I recall the Whitewater affair, mostly because it picked up the -gate suffix pretty naturally. But wikipedia says it goes back to Bill Saffire writing in 1974.
Under the UCMJ as a member of the armed forces you are required to perform any lawful order but you do have some leeway.
Where's that leeway? For reference, here's Article 92:
“Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
About the only realistic out is, "I didn't know about the order." Theoretically you can say it's illegal, but you don't get a lawyer who can tell you if it actually is illegal until you're facing a court-martial.
Even if you don't know *how* to carry out an order, you're still "derelict in the performance of [your] duties," you should have figured it out.
It gets better: notice that section 1 and 2 seem redundant. They're not. Section 2 is talking about an order given by a particular person. Section 1 is talking about *any* regulation. The post commanding general could hide a memo that says anytime you salute you have to quack like a duck, and then round up the entire post for failure to quack, and it would be 100% legal. Article 92 doesn't recognize not having the faintest awareness of the regulation as an excuse for not abiding by it. In practice, commanders apply common sense. And common sense is great, it can work for years. Until it doesn't.
First: yes, they damned well could change 90,000 overnight. We have these things called "computers" which can process large amounts of information for just that reason
No, the declassification process isn't updating a bit of data on a file. The review is much more extensive.
It's just applying a set of very straightforward rules to data, but because of the belief in magic, they insist on having a human go through the ritual rather than designing a system to automate it.
The military treats classification like a magic spell, and there is a complicated ritual to declassify something, that basically involves sacrificing your first-born. I've had to shred stuff that was freely available on the Internet.
Then you miss-classified those documents.
I didn't classify anything, they were field manuals, and nothing to do with intelligence, stuff like FM 17-97. Okay, that one's actually useful, I wouldn't shred that, but they're all clearly marked that they have to be destroyed. And there are never any updates to say "okay, all this stuff is on the Internet, so don't bother."
Is it me, or is everyone attacking the fact that these documents, which are apparently so horrible that they need to be banned, were leaked, and not the fact that the events that happened in the documents shouldn't have happened to begin with?
Yes, it's called "the topic", and we're discussing it. The fact that the events were horrible is, in itself, an interesting and worthwhile topic to discuss, and certainly worth its own story. If you've got such a story, you should send it in.
For example, if a completely hypothetical slashdot poster were to offer - again, completely hypothetical - services in which pages of material are read out over the telephone at a hypothetical rate of $10/page, would that still technically be a breach of the order not to "read" the material?
IANAML, but the fact that you went to such elaborate lengths would be clear evidence of intent to violate an order or general regulation, under Article 92. Generally speaking, when an officer gives an order, you are obligated to use your judgment to determine the best course of action that fulfills the intent of the order, if not the letter of it. If, for example, you're told to drive to work, you can't say, "I got half way and ran out of gas" because an implied task was to make sure you filled up before leaving.
The fact that the documents have been leaked did not immediately and magically change their status, thus they are still considered 'SECRET' by the military. Likely the military will eventually change this classification, but that won't happen overnight (there 90,000 freaking documents). Until that does happen, it's a security violation for a military member to access documents for which they are not cleared.
First: yes, they damned well could change 90,000 overnight. We have these things called "computers" which can process large amounts of information for just that reason
Second: no, they won't. The military treats classification like a magic spell, and there is a complicated ritual to declassify something, that basically involves sacrificing your first-born. I've had to shred stuff that was freely available on the Internet.
I am personally left almost speechless at this disconnect from reality demonstrated by the military. I am a USMC Iraq war vet, and find these policies completely ridiculous.
Maybe I'm a little more jaded from my time in the Army, but I don't find this terribly surprising. I might have a little perspective I can offer.
If you're in a combat unit, especially deployed, you're facing the reality of actual people backed by a large network or foreign government trying to kill you. Bullshit has a short half-life in such a situation.
Unfortunately, the further removed you are from the hard rain, the less intrusion you have from reality. The sergeant doing paperwork just can't say, "fuck you sir, this could get someone killed!"
And the higher echelons have, much like corporate culture, a certain unreality built in. I've seen how it starts with a first sergeant, who is responsible for a company of troops. He knows he has to lead by example, so he forces himself to always appear motivated, even when it's socially inappropriate. Senior officers sometimes appear to be squarely in the uncanny valley.
Add to that the telephone game played by the insane rank structure. A senior officer puts out his intent, and it is then passed along from subordinate to subordinate, with each re-interpreting it every step of the way. Who knows where this originated, and how much it's changed along the way?
