I'd just go with the 5th ammendment defense - I don't have to tell you things that could incriminate me.
Oh dear me. I'm such a horribly forgetful person. In all the hustle and the bustle, I seem to have forgotten my passphrase. Perhaps I shall remember it in time.
I remember back in "the day" I would occasionally setup a 2 MB RAM drive, throw a bunch of files on it, delete a few, put more files in, append to a few, delete a few more, and really really fragment the heck out of the RAM drive. Then I'd load the old Norton defrag tool and watch in amazement as it defragged everything in under 0.68 seconds.
Of course nowadays I just run Linux which doesn't have fragmentation issues...the magic is sorta lost.
*sigh*
So the question is, is this just CableCard 2.0 rebranded? The article mentions that this has been in the works for a long time, etc, etc, so maybe it is? One can only hope.
Damn cable companies. There is already a standard that allows equipment to communicate bi-directionally over a network. It's called TCP/IP. I have some amazing things on my small home network that all 'interoperate' on this basic principle. VoIP phones, computers, printers, porn boxe^H^H^H^H network attached storage.
Maybe I'm over-simplifying it a bit though--most of those devices have protocols that work on top of TCP/IP for communication, SIP for the phones, jetdirect for the printers, and ssh for everything else. Woot!
Re:The best tools stay out of the way...
on
Goodbye Cruel Word
·
· Score: 1
Office 2007 is leaps and bounds over anything Microsoft put out before. The interface is also heavily improved, so I don't know where you're getting this (unless this is pre-2005 when Office 2007 wasn't public knowledge)
Define improved.
I used started with Office 95 and followed it through Office 97, Office 2000, Office XP, and Office 2003. No matter what a user asked, I could easily assist them over the phone or in person. I could find any strange setting, or weird bug in just a minute or two of digging.
The new Office 2007 interface is absolute garbage. Everyone knows the interface of the previous versions.
I may have to hand back my geek card for this one, but I spent 15 minutes trying to figure out how to print a blasted document the day I loaded Office 2007. Only after hunting around through each and every stupid tab and icon did I find out that the fucking "Office Orb" in the corner is actually a menu.
Who the hell thought "Hey, let's totally fuck up the way we do menus. I'm going to create this orb that's almost as big as my nuts in the corner of every Office application and put all the important menu options there."?
I might not have been all that polite, but you'll note that I didn't sink to the level of calling you an emacs user;-)
Yeah--sorry, that was stooping a bit low on my side. I just couldn't think of a good car analogy.
What eye witness accounts?!?
Mark isn't an eye witness account. The other gospels are just later rewritings of Mark. There are no eyewitness accounts in the bible.
Matthew (aka Levi) one of the 12 disciples is an eyewitness account. Of course there are the other 11 disciples. However, you are correct that Mark isn't an eyewitness account, nor was Luke. So why would Matthew and Luke use information from Mark? Because Peter was among the 'inner circle' of Jesus and Peter translated his version of events through Mark. So their was probably some good information in Mark's translation that they used or reminded them of something else they forgot to include. Reporters do that sort of thing every day. How many reports reported on 9/11 without actually being an eyewitness at ground zero. They relied on other reporters who were there. They used their information.
Tacitus wasn't a contemporary, and the Josephus references have been pretty thoroughly debunked as either accidental or intentional alterations after the fact.
Why do no *contemporary* historians make any mention of earthquakes or the like. You know, the big things that people would have noticed?
When it comes to historians, I am fairly lost and have to turn to experts. You can say that Tacitus wasn't a contemporary and that Josephus has been pretty thoroughly debunked, but I've read papers from several historians and they all say that those two had it together.
here[http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm] is a great article addressing everything you talked about and more. The two follow up links at the bottom are also very good and exhaustively researched.
I'll have to read it next weekend when I have more time. Instead of setting up a mail server I've spent quite a bit of time digging through old notes and research...;)
I just love this "it was old-school" nonsense from people trying to defend the bible who have clearly never even read it.
Matthew 5:18 not one letter of one word of one law shall change.
If you read it, you would realized he is talking about Jesus.
Him being alive, preaching, and kicking it with his boys changes nothing. The law is the law, and it changed nothing.
Like I said before, yes--it was old-school. Before salvation.
Hence the line: "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace."
