Re:just another viewpoint getting in the way
on
Disinformation.com
·
· Score: 1
'sides which, well... what if you're right?
You're still 'believing' in an omniscient deity which will KNOW that instead of deriving your belief from any deep spirituality, you instead set about mini-maxing as if this were some supermarket purchase. If I were an omniscient deity, I'd find that pretty damn offensive, and omnipotence would mean that I could do something about it.
And that, class, is how we use secret handshakes to infiltrate Secret Societies and identify the Commie Mutant Traitors within.
(For the confused -- try the old BSD CYOA game based on "Paranoia". 'Earwicker Bloom and Craft' was a reference to 'Ewige Blumencraft', if memory serves, which... well, you'll see.)
NPR left? Er, why? I genuinely see them as less biased than, say, CBS (which, AFAICT, milks pharmaceutical company stories for ratings) or NBC (which at times -- Dateline NBC and the truck gasoline tanks -- has committed improprieties for ratings and sensationalism). And, mind you, I'm pretty right-wing, so if NPR were flamin' left, I might realize it...
Sure I can. The Florida state government, including the Florida Supreme Court, was obligated under the 10th to apply state law evenly and thus grant equal protection to all its citizens. The FL SC repeatedly failed to do so, by upholding such nonsense as different counting standards for functionally identical ballot types in different counties.
Re:Good for some, nightmare for others
on
Peek-a-Boo(ty)
·
· Score: 1
*shrug*
It's a longshot, but I could see how in some circumstances that might be potential blackmail material -- e.g. the employee is married to someone who wouldn't tolerate that sort of thing.
That's aside from any liability the bank may have if it knows about the browsing but fails to do anything about it (sexual harrassment suits -- 'hostile environment' and that sort of thing). That's not quite a security issue, 'tho.
And what if influencing people isn't the attacker's main priority?
For instance, the Yom Kippur/Ramadan War wasn't exactly about trying to win friends -- it was merely trying to drive a people into the sea. Whether or not the Israelis wanted peace was less relevant than the success or failure of the attack. Likewise, neither India nor Pakistan is threatening each other with the intent to seem nice -- they want land.
Things like lives, land and money can be seized even from a victim who wants peace. Ask any mugger whether or not "peaceful victim == unprofitable".
That assumes that the other side starts the war. What if, say, "regime change" in Iraq is to be implemented via Desert Storm II? Unless the conventional forces of Iraq choose to roll over, it would likely be necessary to defeat them (in addition to stopping any unconventional methods that an increasingly cornered Pres. Hussein might try. After all, if he doesn't have a chance at a safe 'out', then what does he have to lose?)
If memory serves -- Iceland has at least at one time, if not now, hosted American and allied military forces due to its strategic location. At least during that time, they could also count on those forces for protection.
Switzerland would be a remarkably tough nut for many forces to crack, since the population (not just a career military) is *very* heavily armed (read: fully automatic weapons, ammunition and training), and the terrain most unfavorable to coherent occupation. Invading is not recommended.
And Ireland is in the UK's backyard. I doubt that the UK would let anybody else try an invasion, and the UK itself has its hands full trying to peacefully disengage from that rather fractious part of Ireland that it still occupies.
Explosives and other large-area-effect devices are much simpler, probably. Like another ol' standby, the AK-47, they're also very common -- e.g. during the Cold War the Czechs flooded the world with Semtex, with the intention of it reaching terrorist groups.
Terrorists usually don't care about finesse or precision, anyway. Although -- if one had, say, assassinated the POTUS (and only him) during the opening ceremony of the Olympics, that'd have been worth FAR more press to the terrorist group than merely blowing up another Israeli disco, I suspect.
Maybe the treaty writers wanted to keep war as inefficient and ineffective as possible. *shrug*
Of course, if somebody wants to violate the treaties, they're just ink on a page. It's not like deliberate maiming and mutilation are at all uncommon in the numerous hot-spots in the world, but you don't see massive intervention forces stomping out all the Big Men or rebellious Big Men-wannabees. I doubt that wantonly amputating civilians for simply being in territory that you just conquered is permitted under international law, either.