From what I've read in the press, if they have the capacity to conduct those kinds of scans (and I honestly don't know if they do or don't) and they had audited their ACLs, the docs wouldn't have been leaked in the first place.
I would like to add a small note here regarding the definition of the word liberal, which it seems most US residents are unaware of.
Yeah, yeah, and many countries outside the US have a Liberal party that is right-leaning. We get it, the dictionary lists alternative meanings for a word.
Here's the thing of it: in the context of politics, in the US, "liberal" is the modern name for the American progressive movement. It's the only appropriate meaning in the phrase "liberal bias." It was adopted by progressives / liberals, back in the '60s, IIRC. Of course they picked a self-congratulatory term; everyone does.
When you're running a newspaper and you're claiming to be objective, having a bias (which generally understates the problem) towards one side or the other is bad. You can't paper over it with wordplay.
That's considerably less than the loading some credit-card acquirers gouge their merchants for, by comparison, and which you probably never see.
When other people do it it's "gouging," but your motives are purer than the driven snow.
Color me skeptical. I understand that handling money safely is expensive, and I don't begrudge people making a living off it.
But the 5% has nothing to do with how much merchants have to pay. They're still going to pay fees to their acquirer with your card. If you were selling a regular credit card, you'd charge interest to your customers.
And, yes, customer support and financial security are expensive. You live in a highly regulated country, yet with all those regulations, you have about the same problems with fraud as here. You also have to provide more benefits and pay more income taxes to your support staff, driving up your costs. Higher taxes and more regulations do make goods and services more expensive, and that helps explain why you charge 5% while banks fund similar services by reinvesting deposits.
Having said that, the numbers may be changing if Paypal is canceling this service.
Except that without the bailout you'd probably be out of the job, without unemployment benefits and in the middle of The Greatest Depression Ever. And I'm not exaggerating a bit. Without the bailout money the banking system would have collapsed.
I'd take a few years of depression if it meant a whole generation of chastened investors saying, "holy fucking shit, I'll never do that again!" If we got rid of all the fucked up corporations and banks and started fresh. And if we were forced to cut out a lot of the wasteful government programs and regulations.
As it is, the bailout has softened the pain but also prolonged it, so it's liable to be worse overall, like trying to massage a broken arm. Unemployment is still ridiculous and state governments like California and Illinois are virtually insolvent.
Strangely, I never heard a word out of any of these people when Bush was running up huge deficits... their voices only became so massively amplified when a Democrat walked in to the Oval Office.
I wonder why that is?
It's because, like you, the media generally doesn't grok the arguments that conservatives make and so they can't report them.
For instance, to most conservatives, deficits are a symptom, and the real problem is the burden and intrusiveness of government. In this regard, conservatives have been unhappy with Bush from before day 1. The notion of compassionate conservatism was somewhat offensive in its implications, and smacked of nanny-state totalitarianism. Bush adopted it to genuinely try to find a middle ground with liberals, but he didn't understand that liberals are suspicious of placing any limits on what the government can do, and were highly suspicious of its religious overtones.
The Tea Party didn't spring up overnight. The discontent that fueled the movement began, really, when the Republicans lost the House and Senate to the Democrats two years before Obama came into office. (If throwing the Republicans out of office wasn't enough of an indicator that people were fed up with Bush's performance, I'm not sure what possibly could be, though that is news to most Obama voters.) Obama, completely out of touch with and dismissive of conservative discontent (recall his famous "guns and bibles" remark), then provoked it by using the recession as an excuse for even more massive spending, and an even more intrusive health entitlement than Bush passed. And he forced it through without significant bipartisan support, which has been the norm since FDR.
It is a statistical certainty (p < 10e-11) that there are innocent people being held at Guantanamo Bay.
Many of them were on the battlefield, and aren't charged with crimes because conducting war isn't illegal. The real certainty is that civilians are there because the enemy uses them for cover. The reason we did well enough in Iraq was because the Iraqis' fury at AQI's wanton murder outweighed their fear. It was also because they recognized that Bush was a stubborn asshole who would ignore folks like you.
Why would you want to do something as monstrous as this ?
Many problems can be simplified greatly by recasting them in a language that expresses them naturally.
And that's why, more often than not, large projects involve writing a sublanguage of some sort. And if the mechanism used to write the sublanguage is standardized, it makes it that much easier for someone else to come along and understand what's going on.
