up the ring but you will note that the head of the ring is still living in luxury in Pakistan, free as a bird, and a revered hero there.
I guess, if you consider "free as a bird" to mean "in a 6' x 6' cell for the rest of his life without even so much as a show-trial."
You seem to have something of a double standard on Iraq, who has no nukes and Pakistan whose been shopping them to all your worst nightmares.
What do you suggest Pakistan do differently?
Pakistan is our ally in this war. Like it or not--and it's clear that you don't--they are our ally. Are they a perfect ally? Of course not; what ally ever is? But they're on our side. Calling for war with them is ludicrous.
You didn't say revenge but thats sure what I thought you were talking about
Haven't we already indicted, tried and convicted your reading comprehension skills? Is it really necessary to go through the motions again?
In case you haven't figured it out by now, my main motivation at the moment, until I get bored, is to follow you around in slashdot and pick fights with you every time you spew venom at anyone you disagrees with you.
Knock yourself out. Have you ever heard the old expression, "Never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel?"
I'm sure anybody who happens to read this will note the short amount of time it's taken you to go from actually trying to advance an argument to "take your meds." I think that's actually some kind of record for me. I can't recall ever reducing a radical left-winger to froth and bile in so short a time.
Is that because I'm getting more acerbic in my old age, or is it because the radical left-wingers are living closer to the edge all the time?
In the last week I've seen you call people liars time after time based on nothing but "definitions, semantics and trivialities"
OK.
I imagine some of the families of the dead and the thousands of seriously wounded probably don't appreciate your efforts to trivialize them out of one side of your mouth and praise them out the other.
You wouldn't recognize my intention if it climbed up your leg and bit you on your ass.
The chicken hawks in the White House went out of their way to get those guys killed in Iraq fighting a war that was extremely optional.
Ladies and gentlemen: "Demachina."
Just in case, you know, anybody had managed to forget your true feelings on the matter.
You still haven't answered my questions about your motives, you know. What is it that motivates you to go so far as to lie to paint the war effort in the worst possible light? I mean, I know that you're trying to undermine popular support for the effort, but why? Are you actively working for the terrorists, or is it something more subtle? I mean, I would prefer to believe that it's something else, but you never know, do you? Al-Qaida and other groups have used web sites in the past to spread their message of hate. Maybe...
Nah. Couldn't be. That's just silly of me. Forget I said anything.
A. 9/11 would have been better avenged
Revenge was never our motive. That's just silly.
B. The War on Terrorism might have been won early
I'd love to know how fighting a war against Pakistan, our ally in this war, would have captured, killed, or dissuaded terrorists working out of Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, the Sudan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania...
This is going to be a long fight. The government and the people of the United States are prepared for that. Why don't you understand this?
C. A lot of brave guys would be alive today or not missing arms and legs, or if they had died in Afghanistan they would have died for a good reason, avenging 9/11.
Revenge is not a good reason. Obliterating terrorism as a military doctrine is a good reason.
D. Moderate arabs wouldn't have been pushed in to the arms of the extremist out of the swelling hatred of the U.S.
There's absolutely no evidence that a single "moderate Arab" has been "pushed into" anything. In fact, I contend that the moderate Arabs have been pushed toward the position of the West thanks to ill-thought-out terrorist attacks on the Iraqi people and the governments of Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Instead the chicken hawks blew off Afghanistan and Pakistan before the job was done
Well, we've already covered how you're so wrong about Afghanistan as to be laughable, and we've already covered how Pakistan is our ally. I swear, if this were 1943, you'd be calling on the United States to invade Great Britain.
Hey... come to think of it... are you just trying to drive a wedge between us and our ally, Pakistan? Sounds about right to me... after all, that's the same tactic al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula tried last week when they accused Saudi security of helping them kidnap Paul Johnson. It's as much a war of disinformation as it is a shooting war, and right now, you're toeing the terrorist party line pretty damned well.
You know, even if (benefit of the doubt kicks in here) you're not actively aiding the terrorists, shouldn't the fact that you're arguing their position for them give you a moment of pause?
Again, that's giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm starting to think that it's increasingly likely you are an Islamist, a Jihadist, or a terrorist yourself, because...
No. No, that's just paranoid of me. Forget I said anything.
Forget I said anything at all.