Now that the law has been fulfiled, we are under grace, etc...
Laughable. Dig yourself out of this one. It might help if you actually read the thing. Heck, try studying the actual history around the period of the new testament. The fact that there is no mention of *any* of the miraculous events outside of silly fairy tales is a big clue. That would involve you actually being able to think clearly on the subject which is really unlikely.
I won't be able to dig myself out of this one in your eyes, simply because you appear to believe that anyone who believes in the Bible is not thinking clearly. It'd be like arguing about vi and emacs--and I would say that vi is great and you are wrong for liking emacs--and I won't accept any of your statements about emacs because emacs users aren't thinking clearly.
I have studied some of the history around the new testament, but not as much as I would like.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with the miraculous events and fairytales. If you are saying that they is no evidence outside of the Bible relating to Jesus and/or his alleged miracles, you are wrong. There is plenty of information about Jesus outside of the Bible, even corroborated by people who hated the Christians. As for miracles, almost everyone who witnessed the miracles 'converted'--making them unreliable sources in your eyes.
Josephus was a first century historian. He wrote accounts about the Jewish Roman War and wrote "The Antiquities" which talks about James and Jesus. It talks about James being converted and sentenced to death by stoning for following 'the Messiah'.
Tacitus like Josephus is another Roman historian who is considered to be very reliable. Tacitus openly didn't like Christianity--but he was an accurate historian and documented it Christ being executed and the following explosion of Christianity immediately following it. ("Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out").
But as for the direct evidence of miracles that I assume you are searching for, you probably aren't going to find much outside of the Bible. Why? Because everyone who first-hand witnessed the miracles and wrote about them now have them 'published' in the Bible, and they became believers. And I would have a hard time believing second-hand reports.
First step is drop the assumption that it must magically be true because you really really want it to be.
I don't believe in the bible because I want it to be true. Fuck, I wish it weren't. That would mean I could go out and drink myself stupid, and bang chicks, and do whatever I wanted without being held accountable to my actions. I believe in the bible because I spent the last five years doing research in my spare time. I questioned everything, talked with a few 'experts' in various scientific fields, read reports issued by others.
I understand if someone doesn't have the time or interest to do that sort of research, but once again you are standing on a position of knowing next to nothing about the area we are discussing and trying in vain to argue some point.
Of course like any good scientist, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I am absolutely 100% correct about everything...because I can't prove
I think many of us geeks know that you can also use methods like DHCP to configure static IPs. What you are benefiting from here is DHCP, not your dynamic IP.
I think what you are trying to say is that the major benefit isn't necessarily the 'D for Dynamic' in DHCP, it's the 'HCP for Host Configuration Protocol'.
As an admin, I could care less what IP the workstations on my network get (meh--within reason. 192.168.33/24)...as long as it gets them without me having to go tweak another setting on each machine.
Heck, when was the last time you saw them stone people to death for any number of inane heresies as the bible never stopped demanding?
Sorry to nitpick, but the bible doesn't demand you stone people to death anymore. It also doesn't demand you dash children against rocks. That was old-school. Before 'salvation'.
I get annoyed when someone reads a whole sentence out of the Bible (or anything) or off some bible-bashing website and then uses that as an entire campaign against the Bible. It'd be no better than me picking a sentence out of some programming guide and using that to try to understand programming.
So if you're going to try to bash the Bible, try reading it. While you're reading it, use your brain. If you can logically refute or argue with what you've found, good for you. At least you've made an informed judgment.
And of course the reverse is true. I know many Christians who have read a few sentences of the bible and use it as the basis for their beliefs. These are usually the ones who fanatically fight science. And they do so out of ignorance.
I know this is slashdot, but how the hell can people sit here and have a huge discussion about something they know very little about?
I really do think it is time to fight fire with fire. If these things report to a server then make that IP public and then blast it off the internet.
Unfortunately the spammer/malware author usually doesn't use their own servers, pipes, routing equipment, etc...
It's usually hosted at some facility and your retaliation would more than likely harm other customers.
Same with home PCs. If you tried to take down my 8/1 Mb Comcast connection you might succeed if you have a faster connection. Or alternatively, if you and a bunch of others gang up, you may succeed too well and take my neighborhood off the net.