Keep in mind that most of OOP is actually writing a sublanguage. That's what a class hierarchy really is; it's just that the syntax is usually horrible and clunky. With grammars you just get the ability to express it naturally.
You really need to brush up on what other languages are offering if you think those "features" are "amazing".
Nice troll, I'll bite. FWIW, I've been learning Haskell over the last few months, and I really like the language, but let's face it: Perl6 is a language that 90% of people (who can program at all) can use, whereas maybe 10% of people can use Haskell. After listening to their users, the Python community decided to deprecate the reduce operator. Haskell, on the other hand, has about a dozen fold operators throughout its standard library, and that's a standard way to express most algorithms.
So, yes, these features, in a usable form, are pretty amazing. I'll have to see if Perl6 beats Python3 or Ruby, but it's just not a competing in the same arena as Haskell.
Perl 6's "roles" are merely interfaces, which even Java has had since the very beginning. They're significantly less powerful than Haskell's typeclasses.
Roles / interfaces are entirely different from typeclasses. Haskell's Hadley-Milner based type system, while very powerful, doesn't allow for inheritance.
"Grammars" is very similar to the pattern matching you see in languages like Haskell, SML and even Scala.
Not even remotely. Pattern matching is a basic technique in functional languages, whereas Perl6 is an OO imperative language. Grammars in Perl6 are used to build new sublanguages, which most other languages don't even attempt.
Perl 6's "constraints" are significantly less powerful and less flexible than the pattern guards of Haskell.
Possibly, though again Haskell's guards are based on its type system which is less flexible than Perl's.
"Multidispatch" has been offered by Common Lisp's CLOS system for many, many years now. Haskell's polymorphism is far more flexible than Perl 6's multidispatch support.
But, again, no inheritance, no OOP in Haskell. And while it is flexible, it has its limitations, as anyone who has run into the monomorphism restriction can attest.
"Autothreading hyperoperator"-like functionality has been offered by the GHC Haskell compiler for a long time now. Hell, we could even do the same years ago with collection classes written in C++, where we'd override certain operators to spawn threads and process different parts of the collection simultaneously.
But that's not in Haskell98.
Just about every "benefit" of Perl 6 is something that Haskell alone has offered in a usable form for years, if not decades.
"Now some programmers feel used and are instigating a revolt.
They are doing so by striking out on their own or forming profit-sharing arrangements."
That's hardly "whining," in fact it's precisely what they ought to do.
The outstanding part is that Forbes is recognizing this. We all know that folks in IT are underpaid in many professions, but the proof is when people actually say "fuck you" and go work elsewhere. That will *force* salaries up to the real market rate. And when publications like Forbes notice this, it's harder for managers to pretend it's not happening.
Thank you, to the ladies and gentlemen who struck out on their own, and thank you to Forbes for noticing. Both of these will make life a little better for the rest of us.
But one has to wonder What would the population be today had there been no One Child Policy?
A bigger question is: what would the standard of living be? And what would the balance of males to females be?
If the Chinese weren't so busy slaughtering (mostly) their female children and its future workforce, they might be wealthy enough that their population growth would have gone down due to economic pressures.
But, no, one of the most horrendous human rights abuses of the 20th century is a great fucking idea, really it is.
That disqualifies you from being a "nut" - at least in this area. Now if you want to lay claim to believing Obama was born in Kenya and is a secret muslim terrorist, you can have that title back.
Secret muslim terrorist? So you have to actually invent conspiracies to make the right sound nutty?
The birthers are basically claiming that Obama's paperwork is screwed up. Similar claims were made about McCain, and investigated. The extent of this conspiracy is the belief that Obama falsified his paperwork and is lying. It would be a major scandal if it were true, but hardly earth-shattering.
True insanity is liberal: the belief that 9/11 was an inside job. In 2006, [url=http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll]one third[/url] of Americans believed the truther lie, which is roughly equivalent to the number of self-identified liberals in America. Not only do they believe the government conspired to kill its own citizens, but they also believe it planted explosives to bring down a tower, fired a missile into the Pentagon and faked a crash landing. And it did all this with virtually no leaks. Sorry, but there's simply been *nothing* on the right in the last twenty years that even remotely compares to that.
Slashdot Mirror
I recall the Whitewater affair, mostly because it picked up the -gate suffix pretty naturally. But wikipedia says it goes back to Bill Saffire writing in 1974.
Under the UCMJ as a member of the armed forces you are required to perform any lawful order but you do have some leeway.
