You keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to pull it. If you watch people who are trained in this (i.e. the jack-booted thugs who kidnapped Elian Gonzales), that's what they do, even at point-blank range. (Of course, if she manages to fire the gun without putting her hand on the trigger, that's even sillier.)
A spokeswoman for the airports agency, said airport and customs officials are discussing how to handle a similar incident should it occur in the future.
Except in the future, the incident isn't going to be similar, aside from being similarly boneheaded. This attitude of "only defend yourself from things that have already happened to you before" is just plain dumb. Obviously their system was set up and administered by a boneheaded organization to begin with, and now that same boneheaded organization is rushing to convene a committee to discuss a committee to discuss how to prevent something that already happened from happening again. The root flaw is still in the organization.
Sure. I'm not associating the two, I'm just saying neither the Taliban nor the Iranian leadership consist of nice or reasonable people. Just because you can play "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" in some situations doesn't mean he really is.
The answer is not to be a pussy about it, to pick your battles, and when appropriate, to give the best case you possibly can. That's how progress happens. It's a combative method, but better to be more certain than too open-minded. And if you're right, maybe one day schoolchildren will be reading about you.
I think what a lot of people forget in the US is that on September 11, the Iranian government condemned the attacks.
So did the Taliban. Condemning the attacks is equivalent to "please don't bomb us" from these people.
We've been conditioned to hate Iran ever since they overturned the CIA-installed puppet government.
I think most people remember Iran for taking the American embassy staff hostage and holding them for more than a year before finally releasing them. Or for backing Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group famous for shooting rockets over the border into Israeli neighborhoods. Lately they're in the news for hosting Holocaust-denial conferences, rigging elections to the extent that most people refused to participate out of protest, and threatening to develop nuclear missiles for shooting at Israeli neighborhoods.
No matter how noble their intentions are, nor how much their actions are a historical result of ill-thought-out American policy, there exist in this world crazy and dangerous people with frightening levels of power. People who misgovern their countries into poverty, and then refuse to let the victims of their plundering emigrate with what little they have left (the Castros). Or people who, in the name of liberating the worker, send millions of workers to their deaths (Stalin), slaughter millions through executions and millions more through intentional starvation (Lenin, Stalin again), and send political prisoners by the thousands to Siberian concentration camps (Lenin, Stalin, et. al.). Hatred towards murderous tyrants is a fundamentally reasonable thing, and while taking an overly-aggressive foreign policy towards these pricks is ill-advised, it is certainly for other reasons.
Sorry if it seemed blunt, but it seemed reasonable to point out. People have a hell of an "us vs. them" instinct and lawsuits tend to magnify that, so your comment struck me as (potentially) coming from cognitive bias.
I think you miss the point. "Wanting to spend more time with your family" is such a standard reason for resigning that it's often code for, "I was fired."
And let me guess, all of them were against you. Not to be dismissive (I'm sure bad judges do exist), but it's psychologically very easy to get to a state where you're so devoted to winning your case that you're incapable of considering the possibility you're wrong. In that case, even a sane and reasonable judge would seem totally crazy if he ruled against you. (Of course, SCO's case is silly enough that this doesn't really apply, but SCO's case is unusually absurd.)
Actually it was multiple "hard edged police states", punctuated by popular uprisings and an occasional election. In any case, it still seems to favorably compare to North Korea--after all, South Korea was not part of an international movement bent on making everyone else adopt its form of government.
They would have gotten bogged down in Russia just the same. And if they tried to withdraw, Russia would have turned on them. Furthermore, they had by that point failed to even get across the English Channel, and they didn't have the naval might to cross even the English Channel, to say nothing of the Atlantic. This is getting rather beside the point, but since North Korea was thought to be aligned with Stalin's Russia (the very same which had conquered the Baltic states and invaded Finland), I wouldn't second-guess the decision to defend Korea.
Considering that their dictator was not Kim Il-Sung, and that they currently don't have a dictatorship at all (as opposed to that of Kim Jong-Il), I disagree. There's a difference between having an off-and-on military dictatorship under the guise of an elected presidency and having a Stalinist madman hold total control for decades on end.
At the moment, I'm starting to suspect that you're responsible for the extinction of your shift keys. And as someone who's had the misfortune of reading your angered scribblings on this issue, let me say that it's culturally significant to me that people capitalize properly.
No, logic. "Foo" and "not foo" are complementary statements--one of them is always true, because if either of them is false, the other is true by definition. If not foo, then "not foo". If not not foo, then "foo". Therefore, any statement of the form "foo or not foo" is guaranteed to be true.
Since it was culturally significant to the Chinese, I suspect the Chinese are the ones who care. But wait! They're the ones who killed it off! Guess they didn't really care that much.
I've never been aware that having a good grasp of English literature, or understanding the process of mitosis has ever made me a more rounded individual or better person. And what on earth is this "physics" shit I have to study, anyway? And who really cares about the Wilmot Proviso?
Slashdot Mirror
You keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to pull it. If you watch people who are trained in this (i.e. the jack-booted thugs who kidnapped Elian Gonzales), that's what they do, even at point-blank range. (Of course, if she manages to fire the gun without putting her hand on the trigger, that's even sillier.)