What I think may be needed is an easier system for tracking down infected systems and being able to get in touch with the admins for those systems. In my previous example, it should be much easier to identify my offending IP, and look up information to get in touch with a Comcast network geek who will take care of it right away. Probably by blocking my IP until I call in and resolve the issue.
I wasn't referring to selling insurance, I was referring to being investigated/arrested for bits of data picked off automatically by a computer. Of course, profiling is useful for determining insurance premiums and whether or not you're MIT material, but when it comes to determining whether or not you've broken the law, it's a different story.
Most warrants to arrest come from bits of data in a computer. I think what you are meaning to say is that it's illegal to arrest someone based on bullshit.
In other words, an officer may spot someone leaving a suspected drug house. You can't just throw them in jail. Although you could follow them, watch if they do something minor (like fail to use a turn signal, have a light out, etc...) and then stop them. Once they are stopped you can ask the usual questions. But in all reality, the person being stopped had every right to say fuck off--you can't search my car or person.
That's what (I'm assuming) the video system is for. Watch for suspicious activity, alert officers, and the person can be questioned. If that questioning turns up evidence of an arrestable offense, then arrest them.
And to head off a few replies, I think this video system is retarded and should not be implemented in the US using our tax dollars. Why? Everyone messes up sometimes. Say you weren't paying rapt attention to your speedometer and noticed you'd been going 5 over. Should you get a ticket every single time that accidentally happened?
The point is that if you watch someone constantly you'll eventually find them making a mistake. No one's perfect.
And do you know why I want to maintain those legal protections? Because I don't want to see human beings rounded up, forcibly relocated, imprisoned, or murdered purely on the say-so of the President. Those "protections" don't only protect the accused from being convicted of crimes they didn't commit--they protect entire nations from genocide. It's happened in the history of this country. We should never let it happen again.
I'm not a history student or anything--but when the heck did this country commit genocide? Or did I miss something?
Awhat?
Were you talking to me, or did you click the wrong reply link?
Possibly. It is even possible I was surfing while intoxicated and therefore drunkenly clicked the wrong reply link.
Maybe I can get a lib to tell me I'm not responsible and that society as failed me.
Hell--maybe I can even get into some sort of social program for wrong-reply-link-clickers.;)
If you wandered into a crowd of people and began shooting, you would be jailed, given access to an attorney and the use of the court system to contest your jailing, and promptly tried for your crimes,
Yeah. I re-read what I wrote and realized I didn't convey my thoughts very well.
If I wandered into a crowd and began shooting and I was a US citizen, I am covered by the rights, rules, and laws of my country. On the other hand, if I weren't a US citizen and I said "screw all you Americans, you all must die according to my beliefs. Oh yeah--and I am going to destry your country and everything you stand for."...where would I get covered by the rights in our founding documents? I'm not a US citizen and I'm out to kill Americans and attempt to destroy the foundation of our country (the founding documents).
In other words, why should I get the protections from a nation that I don't belong to and that I am trying to wipe out?
Why should I get protection from a set of rules and laws that I hate and am actively trying to destroy?
...and why would you want them to have that protection? I mean seriously--why would you want to protect someone who wants to kill you, someone who won't reason with you or try to peaceably co-exist?
No court has convicted them yet.
They are being detained.
If I wondered into a crowd of people and started shooting, I'd be detained in jail until my trial. And no one would be crying that my detainment was unlawful.
Yet for some reason everyone is screaming that DURING war it's illegal to detain these criminals, POWs, whatever.
Sounds like the OP was referring to the fact that places such as Gitmo fly in the face of a bold statement made in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence - that..."all men are created equal."
All men are created equal. But after we are created and 'grow up' we get to chose out own path. Some become soldiers. Some become politicians. Others become white collar workers. And still others become murders.
...and you are trying to use the constitution to say that murders have the same right as the others I mentioned.
No.
Shame on the people who try to protect themselves by citing the constitution all the while trying to destroy it.
Nope, it's just plain old copyright infringement. Stealing would require that some physical object be intentionally taken from its owner without permission
That's funny--because I thought the *IAA called it *stealing* when someone copied the 0's and 1's that made up a song.
They aren't physically taking anything.
It's 0's and 1's, not someone's car. It's not like you are depriving someone of a few electrons when you download something off TPB.
Yeah--so I clicked on the 'Related Solutions' button and picked the first result--one about if statements in batch files. It asks me to sign up to see the answer.