Where's that leeway? For reference, here's Article 92:
“Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
About the only realistic out is, "I didn't know about the order." Theoretically you can say it's illegal, but you don't get a lawyer who can tell you if it actually is illegal until you're facing a court-martial.
Even if you don't know *how* to carry out an order, you're still "derelict in the performance of [your] duties," you should have figured it out.
It gets better: notice that section 1 and 2 seem redundant. They're not. Section 2 is talking about an order given by a particular person. Section 1 is talking about *any* regulation. The post commanding general could hide a memo that says anytime you salute you have to quack like a duck, and then round up the entire post for failure to quack, and it would be 100% legal. Article 92 doesn't recognize not having the faintest awareness of the regulation as an excuse for not abiding by it. In practice, commanders apply common sense. And common sense is great, it can work for years. Until it doesn't.
No, the declassification process isn't updating a bit of data on a file. The review is much more extensive.
It's just applying a set of very straightforward rules to data, but because of the belief in magic, they insist on having a human go through the ritual rather than designing a system to automate it.
Then you miss-classified those documents.
I didn't classify anything, they were field manuals, and nothing to do with intelligence, stuff like FM 17-97. Okay, that one's actually useful, I wouldn't shred that, but they're all clearly marked that they have to be destroyed. And there are never any updates to say "okay, all this stuff is on the Internet, so don't bother."
I was never an officer, just a senior noncom.
Given how you write and what you say, I'm pretty sure you were NEVER a senior NCO.
Could be Air Force.
Is it me, or is everyone attacking the fact that these documents, which are apparently so horrible that they need to be banned, were leaked, and not the fact that the events that happened in the documents shouldn't have happened to begin with?
Yes, it's called "the topic", and we're discussing it. The fact that the events were horrible is, in itself, an interesting and worthwhile topic to discuss, and certainly worth its own story. If you've got such a story, you should send it in.
For example, if a completely hypothetical slashdot poster were to offer - again, completely hypothetical - services in which pages of material are read out over the telephone at a hypothetical rate of $10/page, would that still technically be a breach of the order not to "read" the material?
IANAML, but the fact that you went to such elaborate lengths would be clear evidence of intent to violate an order or general regulation, under Article 92. Generally speaking, when an officer gives an order, you are obligated to use your judgment to determine the best course of action that fulfills the intent of the order, if not the letter of it. If, for example, you're told to drive to work, you can't say, "I got half way and ran out of gas" because an implied task was to make sure you filled up before leaving.
The fact that the documents have been leaked did not immediately and magically change their status, thus they are still considered 'SECRET' by the military. Likely the military will eventually change this classification, but that won't happen overnight (there 90,000 freaking documents). Until that does happen, it's a security violation for a military member to access documents for which they are not cleared.
First: yes, they damned well could change 90,000 overnight. We have these things called "computers" which can process large amounts of information for just that reason
Second: no, they won't. The military treats classification like a magic spell, and there is a complicated ritual to declassify something, that basically involves sacrificing your first-born. I've had to shred stuff that was freely available on the Internet.
I am personally left almost speechless at this disconnect from reality demonstrated by the military. I am a USMC Iraq war vet, and find these policies completely ridiculous.
Maybe I'm a little more jaded from my time in the Army, but I don't find this terribly surprising. I might have a little perspective I can offer.
If you're in a combat unit, especially deployed, you're facing the reality of actual people backed by a large network or foreign government trying to kill you. Bullshit has a short half-life in such a situation.
Unfortunately, the further removed you are from the hard rain, the less intrusion you have from reality. The sergeant doing paperwork just can't say, "fuck you sir, this could get someone killed!"
And the higher echelons have, much like corporate culture, a certain unreality built in. I've seen how it starts with a first sergeant, who is responsible for a company of troops. He knows he has to lead by example, so he forces himself to always appear motivated, even when it's socially inappropriate. Senior officers sometimes appear to be squarely in the uncanny valley.
Add to that the telephone game played by the insane rank structure. A senior officer puts out his intent, and it is then passed along from subordinate to subordinate, with each re-interpreting it every step of the way. Who knows where this originated, and how much it's changed along the way?
From what I've read in the press, if they have the capacity to conduct those kinds of scans (and I honestly don't know if they do or don't) and they had audited their ACLs, the docs wouldn't have been leaked in the first place.
I would like to add a small note here regarding the definition of the word liberal, which it seems most US residents are unaware of.
Yeah, yeah, and many countries outside the US have a Liberal party that is right-leaning. We get it, the dictionary lists alternative meanings for a word.
