Wait a minute! You are implying it's the Journalists fault and not the Government's fault who illegally confiscated her materials? Either that or you are diverting the argument from the Government Employees breaking the law.
I'm pointing out that she was fucking stupid if she had documents lying around that would immediately and obviously disclose her sources. That doesn't in any way detract from the dubious legality of the TSA and their storm troopers. That's what I'm saying. What you're saying from your crazy arse interpretation is that you're a lunatic product of inter-species sexual relations.
You should be ranting and raving to get Government Employees people fired and put in jail for breaking the law, not complaining about the journalists.
I'm not the one ranting and raving here. I refer you back to my comment on your parentage.
Are you happy that your tax dollars were just spent in illegal activities? Just not care as long as it's not you getting fucked?
I'd be happy if my tax dollars went to getting you whatever medication it is you're sorely lacking.
Encryption per se doesn't even need to come in to this. Just don't have the real names visible on the documents. Come up with nicknames and never use the real names.
If needing to reference the real names, she could keep a list somewhere nicely hidden. Not ideal, in fact pretty flimsy, but better than having a big 'ol stack of documents containing informant names sitting right on her home office desk.
I mean, seriously? What kind of journalist, investigating malfeasance by federal agencies, would have the names of her sources in plain text? Sounds like someone on the local newspaper who would ordinarily be writing the horoscopes and gardening news.
Every society in the world has established that (at least some) rights can be removed from criminals, with due process. If their right to freedom can be removed, there's no reason their right to life can't be as well (in extreme circumstances at least).
The acceptance of removing rights isn't itself a justification for any particular action. Each proposed action should stand on its own merits. We know that custodial sentences can to some extent be corrected for when a convict is later cleared of the capital crime. One can't give someone back 10 years of life, but efforts can be made to make the remainder of their life as pleasant as it can be under the circumstances. The death penalty is kind of final. It's difficult to appeal the sentence when one would be too dead to show-up in court. Appeals can be made prior to the execution - we know that's pretty common, and certainly some people are reprieved, but once dead there's no going back. The best they can hope for is that a surviving friend or relative will clear their name postmortem. That is a pretty big difference.
It's a moral choice to make, and that's fine. But to argue that executions are some absurdity that have no place in a reasonable society is unfair.
We have to ask ourselves a question: What is capital punishment achieving that a custodial sentence wouldn't?
Is it about protecting the public? If so, how are they any more protected by this death than they would be if the person served their life behind bars? Maybe the protection comes from its deterrent factor? If so, is this worth the risk of executing people who are innocent of the crime for which they've been sentenced to death? Is this a utilitarian argument? Better to have 1 innocent person die if it prevents 100 murders? None of that seems reasonable to me. Are there better ways to reduce crime that won't involve executions?
Is it about vengeance for the wronged? If so, then this is a broken judicial system. The law should never have this in mind.
Agreed. All you need to do is update the processor, the mobo, the HD and slap in a new GPU, but apart from those changes it's the same craptacular computer.
When the IRA commits some acts of terror, I don't see people blame the Catholic Church as a whole.
So yeah, Islam is treated differently. And that's wrong.
Disclaimer: I'm Catholic.
I agree that Islam shouldn't automatically be blamed whenever a Muslim commits a crime. However, when an Islamist group cites Islamic texts as justification then I don't see how one could not make the connection. It's not wrong to draw valid connections between world-views and actions.
It's worth considering differences in how scripture is read. Most Christian sects have spent thousands of years arguing over canon and apocrypha. Today there are major sects using different canons - this is not a fringe exercise. Even within a given canon it's rare to have the literalism and inerrancy common to Islam. Based on discussions with Muslims, the general idea is that there is one Koran, and it is free from error and practically untouched by human hand. This leads to a pretty hardline and self-claimed definitive interpretation, which I reflects in the practices of the religion. There are some exceptions, such as the Sufis, who are are more likely to read allegories where others would see literality.
MIDI Maze looks pretty interesting for its time - shame I missed that one back in the day.
Yeah, elements existed in other genres. The risk is in claiming that having radios in cars isn't innovative because people had radios in their homes years before that. I haven't played any Zelda games (another gap in my gaming). Was stealth an intended mechanic of the game, or is something more akin to speedrunning a game that was never balanced for that kind of play?
I know modding is pretty limited in the land of consoles. It's one of many reasons why I prefer PC gaming. Mods have given me a great deal of replay value, and I've had some fun building maps. It's good to see tools like Hammer coming with the game - not relying on a bunch of third party tools as we had to do with Quake.