They have a few pages that are free, but most require a subscription.
As a public company they can drop any search results they disagree with...
I could give a shit about the windows malware that's out there. I don't run Windows and a good portion of my client base either doesn't run windows or doesn't have access to the net. But what I really wish google would fucking drop from their index is experts-exchange and tech-republic.
The last damn thing I want any of my search results to return is "Hey--here's the answer you're looking for. The solution is to...[PAY US FOR A FUCKING SUBSCRIPTION PLEASE]"
I upgraded to their business class also but they shut it down saying I needed to upgrade to their enterprise class (think that's what they called it). Oh and that's cheap for only $10,000 to install the line and about $2,000 a month.
That's insane. I think they make the number up on the spot. One of the companies I work for has several existing offices, and several offices they are opening up by the end of the year. They wanted to standardize on Comcast as an ISP. Two of the offices were on some po-dunk wireless setup and when Comcast came out they said they only had cable to the curb. If they actually wanted it run into the office complex (with 8 other commercial users--all stuck on crappy wireless) it would cost them $23,000 per office and take 3 months to setup.
There's no way in hell it could cost $23,000 to run cable underground for 30 feet.
So one of the owners asked Comcast if they paid for the connection, could they resell the access to the other tennants in the building and keep the proffits. Comcast said no.
What bullshit. They want users to pay to expand their infrastructure, and then pay again for using it. (Kinda a nice business model--Comcast doesn't have to front any money and they almost immediately start getting returns.)
So anyways, the owner says they are going to drop all their offices and switch to Qwest. Comcast immediately changed their tune, installed the cable themselves in two days, and now has other accounts in that same office building, plus we have a number for some dude at Comcast who will help us get all the new offices wired up unless they are waaay out in the brushfuck.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd just go with the 5th ammendment defense - I don't have to tell you things that could incriminate me.
Oh dear me. I'm such a horribly forgetful person. In all the hustle and the bustle, I seem to have forgotten my passphrase. Perhaps I shall remember it in time.
I remember back in "the day" I would occasionally setup a 2 MB RAM drive, throw a bunch of files on it, delete a few, put more files in, append to a few, delete a few more, and really really fragment the heck out of the RAM drive. Then I'd load the old Norton defrag tool and watch in amazement as it defragged everything in under 0.68 seconds.
Of course nowadays I just run Linux which doesn't have fragmentation issues...the magic is sorta lost.
*sigh*
So the question is, is this just CableCard 2.0 rebranded? The article mentions that this has been in the works for a long time, etc, etc, so maybe it is? One can only hope.
Damn cable companies. There is already a standard that allows equipment to communicate bi-directionally over a network. It's called TCP/IP. I have some amazing things on my small home network that all 'interoperate' on this basic principle. VoIP phones, computers, printers, porn boxe^H^H^H^H network attached storage.
Maybe I'm over-simplifying it a bit though--most of those devices have protocols that work on top of TCP/IP for communication, SIP for the phones, jetdirect for the printers, and ssh for everything else. Woot!
Office 2007 is leaps and bounds over anything Microsoft put out before. The interface is also heavily improved, so I don't know where you're getting this (unless this is pre-2005 when Office 2007 wasn't public knowledge)
Define improved.
I used started with Office 95 and followed it through Office 97, Office 2000, Office XP, and Office 2003. No matter what a user asked, I could easily assist them over the phone or in person. I could find any strange setting, or weird bug in just a minute or two of digging.
The new Office 2007 interface is absolute garbage. Everyone knows the interface of the previous versions.
I may have to hand back my geek card for this one, but I spent 15 minutes trying to figure out how to print a blasted document the day I loaded Office 2007. Only after hunting around through each and every stupid tab and icon did I find out that the fucking "Office Orb" in the corner is actually a menu.
Who the hell thought "Hey, let's totally fuck up the way we do menus. I'm going to create this orb that's almost as big as my nuts in the corner of every Office application and put all the important menu options there."?
I might not have been all that polite, but you'll note that I didn't sink to the level of calling you an emacs user ;-)
;)
Yeah--sorry, that was stooping a bit low on my side. I just couldn't think of a good car analogy.
What eye witness accounts?!?
Mark isn't an eye witness account. The other gospels are just later rewritings of Mark. There are no eyewitness accounts in the bible.