Here's the thing of it: in the context of politics, in the US, "liberal" is the modern name for the American progressive movement. It's the only appropriate meaning in the phrase "liberal bias." It was adopted by progressives / liberals, back in the '60s, IIRC. Of course they picked a self-congratulatory term; everyone does.
When you're running a newspaper and you're claiming to be objective, having a bias (which generally understates the problem) towards one side or the other is bad. You can't paper over it with wordplay.
That's considerably less than the loading some credit-card acquirers gouge their merchants for, by comparison, and which you probably never see.
When other people do it it's "gouging," but your motives are purer than the driven snow.
Color me skeptical. I understand that handling money safely is expensive, and I don't begrudge people making a living off it.
But the 5% has nothing to do with how much merchants have to pay. They're still going to pay fees to their acquirer with your card. If you were selling a regular credit card, you'd charge interest to your customers.
And, yes, customer support and financial security are expensive. You live in a highly regulated country, yet with all those regulations, you have about the same problems with fraud as here. You also have to provide more benefits and pay more income taxes to your support staff, driving up your costs. Higher taxes and more regulations do make goods and services more expensive, and that helps explain why you charge 5% while banks fund similar services by reinvesting deposits.
Having said that, the numbers may be changing if Paypal is canceling this service.
4.95% charge to deposit? $8--9 to get it back.? Do you use computers or have guys with green eye shades?
No, they're based in the UK. Someone's got to pay for all that free education, free health care, generous social programs, etc.
The designated distraction could still get a false positive on a breathalyzer. I wouldn't risk it.
It's funny because it's true, scroll down to the bottom, they have a whole line of purses with built-in holsters.
I've noticed a 0-day vulnerability in old ladies in that I can hit them over the head with a cudgel and steal their handbags.
Already patched; the handbags have been upgraded to include a pink-enameled snub .38.
Except that without the bailout you'd probably be out of the job, without unemployment benefits and in the middle of The Greatest Depression Ever. And I'm not exaggerating a bit. Without the bailout money the banking system would have collapsed.
I'd take a few years of depression if it meant a whole generation of chastened investors saying, "holy fucking shit, I'll never do that again!" If we got rid of all the fucked up corporations and banks and started fresh. And if we were forced to cut out a lot of the wasteful government programs and regulations.
As it is, the bailout has softened the pain but also prolonged it, so it's liable to be worse overall, like trying to massage a broken arm. Unemployment is still ridiculous and state governments like California and Illinois are virtually insolvent.
Strangely, I never heard a word out of any of these people when Bush was running up huge deficits... their voices only became so massively amplified when a Democrat walked in to the Oval Office.
I wonder why that is?
It's because, like you, the media generally doesn't grok the arguments that conservatives make and so they can't report them.
For instance, to most conservatives, deficits are a symptom, and the real problem is the burden and intrusiveness of government. In this regard, conservatives have been unhappy with Bush from before day 1. The notion of compassionate conservatism was somewhat offensive in its implications, and smacked of nanny-state totalitarianism. Bush adopted it to genuinely try to find a middle ground with liberals, but he didn't understand that liberals are suspicious of placing any limits on what the government can do, and were highly suspicious of its religious overtones.
The Tea Party didn't spring up overnight. The discontent that fueled the movement began, really, when the Republicans lost the House and Senate to the Democrats two years before Obama came into office. (If throwing the Republicans out of office wasn't enough of an indicator that people were fed up with Bush's performance, I'm not sure what possibly could be, though that is news to most Obama voters.) Obama, completely out of touch with and dismissive of conservative discontent (recall his famous "guns and bibles" remark), then provoked it by using the recession as an excuse for even more massive spending, and an even more intrusive health entitlement than Bush passed. And he forced it through without significant bipartisan support, which has been the norm since FDR.
It is a statistical certainty (p < 10e-11) that there are innocent people being held at Guantanamo Bay.
Many of them were on the battlefield, and aren't charged with crimes because conducting war isn't illegal. The real certainty is that civilians are there because the enemy uses them for cover. The reason we did well enough in Iraq was because the Iraqis' fury at AQI's wanton murder outweighed their fear. It was also because they recognized that Bush was a stubborn asshole who would ignore folks like you.
Why would you want to do something as monstrous as this ?
Many problems can be simplified greatly by recasting them in a language that expresses them naturally.
And that's why, more often than not, large projects involve writing a sublanguage of some sort. And if the mechanism used to write the sublanguage is standardized, it makes it that much easier for someone else to come along and understand what's going on.