My point is that things have clearly advanced, whether through original mechanics or bits brought in from other genres. Alongside this though, we definitely see a preference for milking existing franchises. These days, aside from some L4D and Civilisation, it's most open source stuff for me. Games like TOME aren't terribly original, but they are well made and I'd rather give them â50 a year than spend it on Call of Battlefield Medals 16 : Stuff and Things!.
And yeah, Gods was an amazing game. I can still hear the theme in my head. Simon Bisley artwork on the box as well. Heh, I remember in Xenon II being amazed at the idea of a shoot 'em up that allowed the ship to go in to reverse.
The gameplay element of what the press tout as AAA titles hasn't really advanced any since Wolfenstein 3d was released in 1992.
Yeah, no real advances beyond multiplayer, team-based multiplayer, destructible scenery, dynamic maps (as in L4D2), new weapons mechanics (such as Unreal Tournament's bio rifle), emphasis on stealth (such as Metal Gear Solid and Deus Ex), dynamic AI that sends swarms based on player progress and performance (the L4D Director), modding support that allows anything from minor skinning to complete remakes, RPG elements blending in to the FPS, and the aqueducts. Aside from those things, what have the Romans done for us?
And what about dungeon crawlers? They haven't advanced since Nethack. Diablo was better graphics and nothing more.
Legally, patents are property. That doesn't mean I agree or disagree with the concept of intellectual property - more it's a different discussion. The equivocation you've drawn, with taxes and patents, can lead down a pretty dark road. Why should anyone be allowed to own anything that has both existed before and will exist long after the demise of the property holder?
Effectiveness depends on the goals. If the goal was to kill many more then I would agree they were unsuccessful. If the goal were to trigger a revolution I would then say it was indeed ineffective. As things stand, the goal don't seem terribly clear.
Assuming the plan was to overthrow the government, body count isn't necessarily the determining factor. 1000 people crippled for life could be more effective than 10 deaths.
That would require hypocrisy or behaviour inconsistent with person b's position. Exactly how do you arrive at that conclusion when person b has made no claims?
"killing thirteen people, severely injuring fifty and causing temporary vision problems for nearly a thousand others"
Sure, it's ineffective if the be-all and end-all is to kill people. Over a 1000 people affected, to varying levels, and some still psychologically affected today, is far from ineffective. A bunch of people with guns could probably get a higher body count, and would certainly generate a lot of distress. It's just silly though to consider the Tokyo attack as being ineffective.
Not really. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Consider another example. Bob says that we should all learn a second language. Alice has mad no attempt to learn a second language, and neither has Bob. Alice has no obligation here, while Bob really should explain why he is exempt.
If person a makes a claim, that person b calls them on, it doesn't follow that person b is hypocritical for asking person a to do what person a said everybody else should. Got it?
You're right - opting out of web based tracking is largely pointless. It works better in email, and only where it's a legitimate company. Email has been tamed through a combination of technological measures and laws. For example, the spam I receive to my 10 year old email address is way different to what I saw back in the day. I saw porn stuff, Viagra and companies selling more mainstream items. Bizarrely enough, Chinese construction companies cropped up a bit. These days it's mostly phishing attempts and Asian companies offering knock-offs. There are laws that come down heavily on legitimate companies who spam. I've worked in companies that manage customer data, and the rules are very strict. No unsolicited promotional contact, excepting customers who opt-in. No such luck for tracking on the web. Presumably they evade European data laws by not personally identifying the real person - just their browsing habits and approximate location. That's all advertisers need.
Then these people should be held to a certain standard, for which breaking the rules carries serious penalties. Consider electrical appliances; there is cheap shit on the high street, but still bound to manufacture to meet safety standards. Good regulation won't prevent a race to the bottom, but it would establish an acceptable bottom.
I feel there should be a sense of pragmatism, and understanding that people have to accept limitations of a job. If casting for someone to play the role of Lord Nelson, does it make sense to enforce equality to require a Chinese girl be seriously considered for the role?
For ministerial roles it should be pretty open. Of course such roles should not receive tax breaks.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I'll take you seriously.
Wait a minute! You are implying it's the Journalists fault and not the Government's fault who illegally confiscated her materials? Either that or you are diverting the argument from the Government Employees breaking the law.
I'm pointing out that she was fucking stupid if she had documents lying around that would immediately and obviously disclose her sources. That doesn't in any way detract from the dubious legality of the TSA and their storm troopers. That's what I'm saying. What you're saying from your crazy arse interpretation is that you're a lunatic product of inter-species sexual relations.