Matthew (aka Levi) one of the 12 disciples is an eyewitness account. Of course there are the other 11 disciples. However, you are correct that Mark isn't an eyewitness account, nor was Luke. So why would Matthew and Luke use information from Mark? Because Peter was among the 'inner circle' of Jesus and Peter translated his version of events through Mark. So their was probably some good information in Mark's translation that they used or reminded them of something else they forgot to include. Reporters do that sort of thing every day. How many reports reported on 9/11 without actually being an eyewitness at ground zero. They relied on other reporters who were there. They used their information.
Tacitus wasn't a contemporary, and the Josephus references have been pretty thoroughly debunked as either accidental or intentional alterations after the fact.
Why do no *contemporary* historians make any mention of earthquakes or the like. You know, the big things that people would have noticed?
When it comes to historians, I am fairly lost and have to turn to experts. You can say that Tacitus wasn't a contemporary and that Josephus has been pretty thoroughly debunked, but I've read papers from several historians and they all say that those two had it together.
here[http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm] is a great article addressing everything you talked about and more. The two follow up links at the bottom are also very good and exhaustively researched.
I'll have to read it next weekend when I have more time. Instead of setting up a mail server I've spent quite a bit of time digging through old notes and research...
I just love this "it was old-school" nonsense from people trying to defend the bible who have clearly never even read it.
Matthew 5:18 not one letter of one word of one law shall change.
If you read it, you would realized he is talking about Jesus.
Him being alive, preaching, and kicking it with his boys changes nothing. The law is the law, and it changed nothing.
Like I said before, yes--it was old-school. Before salvation.
Hence the line: "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace."
Now that the law has been fulfiled, we are under grace, etc...
Laughable. Dig yourself out of this one. It might help if you actually read the thing. Heck, try studying the actual history around the period of the new testament. The fact that there is no mention of *any* of the miraculous events outside of silly fairy tales is a big clue. That would involve you actually being able to think clearly on the subject which is really unlikely.
I won't be able to dig myself out of this one in your eyes, simply because you appear to believe that anyone who believes in the Bible is not thinking clearly. It'd be like arguing about vi and emacs--and I would say that vi is great and you are wrong for liking emacs--and I won't accept any of your statements about emacs because emacs users aren't thinking clearly.
I have studied some of the history around the new testament, but not as much as I would like.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with the miraculous events and fairytales. If you are saying that they is no evidence outside of the Bible relating to Jesus and/or his alleged miracles, you are wrong. There is plenty of information about Jesus outside of the Bible, even corroborated by people who hated the Christians. As for miracles, almost everyone who witnessed the miracles 'converted'--making them unreliable sources in your eyes.
Josephus was a first century historian. He wrote accounts about the Jewish Roman War and wrote "The Antiquities" which talks about James and Jesus. It talks about James being converted and sentenced to death by stoning for following 'the Messiah'.
Tacitus like Josephus is another Roman historian who is considered to be very reliable. Tacitus openly didn't like Christianity--but he was an accurate historian and documented it Christ being executed and the following explosion of Christianity immediately following it. ("Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out").
But as for the direct evidence of miracles that I assume you are searching for, you probably aren't going to find much outside of the Bible. Why? Because everyone who first-hand witnessed the miracles and wrote about them now have them 'published' in the Bible, and they became believers. And I would have a hard time believing second-hand reports.
First step is drop the assumption that it must magically be true because you really really want it to be.
I don't believe in the bible because I want it to be true. Fuck, I wish it weren't. That would mean I could go out and drink myself stupid, and bang chicks, and do whatever I wanted without being held accountable to my actions. I believe in the bible because I spent the last five years doing research in my spare time. I questioned everything, talked with a few 'experts' in various scientific fields, read reports issued by others.
I understand if someone doesn't have the time or interest to do that sort of research, but once again you are standing on a position of knowing next to nothing about the area we are discussing and trying in vain to argue some point.
Of course like any good scientist, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I am absolutely 100% correct about everything...because I can't prove
I think many of us geeks know that you can also use methods like DHCP to configure static IPs. What you are benefiting from here is DHCP, not your dynamic IP.
...as long as it gets them without me having to go tweak another setting on each machine.