Keep in mind that most of OOP is actually writing a sublanguage. That's what a class hierarchy really is; it's just that the syntax is usually horrible and clunky. With grammars you just get the ability to express it naturally.
You really need to brush up on what other languages are offering if you think those "features" are "amazing".
Nice troll, I'll bite. FWIW, I've been learning Haskell over the last few months, and I really like the language, but let's face it: Perl6 is a language that 90% of people (who can program at all) can use, whereas maybe 10% of people can use Haskell. After listening to their users, the Python community decided to deprecate the reduce operator. Haskell, on the other hand, has about a dozen fold operators throughout its standard library, and that's a standard way to express most algorithms.
So, yes, these features, in a usable form, are pretty amazing. I'll have to see if Perl6 beats Python3 or Ruby, but it's just not a competing in the same arena as Haskell.
Perl 6's "roles" are merely interfaces, which even Java has had since the very beginning. They're significantly less powerful than Haskell's typeclasses.
Roles / interfaces are entirely different from typeclasses. Haskell's Hadley-Milner based type system, while very powerful, doesn't allow for inheritance.
"Grammars" is very similar to the pattern matching you see in languages like Haskell, SML and even Scala.
Not even remotely. Pattern matching is a basic technique in functional languages, whereas Perl6 is an OO imperative language. Grammars in Perl6 are used to build new sublanguages, which most other languages don't even attempt.
Perl 6's "constraints" are significantly less powerful and less flexible than the pattern guards of Haskell.
Possibly, though again Haskell's guards are based on its type system which is less flexible than Perl's.
"Multidispatch" has been offered by Common Lisp's CLOS system for many, many years now. Haskell's polymorphism is far more flexible than Perl 6's multidispatch support.
But, again, no inheritance, no OOP in Haskell. And while it is flexible, it has its limitations, as anyone who has run into the monomorphism restriction can attest.
"Autothreading hyperoperator"-like functionality has been offered by the GHC Haskell compiler for a long time now. Hell, we could even do the same years ago with collection classes written in C++, where we'd override certain operators to spawn threads and process different parts of the collection simultaneously.
But that's not in Haskell98.
Just about every "benefit" of Perl 6 is something that Haskell alone has offered in a usable form for years, if not decades.
Try doing a GUI in Haskell.
FTFA:
"Now some programmers feel used and are instigating a revolt.
They are doing so by striking out on their own or forming profit-sharing arrangements."
That's hardly "whining," in fact it's precisely what they ought to do.
The outstanding part is that Forbes is recognizing this. We all know that folks in IT are underpaid in many professions, but the proof is when people actually say "fuck you" and go work elsewhere. That will *force* salaries up to the real market rate. And when publications like Forbes notice this, it's harder for managers to pretend it's not happening.
Thank you, to the ladies and gentlemen who struck out on their own, and thank you to Forbes for noticing. Both of these will make life a little better for the rest of us.
Thanks for the warning, just managed to close the tab before the domain resolved.
Avast.
how is this project different from the usual mod scene for your typical run-of-the-mill game?
The mod-scene doesn't generally do attention whoring on /.
But one has to wonder What would the population be today had there been no One Child Policy?
A bigger question is: what would the standard of living be? And what would the balance of males to females be?
If the Chinese weren't so busy slaughtering (mostly) their female children and its future workforce, they might be wealthy enough that their population growth would have gone down due to economic pressures.
But, no, one of the most horrendous human rights abuses of the 20th century is a great fucking idea, really it is.
That disqualifies you from being a "nut" - at least in this area.
Now if you want to lay claim to believing Obama was born in Kenya and is a secret muslim terrorist, you can have that title back.
Secret muslim terrorist? So you have to actually invent conspiracies to make the right sound nutty?
The birthers are basically claiming that Obama's paperwork is screwed up. Similar claims were made about McCain, and investigated. The extent of this conspiracy is the belief that Obama falsified his paperwork and is lying. It would be a major scandal if it were true, but hardly earth-shattering.
True insanity is liberal: the belief that 9/11 was an inside job. In 2006, [url=http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll]one third[/url] of Americans believed the truther lie, which is roughly equivalent to the number of self-identified liberals in America. Not only do they believe the government conspired to kill its own citizens, but they also believe it planted explosives to bring down a tower, fired a missile into the Pentagon and faked a crash landing. And it did all this with virtually no leaks. Sorry, but there's simply been *nothing* on the right in the last twenty years that even remotely compares to that.