I'm saying that a single NIC going down won't single-handedly hose the system again, unless they're horribly incompetent.
Except in the future, the incident isn't going to be similar, aside from being similarly boneheaded. This attitude of "only defend yourself from things that have already happened to you before" is just plain dumb. Obviously their system was set up and administered by a boneheaded organization to begin with, and now that same boneheaded organization is rushing to convene a committee to discuss a committee to discuss how to prevent something that already happened from happening again. The root flaw is still in the organization.
Sure. I'm not associating the two, I'm just saying neither the Taliban nor the Iranian leadership consist of nice or reasonable people. Just because you can play "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" in some situations doesn't mean he really is.
The answer is not to be a pussy about it, to pick your battles, and when appropriate, to give the best case you possibly can. That's how progress happens. It's a combative method, but better to be more certain than too open-minded. And if you're right, maybe one day schoolchildren will be reading about you.
So did the Taliban. Condemning the attacks is equivalent to "please don't bomb us" from these people.
We've been conditioned to hate Iran ever since they overturned the CIA-installed puppet government.I think most people remember Iran for taking the American embassy staff hostage and holding them for more than a year before finally releasing them. Or for backing Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group famous for shooting rockets over the border into Israeli neighborhoods. Lately they're in the news for hosting Holocaust-denial conferences, rigging elections to the extent that most people refused to participate out of protest, and threatening to develop nuclear missiles for shooting at Israeli neighborhoods.
No matter how noble their intentions are, nor how much their actions are a historical result of ill-thought-out American policy, there exist in this world crazy and dangerous people with frightening levels of power. People who misgovern their countries into poverty, and then refuse to let the victims of their plundering emigrate with what little they have left (the Castros). Or people who, in the name of liberating the worker, send millions of workers to their deaths (Stalin), slaughter millions through executions and millions more through intentional starvation (Lenin, Stalin again), and send political prisoners by the thousands to Siberian concentration camps (Lenin, Stalin, et. al.). Hatred towards murderous tyrants is a fundamentally reasonable thing, and while taking an overly-aggressive foreign policy towards these pricks is ill-advised, it is certainly for other reasons.
People have increasingly been doing that since the mid-to-late 20th century. This has political consequences.
Sorry if it seemed blunt, but it seemed reasonable to point out. People have a hell of an "us vs. them" instinct and lawsuits tend to magnify that, so your comment struck me as (potentially) coming from cognitive bias.
Well, all your money that's in SCO stock. Yes, I do understand the concept of limited liability.
I think you miss the point. "Wanting to spend more time with your family" is such a standard reason for resigning that it's often code for, "I was fired."
Rove's "radical agenda" is winning elections. That's all he really cares about.
Why did you act like your own wedding was something totally beyond your control?
And then you lose all your money to Novell and IBM when the company goes under?
And let me guess, all of them were against you. Not to be dismissive (I'm sure bad judges do exist), but it's psychologically very easy to get to a state where you're so devoted to winning your case that you're incapable of considering the possibility you're wrong. In that case, even a sane and reasonable judge would seem totally crazy if he ruled against you. (Of course, SCO's case is silly enough that this doesn't really apply, but SCO's case is unusually absurd.)
Actually it was multiple "hard edged police states", punctuated by popular uprisings and an occasional election. In any case, it still seems to favorably compare to North Korea--after all, South Korea was not part of an international movement bent on making everyone else adopt its form of government.
Maybe to manufacture it. It costs a large fixed amount to develop these things in the first place, though.
They would have gotten bogged down in Russia just the same. And if they tried to withdraw, Russia would have turned on them. Furthermore, they had by that point failed to even get across the English Channel, and they didn't have the naval might to cross even the English Channel, to say nothing of the Atlantic. This is getting rather beside the point, but since North Korea was thought to be aligned with Stalin's Russia (the very same which had conquered the Baltic states and invaded Finland), I wouldn't second-guess the decision to defend Korea.
Considering that their dictator was not Kim Il-Sung, and that they currently don't have a dictatorship at all (as opposed to that of Kim Jong-Il), I disagree. There's a difference between having an off-and-on military dictatorship under the guise of an elected presidency and having a Stalinist madman hold total control for decades on end.
At the moment, I'm starting to suspect that you're responsible for the extinction of your shift keys. And as someone who's had the misfortune of reading your angered scribblings on this issue, let me say that it's culturally significant to me that people capitalize properly.
No, logic. "Foo" and "not foo" are complementary statements--one of them is always true, because if either of them is false, the other is true by definition. If not foo, then "not foo". If not not foo, then "foo". Therefore, any statement of the form "foo or not foo" is guaranteed to be true.
Since it was culturally significant to the Chinese, I suspect the Chinese are the ones who care. But wait! They're the ones who killed it off! Guess they didn't really care that much.
Nazi Germany was not about to cross the Atlantic with landing ships, if you want to go that far.
I think a few million South Koreans would disagree with that.
Please, Don't Hassel the Hoff.
I've never been aware that having a good grasp of English literature, or understanding the process of mitosis has ever made me a more rounded individual or better person. And what on earth is this "physics" shit I have to study, anyway? And who really cares about the Wilmot Proviso?