I think what you are trying to say is that the major benefit isn't necessarily the 'D for Dynamic' in DHCP, it's the 'HCP for Host Configuration Protocol'.
As an admin, I could care less what IP the workstations on my network get (meh--within reason. 192.168.33/24)
Heck, when was the last time you saw them stone people to death for any number of inane heresies as the bible never stopped demanding?
Sorry to nitpick, but the bible doesn't demand you stone people to death anymore. It also doesn't demand you dash children against rocks. That was old-school. Before 'salvation'.
I get annoyed when someone reads a whole sentence out of the Bible (or anything) or off some bible-bashing website and then uses that as an entire campaign against the Bible. It'd be no better than me picking a sentence out of some programming guide and using that to try to understand programming.
So if you're going to try to bash the Bible, try reading it. While you're reading it, use your brain. If you can logically refute or argue with what you've found, good for you. At least you've made an informed judgment.
And of course the reverse is true. I know many Christians who have read a few sentences of the bible and use it as the basis for their beliefs. These are usually the ones who fanatically fight science. And they do so out of ignorance.
I know this is slashdot, but how the hell can people sit here and have a huge discussion about something they know very little about?
Yes because you have the exclusive right to tell people what to do with their money.
No, but he does have the exclusive right to give his sympathy to whomever he chooses.
I really do think it is time to fight fire with fire. If these things report to a server then make that IP public and then blast it off the internet.
Unfortunately the spammer/malware author usually doesn't use their own servers, pipes, routing equipment, etc...
It's usually hosted at some facility and your retaliation would more than likely harm other customers.
Same with home PCs. If you tried to take down my 8/1 Mb Comcast connection you might succeed if you have a faster connection. Or alternatively, if you and a bunch of others gang up, you may succeed too well and take my neighborhood off the net.
What I think may be needed is an easier system for tracking down infected systems and being able to get in touch with the admins for those systems. In my previous example, it should be much easier to identify my offending IP, and look up information to get in touch with a Comcast network geek who will take care of it right away. Probably by blocking my IP until I call in and resolve the issue.
So games are more important than personal freedom and privacy? I fear for the future...
So you think that voting democrat gives you personal freedom and privacy? I fear you the future...
Yeah--in the movie Sphere, the sphere successfully hacked a linux box...
What rocks have you been hiding under all your life?
...The one where they don't use punctuation.
Take a peek outside mommas basement sometime.
I'll tell you what rock he hasn't been hiding under.
'Mommas' sounds like some strange sci-fi character.
I wasn't referring to selling insurance, I was referring to being investigated/arrested for bits of data picked off automatically by a computer. Of course, profiling is useful for determining insurance premiums and whether or not you're MIT material, but when it comes to determining whether or not you've broken the law, it's a different story.
Most warrants to arrest come from bits of data in a computer. I think what you are meaning to say is that it's illegal to arrest someone based on bullshit.
In other words, an officer may spot someone leaving a suspected drug house. You can't just throw them in jail. Although you could follow them, watch if they do something minor (like fail to use a turn signal, have a light out, etc...) and then stop them. Once they are stopped you can ask the usual questions. But in all reality, the person being stopped had every right to say fuck off--you can't search my car or person.
That's what (I'm assuming) the video system is for. Watch for suspicious activity, alert officers, and the person can be questioned. If that questioning turns up evidence of an arrestable offense, then arrest them.
And to head off a few replies, I think this video system is retarded and should not be implemented in the US using our tax dollars. Why? Everyone messes up sometimes. Say you weren't paying rapt attention to your speedometer and noticed you'd been going 5 over. Should you get a ticket every single time that accidentally happened?
The point is that if you watch someone constantly you'll eventually find them making a mistake. No one's perfect.
Against the Indians.
Oh duh. Well I feel like a retard for forgetting that.
And do you know why I want to maintain those legal protections? Because I don't want to see human beings rounded up, forcibly relocated, imprisoned, or murdered purely on the say-so of the President. Those "protections" don't only protect the accused from being convicted of crimes they didn't commit--they protect entire nations from genocide. It's happened in the history of this country. We should never let it happen again.
I'm not a history student or anything--but when the heck did this country commit genocide? Or did I miss something?
Awhat?
;)
Were you talking to me, or did you click the wrong reply link?
Possibly. It is even possible I was surfing while intoxicated and therefore drunkenly clicked the wrong reply link.