If "Weekend Warrior" is a pejorative why does the military use it on its recruiting web site:
Shrug. Obviously opinions differ. What matters is intent, and your intent was blindingly obvious.
Its ridiculous for you to make them all in to saints, or to put words in my mouth and make it appear like I hate the guts of every one of them.
Actually, you're the one who put the words there. I just called you on it.
I'll have to assume you were the one lying until you prove otherwise.
OK.
If I am wrong I was hoping you would help me see the light.
Not my job, man. "If I haven't seen it, it's a lie!!!" doesn't fool anybody any more.
Until Bush drafted them
Another lie. We haven't had a draft in this country since 1973. You're getting desperate now.
Its a common nickname and I imagine they use it themselves.
You imagine wrong. It's a pejorative term. I have no problem at all believing that you used it out of ignorance; ignorance is your calling card. But that doesn't change the fact that you so obviously hold our soldiers in such contempt that you couldn't possibly pass on an opportunity to trivialize their efforts.
If you looked at the quotes you would see those were a bunch of quotes from major papers on Colonel Pappas.
Yeah, we've seen how "quotes from major papers" have really bolstered your case thus far.
Look, let me be perfectly clear on this. Time and again, you have tried to take quotes out of context to prove your point. You tried it with David Kay, ignoring the context of the report in which those remarks were made and the context of the events that have transpired since. You tried it with Seymour Hersch, ignoring the context the he's a freaking liar who when he isn't just making stuff up is drawing conclusions that are so wrong they're laughable. You tried it with Janice "Waa waa!" Karpinski, ignoring the context that she was held responsible for the very acts you were trying to blame on somebody else, and that she got all pissy when she was relieved of command and sent stateside. And most recently you tried it with the Vice President of the United States, pulling out two inconsistent remarks and ignoring the context of the retraction that the White House issued the very next day.
So you think "quotes from major papers" are going to persuade anybody after you've established that kind of track record? For shame.
There once was a time when I felt a certain duty to point out your lies. Point by point, I took you to school. Now it's reached the level where it's just not funny anymore. Your feeble attempts to try to paint the administration and the United States in the worst possible light are just plain sad.
And you know, come to think of it, you never did answer my questions about your motives. What's your goal here? To try to undermine confidence in the war effort? To damage home-front morale? Just what's your angle, anyway?
Hopefully this will shatter your illusion that the people in the Bush administration never lie.
Wow. Way to read the first line of my post and nothing further.
Hey, if you want to pull the old tactic of just repeating the same thing over and over and not actually, you know, dealing with the correction that the White House issued the very next day, that's cool by me.
"Par for the course," I think, is the expression that applies here.
Definitely lying. Definitely, definitely lying. No question about it, definitely lying.
Sigh.
I guess that last bastion of objective journalism, "The Daily Show," and hard-hitting investigator Larry King both neglected to mention the correction that Scott McClellan gave at the press gaggle the next day. (That was Friday the 18th, just a week ago.)Scott then went into a pretty long statement about the 9/11 commission report that I don't feel like transcribing right now. I'm sure you can find it yourself with your mad research skillz. The same ones with which you apparently inexplicably unable to locate any of Seymour Hersch's old columns except for the one that you copied-and-pasted from.
Everybody needs to pay very close attention to this. This is why the Democratic party can't be taken seriously. They, and their supporters, are so dead-set on catching the administration in a lie that they're willing to take a simple error, which was corrected on the record the next day, and blow the living hell out of it just to try to make our elected leaders look bad.
This is almost as good a time as when the left made a huge stink about Scott's statement, "This is about an imminent threat." They trumpeted that one from the rooftops, swearing that it was conclusive proof that the administration said Iraq was an imminent threat, an allegation the administration has always flatly denied.
Of course, the fact that Scott wasn't even talking about Iraq, but rather about Turkey's request for additional NATO air defenses, is never brought up.
I've said this before and I'll say it again until it no longer becomes necessary: stop trying so hard to make your point, and just concentrate on the facts. You'll look much less like a colossal ass that way.
Well if you point me to the exact text of what he said I will be glad to look at it and if you are correct that he lied I will be the first to pat you on the back.
If I gave two shits about garnering your approval, that might be a tempting offer. As it is... not so much.
I haven't studied his work in the extraordinary detail you apparently have so maybe he is a bold faced liar.
Yet again, it's "bald-faced." Not "bold faced."