You should be ranting and raving to get Government Employees people fired and put in jail for breaking the law, not complaining about the journalists.
I'm not the one ranting and raving here. I refer you back to my comment on your parentage.
Are you happy that your tax dollars were just spent in illegal activities? Just not care as long as it's not you getting fucked?
I'd be happy if my tax dollars went to getting you whatever medication it is you're sorely lacking.
I see what you did thar.
Encryption per se doesn't even need to come in to this. Just don't have the real names visible on the documents. Come up with nicknames and never use the real names.
If needing to reference the real names, she could keep a list somewhere nicely hidden. Not ideal, in fact pretty flimsy, but better than having a big 'ol stack of documents containing informant names sitting right on her home office desk.
Okay, Poe's law and all that. I read a lot of colossally dumb stuff, and I struggle to separate the dumb stuff from fine comedy.
Are you serious?
Doesn't seem that way.
I mean, seriously? What kind of journalist, investigating malfeasance by federal agencies, would have the names of her sources in plain text? Sounds like someone on the local newspaper who would ordinarily be writing the horoscopes and gardening news.
Wherever the DHS claims terrorists may lurk, which is fucking everywhere.
Proletarier aller LÃnder, vereinigt Euch!
Every society in the world has established that (at least some) rights can be removed from criminals, with due process. If their right to freedom can be removed, there's no reason their right to life can't be as well (in extreme circumstances at least).
The acceptance of removing rights isn't itself a justification for any particular action. Each proposed action should stand on its own merits. We know that custodial sentences can to some extent be corrected for when a convict is later cleared of the capital crime. One can't give someone back 10 years of life, but efforts can be made to make the remainder of their life as pleasant as it can be under the circumstances. The death penalty is kind of final. It's difficult to appeal the sentence when one would be too dead to show-up in court. Appeals can be made prior to the execution - we know that's pretty common, and certainly some people are reprieved, but once dead there's no going back. The best they can hope for is that a surviving friend or relative will clear their name postmortem. That is a pretty big difference.
It's a moral choice to make, and that's fine. But to argue that executions are some absurdity that have no place in a reasonable society is unfair.
We have to ask ourselves a question: What is capital punishment achieving that a custodial sentence wouldn't?
Is it about protecting the public? If so, how are they any more protected by this death than they would be if the person served their life behind bars? Maybe the protection comes from its deterrent factor? If so, is this worth the risk of executing people who are innocent of the crime for which they've been sentenced to death? Is this a utilitarian argument? Better to have 1 innocent person die if it prevents 100 murders? None of that seems reasonable to me. Are there better ways to reduce crime that won't involve executions?
Is it about vengeance for the wronged? If so, then this is a broken judicial system. The law should never have this in mind.
Why are you guys in the U.S. using lethal injections? Did you run out of stones? Can't sharpen an axe?
Agreed. All you need to do is update the processor, the mobo, the HD and slap in a new GPU, but apart from those changes it's the same craptacular computer.
And the bible doesn't contain similar statements?
When the IRA commits some acts of terror, I don't see people blame the Catholic Church as a whole.
So yeah, Islam is treated differently. And that's wrong.
Disclaimer: I'm Catholic.
I agree that Islam shouldn't automatically be blamed whenever a Muslim commits a crime. However, when an Islamist group cites Islamic texts as justification then I don't see how one could not make the connection. It's not wrong to draw valid connections between world-views and actions.
It's worth considering differences in how scripture is read. Most Christian sects have spent thousands of years arguing over canon and apocrypha. Today there are major sects using different canons - this is not a fringe exercise. Even within a given canon it's rare to have the literalism and inerrancy common to Islam. Based on discussions with Muslims, the general idea is that there is one Koran, and it is free from error and practically untouched by human hand. This leads to a pretty hardline and self-claimed definitive interpretation, which I reflects in the practices of the religion. There are some exceptions, such as the Sufis, who are are more likely to read allegories where others would see literality.
MIDI Maze looks pretty interesting for its time - shame I missed that one back in the day.
Yeah, elements existed in other genres. The risk is in claiming that having radios in cars isn't innovative because people had radios in their homes years before that. I haven't played any Zelda games (another gap in my gaming). Was stealth an intended mechanic of the game, or is something more akin to speedrunning a game that was never balanced for that kind of play?
I know modding is pretty limited in the land of consoles. It's one of many reasons why I prefer PC gaming. Mods have given me a great deal of replay value, and I've had some fun building maps. It's good to see tools like Hammer coming with the game - not relying on a bunch of third party tools as we had to do with Quake.