Maybe I can get a lib to tell me I'm not responsible and that society as failed me.
Hell--maybe I can even get into some sort of social program for wrong-reply-link-clickers.
If you wandered into a crowd of people and began shooting, you would be jailed, given access to an attorney and the use of the court system to contest your jailing, and promptly tried for your crimes,
...and why would you want them to have that protection? I mean seriously--why would you want to protect someone who wants to kill you, someone who won't reason with you or try to peaceably co-exist?
Yeah. I re-read what I wrote and realized I didn't convey my thoughts very well.
If I wandered into a crowd and began shooting and I was a US citizen, I am covered by the rights, rules, and laws of my country. On the other hand, if I weren't a US citizen and I said "screw all you Americans, you all must die according to my beliefs. Oh yeah--and I am going to destry your country and everything you stand for."...where would I get covered by the rights in our founding documents? I'm not a US citizen and I'm out to kill Americans and attempt to destroy the foundation of our country (the founding documents).
In other words, why should I get the protections from a nation that I don't belong to and that I am trying to wipe out?
Why should I get protection from a set of rules and laws that I hate and am actively trying to destroy?
No court has convicted them yet.
They are being detained.
If I wondered into a crowd of people and started shooting, I'd be detained in jail until my trial. And no one would be crying that my detainment was unlawful.
Yet for some reason everyone is screaming that DURING war it's illegal to detain these criminals, POWs, whatever.
Sounds like the OP was referring to the fact that places such as Gitmo fly in the face of a bold statement made in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence - that ..."all men are created equal."
...and you are trying to use the constitution to say that murders have the same right as the others I mentioned.
All men are created equal. But after we are created and 'grow up' we get to chose out own path. Some become soldiers. Some become politicians. Others become white collar workers. And still others become murders.
No.
Shame on the people who try to protect themselves by citing the constitution all the while trying to destroy it.
Nope, it's just plain old copyright infringement. Stealing would require that some physical object be intentionally taken from its owner without permission
That's funny--because I thought the *IAA called it *stealing* when someone copied the 0's and 1's that made up a song.
They aren't physically taking anything.
It's 0's and 1's, not someone's car. It's not like you are depriving someone of a few electrons when you download something off TPB.
Yeah--so I clicked on the 'Related Solutions' button and picked the first result--one about if statements in batch files.
It asks me to sign up to see the answer.
They have a few pages that are free, but most require a subscription.
As a public company they can drop any search results they disagree with...
I could give a shit about the windows malware that's out there. I don't run Windows and a good portion of my client base either doesn't run windows or doesn't have access to the net. But what I really wish google would fucking drop from their index is experts-exchange and tech-republic.
The last damn thing I want any of my search results to return is "Hey--here's the answer you're looking for. The solution is to...[PAY US FOR A FUCKING SUBSCRIPTION PLEASE]"
...by falconwolf (725481)
Falcon Wolf? Did you just pick a few things you thought sounded cool and mashed them together?
Maybe I could interest you in a car...
I upgraded to their business class also but they shut it down saying I needed to upgrade to their enterprise class (think that's what they called it). Oh and that's cheap for only $10,000 to install the line and about $2,000 a month.
That's insane. I think they make the number up on the spot. One of the companies I work for has several existing offices, and several offices they are opening up by the end of the year. They wanted to standardize on Comcast as an ISP. Two of the offices were on some po-dunk wireless setup and when Comcast came out they said they only had cable to the curb. If they actually wanted it run into the office complex (with 8 other commercial users--all stuck on crappy wireless) it would cost them $23,000 per office and take 3 months to setup.
There's no way in hell it could cost $23,000 to run cable underground for 30 feet.
So one of the owners asked Comcast if they paid for the connection, could they resell the access to the other tennants in the building and keep the proffits. Comcast said no.
What bullshit. They want users to pay to expand their infrastructure, and then pay again for using it. (Kinda a nice business model--Comcast doesn't have to front any money and they almost immediately start getting returns.)
So anyways, the owner says they are going to drop all their offices and switch to Qwest. Comcast immediately changed their tune, installed the cable themselves in two days, and now has other accounts in that same office building, plus we have a number for some dude at Comcast who will help us get all the new offices wired up unless they are waaay out in the brushfuck.