That's right, I was there willingly, becaused I believed in what we were doing: trying to prevent a totalitarian dictatorship from taking over a people who didn't want it. And, after people like you persuaded our government to pull out, the totalitarians took over and killed or imprisioned their enemies.
None. I was on a ship on the Gun Line, not involved with the gunnery except for (as most everybody was) carrying shells and powdercases during resupply. And, however many NVA my ship killed, I'll bet we saved more American lives, and that's all that matters to me.
Much though I'd like to agree with you, alas, she isn't. Unlike Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally, she didn't say what she did during a declared war, and that makes a difference. Without a war, there's no enemy, and without that, no treason.
Thank you. I had resons not to like his politics even before this and now I know what type of back-stabbing worm he really is. I hope the Bush campaign publicises this so that people will know just how bad he is and how foolish the Democrat Party is to back him.
No, I don't think the leaders that sent me to Vietnam should be tried for treason because what they did doesn't fit the Constitutional definition of treason, nor do I think it should. I don't know how many people Hanoi Jane is responsible for killing, but I could make a good guess how many lives she helped ruin by making soldiers out to be horrible people that deserved to be spat upon, hated and discriminated against. Trying to end bloodshed by encouraging people to kill the soldiers of your own country is a rather contrived piece of twisted logic, and isn't something she, or anybody else should be proud of. Much of the trouble we vets have had ever since can be laid at her door, and because of that, among many other things, I think God will judge her far more harshly than he does me.
At that time I was too busy with my studies at a Class A school at Mare Island Naval Base before going on a WestPac and serving on the Gun Line. I had much better things to do than listen to people like that.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
This was put in to prevent people from being charged with treason just because the government didn't like what they'd done, as had happened a number if times in Britian in the "bad old days." Because we had not declared war on North Vietnam, and Fonda didn't do anything but talk, what she did was not treason, although it could be argued that morally it was. (That's another question that I'm not getting into.)
But they both opposed the war, and that makes them both traitor-liberal-bleedingheart-(add your own insult here).
Not so. Kerry didn't go to Hanoi, Kerry didn't broadcast speaches designed to harm soldier's moral, Kerry stayed here and worked within the law for what he believed in. I have no respect for Hanoi Jane, but I do for Kerry.
Let's go back to 1972. One of the two candidates was well known to be a devious, underhanded, dishonest trickster, the other was considered honest and honerable. Alas, the honerable one was also preceived to be an incompetent flake that couldn't even make sure his running mate had no skeletons in his closet. Which one won? Not George McGovern, that's for sure! If you're not sure you can beat your opponent on the issues, use character assassination. There's lots of us 'Nam vets out there, ready to vote. Making us believe he sided with Fonda might be all it took to swing the votes. Imagine how it might be in Britian, let's say, if somebody made it look like an important politician in an election had been a vocal opponent of the Fauklands incident.
She did mnore than that. She sat in the seat of an AA gun and said that she wished she could shoot it against an American B-52. If we had declared war, it would have been treason as defined in the Constitution. Those of us that were serving their country in Vietnam in those days still remember.
I must admit that it doesn't sound like Bush's style; it sounds more like something Tricky Dick Nixon would have done. What I'd like to know is, how many of you are upset because it's wrong, not because it's being done to Kerry? If somebody put out a faked photo "proving" Bush was AWOL, how many of you would cheer?
Junk snail-mail isn't a problem because it pays for itself. Not only do the senders have to spend the money to create, print and send it, it subsidizes regular mail. That's right: without junk mail, first class postage would be higher than it is.
The problem with spam is that it costs nothing to send, and is, in effect, subsidized by honest people. Spam not only clogs our inboxes, it raises our ISP fees and that's why there are so many spammers. You don't need a very high success rate when you pay nothing to send out your advertisements.
A GM once made a horrible mistake and let a friend of mine have Machine Empathy and belong to Frankenstein Destroyers. Said friend had his character go around persuading bots to mangle themselves and much fun was had.
As a long-time gamer, I like the idea of a character generation system as long as it's simple. Let me generate my stats, either pick my mutant power and society (or generate them randomly) and I'm ready. If you want to keep players from wasting time buying equipment, either give everybody the same stuff, or have several basic packs set up and roll for which one you have.
If you assume the algorithm is known, the transposition is just one more step in the brute force attack. If you don't, the attack may be assuming a substitution cypher, as most, if not all computer cyphers are substitution. If so, brute force will fail because it'd be barking up the wrong tree.