And if you haven't studied his work very closely, why were you so excited about citing his highly negative article on Afghanistan? Is it possibly because you're more concerned about finding people who have said bad things about the United States than you are about speaking truthfully?
Again if you point me to the text of the 16 AC-130's statement I would like to review it
Then go find it. Hersch's columns are hardly hidden from public view.
I can't dig up an online reference for that. I got that from cable news.
This is old ground: you cannot watch five minutes of CNN and consider yourself an informed citizen. Please stop spreading rumors. It just makes you look silly.
Since it says the facilities were severely overcrowded and part of the problem was due to not being able to release detainees who should not be in custody you can deduce people were being picked up that shouldn't have been.
Nobody has ever argued otherwise. Of course some of the people in custody didn't belong there. So? You're expecting them to be perfect, maybe?
But the thing is, what the General said in his report and what you said were not even similar. He said that it takes too long to identify and release people who didn't belong there. You said that the military "admitted" that they "swept up large numbers of" blah blah blah. You said things that the General didn't say, and then tried to attribute them to the General. That's a lie.
She certainly had problems in her command but she was commanding weekend warriors
Never miss an opportunity to slander people who leave their homes and families and put their lives in danger to protect you from the people who want to blow you into tiny smithereens, do you?
From disinfopedia
Is that supposed to be funny, or was it funny all on its own?
Then you just copied-and-pasted a bunch of stuff that had no relation to your position or argument, or to anything that I said.
Pretty weak, overall. You're losing your touch, I think. Being taken to school on the Hersch question seems to have really taken the wind out of your sails. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Why don't you go take a little nap, and when you wake up I'll have milk and cookies for you. Does that sound good?
This may be just crazy liberal talk, but I interpret rate to be number of murders per unit of population.
It's crazy liberal talk to the extent that you're trying to argue definitions, semantics, and trivialities instead of meaningful points.
For the record, "murders per unit time per geographical area" is a perfectly acceptable definition of "murder rate."
The larger issue remains untouched: the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq is not overwhelming. Every soldier's death is a tragedy, but there's no need to look at the total number and predict doom and gloom.
Next time, do some real research before opening your mouth, you just might be surprised to see that you were being lied to.
Next time, try focusing on something meaningful instead of trying your best to poke holes in the periphery of an argument.
It's a matter of interpretation whether e.g. a full, high-quality analog copy of a music CD is covered by the fair use guidelines.
:-)
Oh, I see your point. Yes, I agree. In fact, when you put it that way, I'd have to conclude that a full-length copy would probably not automatically be covered by the fair use exception. But case law says that making full-length copies for home use is not infringing (Universal v. Sony, the Betamax case), so that's a case where the statute itself doesn't tell the whole story.
I hate to brag about my IQ, but 159 is definitely more than that of the average dumbass.
Good for you. Want to talk about penis sizes next?
Intellectual property is a lie
Wow. Deja vu.
See the Wikipedia link I posted.
Not a chance.
You'll also note that the original constitution does not mention private property at all
(Original Constitution? Is there a new one I need to know about?)
It's one of those standard omissions. You'll notice that the Constitution doesn't mention a right to life or a right to liberty, either. The right to property was just taken as a given. It was never suspected by the founders that it would come into question.
The closest thing you're going to find to an enshrinement of property rights in the Constitution is the fourth amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Hey, look at that. Papers. Sounds like they're talking about writings. Intellectual property. The big lie. Neat, huh?
The irony is that US musicians in 90%+ of cases no longer have any rights to their own works, because the record labels impose "work for hire" clauses on them.
Woah, there. Let's haul our little butts back in the general direction of the truth, shall we? Nobody imposes anything on anybody. If I have a guitar and I think I sing pretty well, I can call up a record label and ask for a contract. If they offer me one, I'm free to read it, thereby being informed about its contents. If I can't understand it, I can retain counsel to explain it to me. If, and only if, I accept the terms of the contract, I sign it. I wasn't forced to do anything.
Now, why do record labels insist that they have rights over the music they publish? Easy: money! It costs a fortune to record, produce, and promote a record. Hell, recording studio time alone can run up into the thousands of dollars per hour. Somebody has to put that money out there up front. Does the artist have the wherewithal? No. Who does? The label.