My point is that things have clearly advanced, whether through original mechanics or bits brought in from other genres. Alongside this though, we definitely see a preference for milking existing franchises. These days, aside from some L4D and Civilisation, it's most open source stuff for me. Games like TOME aren't terribly original, but they are well made and I'd rather give them â50 a year than spend it on Call of Battlefield Medals 16 : Stuff and Things!.
And yeah, Gods was an amazing game. I can still hear the theme in my head. Simon Bisley artwork on the box as well. Heh, I remember in Xenon II being amazed at the idea of a shoot 'em up that allowed the ship to go in to reverse.
Who hurt you?
The gameplay element of what the press tout as AAA titles hasn't really advanced any since Wolfenstein 3d was released in 1992.
Yeah, no real advances beyond multiplayer, team-based multiplayer, destructible scenery, dynamic maps (as in L4D2), new weapons mechanics (such as Unreal Tournament's bio rifle), emphasis on stealth (such as Metal Gear Solid and Deus Ex), dynamic AI that sends swarms based on player progress and performance (the L4D Director), modding support that allows anything from minor skinning to complete remakes, RPG elements blending in to the FPS, and the aqueducts. Aside from those things, what have the Romans done for us?
And what about dungeon crawlers? They haven't advanced since Nethack. Diablo was better graphics and nothing more.
That's an incredibly tortured attempt to bring two unrelated fields together - as you well know from your need to use quotes.
Legally, patents are property. That doesn't mean I agree or disagree with the concept of intellectual property - more it's a different discussion. The equivocation you've drawn, with taxes and patents, can lead down a pretty dark road. Why should anyone be allowed to own anything that has both existed before and will exist long after the demise of the property holder?
Some people consider nationalisation of private property to be a pretty drastic measure.
Effectiveness depends on the goals. If the goal was to kill many more then I would agree they were unsuccessful. If the goal were to trigger a revolution I would then say it was indeed ineffective. As things stand, the goal don't seem terribly clear.
Assuming the plan was to overthrow the government, body count isn't necessarily the determining factor. 1000 people crippled for life could be more effective than 10 deaths.
That would require hypocrisy or behaviour inconsistent with person b's position. Exactly how do you arrive at that conclusion when person b has made no claims?
Also, according to Wikipedia...
"killing thirteen people, severely injuring fifty and causing temporary vision problems for nearly a thousand others"
Sure, it's ineffective if the be-all and end-all is to kill people. Over a 1000 people affected, to varying levels, and some still psychologically affected today, is far from ineffective. A bunch of people with guns could probably get a higher body count, and would certainly generate a lot of distress. It's just silly though to consider the Tokyo attack as being ineffective.
Not really. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Consider another example. Bob says that we should all learn a second language. Alice has mad no attempt to learn a second language, and neither has Bob. Alice has no obligation here, while Bob really should explain why he is exempt.
Says Ultra64.
If person a makes a claim, that person b calls them on, it doesn't follow that person b is hypocritical for asking person a to do what person a said everybody else should. Got it?
You're right - opting out of web based tracking is largely pointless. It works better in email, and only where it's a legitimate company. Email has been tamed through a combination of technological measures and laws. For example, the spam I receive to my 10 year old email address is way different to what I saw back in the day. I saw porn stuff, Viagra and companies selling more mainstream items. Bizarrely enough, Chinese construction companies cropped up a bit. These days it's mostly phishing attempts and Asian companies offering knock-offs. There are laws that come down heavily on legitimate companies who spam. I've worked in companies that manage customer data, and the rules are very strict. No unsolicited promotional contact, excepting customers who opt-in. No such luck for tracking on the web. Presumably they evade European data laws by not personally identifying the real person - just their browsing habits and approximate location. That's all advertisers need.
We need better legal protections and for browsers to help users anonymise themselves. The latter is difficult while the most common browsers are tied to the very people who benefit the most from tracking. It also doesn't help that people are so blasé when it comes to ejaculating personal data in exchange for the Bonzi Buddy or Facebook of the day.
Then these people should be held to a certain standard, for which breaking the rules carries serious penalties. Consider electrical appliances; there is cheap shit on the high street, but still bound to manufacture to meet safety standards. Good regulation won't prevent a race to the bottom, but it would establish an acceptable bottom.
I feel there should be a sense of pragmatism, and understanding that people have to accept limitations of a job. If casting for someone to play the role of Lord Nelson, does it make sense to enforce equality to require a Chinese girl be seriously considered for the role?
For ministerial roles it should be pretty open. Of course such roles should not receive tax breaks.
I wouldn't apply - even if it were a paid position.