I've always wanted to run a Red Level Trouble Shooter accidentally warped into DND. He'd kiss the ass of the low-level clerics (dressed in white) and treat the high-level mages/clerics (in black) like dirt. Naturally, he'd be afraid to go outdoors as the "ceiling" would be blue, far above his own clearance. The possibilities for creative misunderstanding and basic loose cannon exploits are endless. Of course, you need a GM that's both willing and able to handle the consequences...
The plaintext is the source, unecrypted. By "rotating it," he could have meant using a transposition cypher. That is, changing the positions of the characters rather than substituting one for another. If so, a brute force atttact based on the assumption that the characters are in the right order, only modified will fail because it's trying the wrong method.
Either the author doesn't really understand encryption, or is assuming the readers don't; probably both. There are already many encryption systems in place that can't be broken, called "one time pads." That is, the key changes constantly and randomly. Unless you have the key and know where in the key the message starts, you can't decrypt it. Once a part of the key is used, it's discarded and is never reused. Not only that, there are systems, such as RSA encryption that are theoretically breakable but require unreasonable lengths of time to do so, making them effectively unbreakable. For me, and for anybody with any basic knowledge of encryption, the premise of this book is simply foolish.
And despite what judges and lawyers will tell you, this is a legal right, which pre-dates the constitution, and was not overrulled by it.
The prinicple is called "jury nullification." Judges are so scared of the idea of juries deciding for themselves what the law should be that lawyers are forbidden to mention the possibility in their arguments to the jury.
The rate at which Hawking Radiation is emitted is inversely proportional to the Black Hole's size. There'd be very little coming from one big enough to be dangerous.
From what I remember, if you were on the unlucky planet, the rest of the universe would seem to speed up and blue shift. From the outside, the planet would move slower and slower as it got close and be red shifted. Both points of view are equally correct. Weird, but that's one of the reasons it's called "Relativity:" everything is relative to your frame of reference, and no frame has priority over another.
I'm talking primarily about the resolution (Chandra resolution is 0.5 arcseconds, ROSAT resolution like 50 arcseconds).
It just occured to me that X-Ray telescopes should be capable of very fine resolution. Consider: resolution is directly proportional to the arpature and inversely to the wavelength. Or, to put it a different way, directly proportional to the arpature measured in wavelengths. This is why radio telescopes have such poor resolution. Now, X-Rays are of a higher frequency and (naturally) lower wavelength than visible light. Wouldn't that mean that for a given instrument you'd get better resolution?
Slashdot Mirror
That's right, I was there willingly, becaused I believed in what we were doing: trying to prevent a totalitarian dictatorship from taking over a people who didn't want it. And, after people like you persuaded our government to pull out, the totalitarians took over and killed or imprisioned their enemies.
None. I was on a ship on the Gun Line, not involved with the gunnery except for (as most everybody was) carrying shells and powdercases during resupply. And, however many NVA my ship killed, I'll bet we saved more American lives, and that's all that matters to me.
Much though I'd like to agree with you, alas, she isn't. Unlike Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally, she didn't say what she did during a declared war, and that makes a difference. Without a war, there's no enemy, and without that, no treason.
Thank you. I had resons not to like his politics even before this and now I know what type of back-stabbing worm he really is. I hope the Bush campaign publicises this so that people will know just how bad he is and how foolish the Democrat Party is to back him.
No, I don't think the leaders that sent me to Vietnam should be tried for treason because what they did doesn't fit the Constitutional definition of treason, nor do I think it should. I don't know how many people Hanoi Jane is responsible for killing, but I could make a good guess how many lives she helped ruin by making soldiers out to be horrible people that deserved to be spat upon, hated and discriminated against. Trying to end bloodshed by encouraging people to kill the soldiers of your own country is a rather contrived piece of twisted logic, and isn't something she, or anybody else should be proud of. Much of the trouble we vets have had ever since can be laid at her door, and because of that, among many other things, I think God will judge her far more harshly than he does me.
At that time I was too busy with my studies at a Class A school at Mare Island Naval Base before going on a WestPac and serving on the Gun Line. I had much better things to do than listen to people like that.
Article V, Section 3:
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
This was put in to prevent people from being charged with treason just because the government didn't like what they'd done, as had happened a number if times in Britian in the "bad old days." Because we had not declared war on North Vietnam, and Fonda didn't do anything but talk, what she did was not treason, although it could be argued that morally it was. (That's another question that I'm not getting into.)
Not so. Kerry didn't go to Hanoi, Kerry didn't broadcast speaches designed to harm soldier's moral, Kerry stayed here and worked within the law for what he believed in. I have no respect for Hanoi Jane, but I do for Kerry.