The label is like an investor. And like an investor, the label demands a return on their investment. And what's more, the return on a single successful record must be many, many times the cost of making that record. Why? Because most records are not successful. Let's say for every ten records, one succeeds and the others fail. That is, the others fail to generate enough profits to cover the costs involved in making them. Somebody loses money on nine records out of ten. Well, the only way to keep things going, then, is to make sure that tenth record, the successful one, generates ten times more money than what was invested into it.
When you buy a Britney Spears CD, you're not just paying for that CD. You're also contributing a tiny amount of money toward all the CD's put out by all the artists on Britney's label that will never turn a profit. You're essentially subsidizing all music any time you buy any music.
Oh, those evil, evil record labels. We hate them, don't we, Al?
This directly contradicts US Constitution section 8.
Woah. Talk about a drastic misreading of the text. Article I section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress. Not of the people. The people are sovereign in the United States. The law grants them n
You said Seymour lied when he said the Taguba report said 60%. Once again I proved to you it did say that.
Yes, the words "sixty percent" are indeed to be found in MG Taguba's report. They are not, however, to be found in any context even remotely similar to what Hersch said they were. So that was a lie.
Messing up chain of command like that was bad and against military doctrine so its not suprising it went really bad.
You've got your timeline confused. Operational control over the prison was taken from Janice "It wasn't my fault!" Karpinski after the abuses took place. It was her lack of leadership and discipline that allowed the abuses to happen in the first place. She was ultimately relieved of command over it.
Well we had all that in Vietnam too.
Wow. Every time I think we've hit the bottom of the well of your ignorance, you get right in there with a shovel.
In Afghanistan, we had a regime in power that was removed from power by force. The supporters of that regime were captured, killed, fled across the border, or escaped into the remote parts of the country. The few who remained inside the borders have been carrying out a completely ineffective guerilla war. They have no popular support and they lack the ability to operate in a coordinated fashion.
In Vietnam, we had an entire army that was carrying out coordinated, effective operations from a position of safety north of the border. They had extensive support, both materially and logistically, from the communist regime in Hanoi, which in turn was supported by other communist governments.
Oh, and by the way, in Vietnam the decision was made at the highest levels of our government to fight toward a stalemate rather than to achieve victory. In Afghanistan, the opposite is true.
There are no parallels between Vietnam and Afghanistan. There just aren't any. Using the history of Vietnam as a data point to try to predict the future of Afghanistan is just plain dumb.
It could happen in Afghanistan and Iraq too unless the Bush administration gets their heads screwed on straight or are thrown out in November though I have zero confidence Kerry would do any better.
Doom and gloom, doom and gloom. Ignore the fact that things are going incredibly well as a whole. Concentrate instead on the small setbacks. Or, in this case, on the things that might, possibly, maybe could go wrong in the future.
Once again I don't think I'm lying. I'm just referring to the memos the White House itself released this week.
Well, that's not what I was referring to, but whatever, I'll bite. So what? The memos authorized the use of techniques inducing fear, humiliation, anger, and discomfort. These are part and parcel of interrogation. Do you think interrogation should be soft pillows and cups of tea?
Even so, they show that in December, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved the use of techniques, such as the use of guard dogs to instill fear in detainees, stripping detainees nude, and the use of painful stress positions, that violate the law.
These techniques do not violate the law. These techniques do not fit the legal definition of torture. (Torture is defined in 18 USC as being the deliberate infliction of severe mental or physical pain. Discomfort doesn't count. Fear doesn't count.)
Besides, SecDef rescinded that authorization just six weeks later, on January 15, after the DoD received news of the abuses at Abu Ghraib. After a thorough review of the legal issues, SecDef further restricted the authorized interrogation techniques.
If anything, this point proves that SecDef is a good guy who's trying to do his job to the best of his ability while making sure that his staff and our military forces do not cross the line. When they cross the line, he reigns 'em back in as necessary. Pretty damned hard to find fault there.
The example cited was "guard dogs" but sexu
Just like I thought - you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.
Right. I'm the clueless one.
Or maybe you're confused about the word "explicitely"
That was unintentionally hilarious.
Yes, and the anti-circumvention provisions restrict that right, don't they?
Yes. But they do not obliterate it. You can still exercise your "fair use rights" (ugh) without circumventing digital access controls to make perfect copies.