Let's go back to 1972. One of the two candidates was well known to be a devious, underhanded, dishonest trickster, the other was considered honest and honerable. Alas, the honerable one was also preceived to be an incompetent flake that couldn't even make sure his running mate had no skeletons in his closet. Which one won? Not George McGovern, that's for sure! If you're not sure you can beat your opponent on the issues, use character assassination. There's lots of us 'Nam vets out there, ready to vote. Making us believe he sided with Fonda might be all it took to swing the votes. Imagine how it might be in Britian, let's say, if somebody made it look like an important politician in an election had been a vocal opponent of the Fauklands incident.
She did mnore than that. She sat in the seat of an AA gun and said that she wished she could shoot it against an American B-52. If we had declared war, it would have been treason as defined in the Constitution. Those of us that were serving their country in Vietnam in those days still remember.
I must admit that it doesn't sound like Bush's style; it sounds more like something Tricky Dick Nixon would have done. What I'd like to know is, how many of you are upset because it's wrong, not because it's being done to Kerry? If somebody put out a faked photo "proving" Bush was AWOL, how many of you would cheer?
One filter good, two filters better.
The problem with spam is that it costs nothing to send, and is, in effect, subsidized by honest people. Spam not only clogs our inboxes, it raises our ISP fees and that's why there are so many spammers. You don't need a very high success rate when you pay nothing to send out your advertisements.
A GM once made a horrible mistake and let a friend of mine have Machine Empathy and belong to Frankenstein Destroyers. Said friend had his character go around persuading bots to mangle themselves and much fun was had.
As a long-time gamer, I like the idea of a character generation system as long as it's simple. Let me generate my stats, either pick my mutant power and society (or generate them randomly) and I'm ready. If you want to keep players from wasting time buying equipment, either give everybody the same stuff, or have several basic packs set up and roll for which one you have.
My favorite note went like this: "When you read this, nod at me and smile."
If you assume the algorithm is known, the transposition is just one more step in the brute force attack. If you don't, the attack may be assuming a substitution cypher, as most, if not all computer cyphers are substitution. If so, brute force will fail because it'd be barking up the wrong tree.
In Paranoia, wouldn't you have a different form of Soylent for each clearance level?
I've always wanted to run a Red Level Trouble Shooter accidentally warped into DND. He'd kiss the ass of the low-level clerics (dressed in white) and treat the high-level mages/clerics (in black) like dirt. Naturally, he'd be afraid to go outdoors as the "ceiling" would be blue, far above his own clearance. The possibilities for creative misunderstanding and basic loose cannon exploits are endless. Of course, you need a GM that's both willing and able to handle the consequences...
The plaintext is the source, unecrypted. By "rotating it," he could have meant using a transposition cypher. That is, changing the positions of the characters rather than substituting one for another. If so, a brute force atttact based on the assumption that the characters are in the right order, only modified will fail because it's trying the wrong method.
Either the author doesn't really understand encryption, or is assuming the readers don't; probably both. There are already many encryption systems in place that can't be broken, called "one time pads." That is, the key changes constantly and randomly. Unless you have the key and know where in the key the message starts, you can't decrypt it. Once a part of the key is used, it's discarded and is never reused. Not only that, there are systems, such as RSA encryption that are theoretically breakable but require unreasonable lengths of time to do so, making them effectively unbreakable. For me, and for anybody with any basic knowledge of encryption, the premise of this book is simply foolish.
The prinicple is called "jury nullification." Judges are so scared of the idea of juries deciding for themselves what the law should be that lawyers are forbidden to mention the possibility in their arguments to the jury.
The rate at which Hawking Radiation is emitted is inversely proportional to the Black Hole's size. There'd be very little coming from one big enough to be dangerous.
From what I remember, if you were on the unlucky planet, the rest of the universe would seem to speed up and blue shift. From the outside, the planet would move slower and slower as it got close and be red shifted. Both points of view are equally correct. Weird, but that's one of the reasons it's called "Relativity:" everything is relative to your frame of reference, and no frame has priority over another.
It just occured to me that X-Ray telescopes should be capable of very fine resolution. Consider: resolution is directly proportional to the arpature and inversely to the wavelength. Or, to put it a different way, directly proportional to the arpature measured in wavelengths. This is why radio telescopes have such poor resolution. Now, X-Rays are of a higher frequency and (naturally) lower wavelength than visible light. Wouldn't that mean that for a given instrument you'd get better resolution?