It's below my dignity to point out to such an obstinate person that Section 1201 nowhere mentions such a thing as "perfect digital copies", which means that the anti-circumvention provisions are universal.
Is it also below your dignity to understand what you read? There is no analog process or system yet known that can effectively control access to a work. That entire portion of the statute refers only to circumventing access control measures, which can only apply in a digital context.
You would've made for a good East German "Mauerschütze" - the soldiers who shot their compatriots in the back for trying to flee to West Germany.
Ah, yes. I knew something was out of place. The fucking idiot hadn't accused me of being a fascist Nazi yet. Now I feel much better.
The difference is subtle, and you're too dim, so I won't take the pains of explaining it to you.
You know what's subtle? You know what's really, really subtle? Equating casual piracy of DVD's with murder. That's subtle.
Of course there are circumstances where it's necessary to oppose an unjust law. This isn't anywhere near one of them. This is nothing more or less than a case where you want to do something that you have ABSOLUTELY NO right to do, and it's pissing you off.
There are fine DVD players for Linux, Mr. Clueless.
Then what are you complaining about? How can it be illegal if fine licensed products exist to do it?
The DVD-CCA is in a monopoly position and can impose whatever licensing restrictions it wants, and their current ones are harsh to say the least. Most importantly, they are fundamentally incompatible with the concept of FOSS. That is the problem.
That's your problem. It's not a legal problem. If you're unwilling to accept the terms that DVD-CCA offers, then you cannot use their technology. Period.
But of course it's not a problem, because "there are fine DVD players for Linux." So off you go, then. Nothing to see here.
Another interesting aspect is how, in a purported democracy, a section of copyright law manages to introduce a whole new category of "intellectual property" without any public debate.
"Without any public debate?" We have a Senate and a House of Representatives, you know. They're on TV and everything. Everything they do is a part of the public record. Go read the debate for yourself, or watch it live on C-SPAN. New laws don't just happen. I mean, I can understand how you might have slept through class the day they taught you how a bill becomes a law, but didn't you ever even watch Schoolhouse Rock?
(The United States of America, incidentally, is not a democracy. Never was. It's a republic. Do you know the difference? And do you know why the distinction is important?)
Actually, I noticed that the "PowerDVD" player for Linux is approved by the DVD-CCA.
Hooray! Everybody's happy.
If they force me to install CSS where OSS would be just fine just to view a DVD, then my choice is simple: I won't buy anything from the people who lobby for these obscene laws.
Fantastic. Glad to hear it. Now... what can we do to get you to shut up about it? Your whining is an embarrassment to all.
Their lies are documented
Yes, all lies, all stinking filthy lies, dirty dirty liars, dirty filthy liars.
Let me pose this puzzler:
If they're all just dirty sti
Actually, the fair use clause doesn't even guarantee the right to make analog copies.
Yes, it does. It says that making copies for such-n-such purposes is not infringement. Therefore copyright laws do not apply to those sorts of copies. Therefore the right to make those sorts of copies is not abridged by law.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.
Your tin-foil hat is on too tight. Or possibly you're just a dumbass.
The goal is to give copyright holders (which are only rarely nowadays the actual artists) enormous power even beyond that which they already wield.
Spoken like a true guy-who-doesn't-understand-basic-property-rights.
Copyright law exists for one purpose and one purpose only: to protect those rights that people already have. As long as those rights aren't being sufficiently protected by law, there will be more and better laws.
The purpose of law is not to "give power." It's to protect the "power" we already have by virtue of nature.
Yes, that's why even viewing a DVD is illegal.
Already covered this one. It's not illegal. It's just illegal to do it without a license. Can't find a licensed product you like? Make your own. Can't find investors to fund your effort? Blame your fellow idiots.
It's like some kind of reflex for you, isn't it?
I need a better tool for handling mail SA has identified as spam, either server-side or client-side.
;-)
Yes, you sure do.
Odds are that this doesn't apply to you, but the Mac OS X mail program, Mail, does a brilliant job. It recognizes the YES or NO header that SpamAssassin adds to filtered messages and, depending on your preferences, filters accordingly. By default it merely flags spam messages with a little trash-bag icon and leaves them in your inbox. At the flip of a switch, you can have the program automatically move spams into a Junk folder that (again, depending on your prefs) can be automatically emptied every week or month or day or whatever.
If your mail program doesn't already do this, then your mail program sucks.