Precision weapons are only useful if you can locate the target, er, precisely. You'd still want something conventional like big Gatling guns, AGMs and standard bombs for hitting an area where you suspect something is... lasing a whole area might take non-trivial time and energy.
Firepower happens to be a pretty decent deterrent. I've never heard of a mass shooting in, say, a police station, for instance -- you'd have to be pretty damn stupid to try it, and even if you got away, you'd have a LOT of power coming after you in retribution.
Of course, there are folks that won't be deterred, but, well, that's when you NEED the firepower.
Eh? You don't need to be at war to be physically attacked, last I checked. I doubt that the (presumably) mentally ill chap in England who attacked people in a church with, oh, a katana (!) was formally in a declared state of war with anybody. And between a loon with a sword versus a little ol' granny churchgoer, I'd bet on the loon with the sword. Even if the granny had a sword, too.
Firearms have that odd little trait where skill with one doesn't come close to preventing others from using that same skill on you, which is an equalizing factor versus physical conditioning. IOW, start a fight with melee weapons, and you may be reasonably assured of coming out alive and with the loot, if you're prepared. Start a gunfight with even untrained civillians, and you're taking a FAR higher risk.
The relatively deadliness would depend upon the situation. Inside, say, a crowded classroom or a church, you might greatly prefer an unscoped rifle to a scoped one, and a decent combat knife to an unscoped rifle...
A knife in the right hands, in the right place, can be far worse to deal with than a scoped rifle in the same situation.
Your last statement is only guaranteed to be valid if you consider the Japanese and American cultures and psychology completely identical in other respects. I doubt that's the case.
Yup. Basically, she could demand sufficient information and tools to replicate the development environment -- and failure to comply would have severe legal ramifications, unless the decision is overturned. And there are judges that you just DON'T piss off (Judge Royce Lambert (sp?) comes to mind; he's quite willing to duke it out with, say, the Dept. of the Interior and other Federal branches, and whoever the heck else shows contempt for his court); this might be one of them.
Quite a few/.-ers seem to assume that government employees are always signficantly less intelligent than the average/.-er...
Last time I was there (as an intern some years ago), they were so zealously anti-Linux that... they had an internal message group DEVOTED to Linux users, and it was definitely non-empty. And the other employees weren't afraid to ask questions about the 'nix world, or how MSFT is perceived on the 'outside'. IIRC, there is far more anti-MSFT sentiment going around on THIS site than there was anti-Linux (or anti-NIX) being spouted by individuals at MSFT. They were also sufficiently non-fanatical to have, say, "Internet Exploder" posters hanging around, and so forth.
Marketing may vary, of course. Never hung 'round the marketing folks. *shrug*
It's be a trivial contempt of court case, I suspect, if they tried that -- assuming that the judge isn't a complete fool, and I have no reason to believe that she is.
a) NYC is not terribly fond of long guns, either...
b) 'arms', in contemporary European law, typically referred to man-portable antipersonnel weapons -- e.g. muskets, rifles, that sort of thing, instead of, oh, cannons and mortars. So if the Founders had that sort of meaning in mind, there may in fact be limits (e.g. a self-propelled 155mm howitzer might be right out).
Starting a revolution does tend to be a crime, yes. I don't think the British would have treated Mr. Jefferson very well if he'd lost. In general, if you plan to pick a fight with a major government, you'd better have a plan to win; be out of their reach; or not mind losing.
Slashdot Mirror
'sides which, well... what if you're right?
You're still 'believing' in an omniscient deity which will KNOW that instead of deriving your belief from any deep spirituality, you instead set about mini-maxing as if this were some supermarket purchase. If I were an omniscient deity, I'd find that pretty damn offensive, and omnipotence would mean that I could do something about it.
ZZZZZAP *thud*
And that, class, is how we use secret handshakes to infiltrate Secret Societies and identify the Commie Mutant Traitors within.
(For the confused -- try the old BSD CYOA game based on "Paranoia". 'Earwicker Bloom and Craft' was a reference to 'Ewige Blumencraft', if memory serves, which... well, you'll see.)
NPR left? Er, why? I genuinely see them as less biased than, say, CBS (which, AFAICT, milks pharmaceutical company stories for ratings) or NBC (which at times -- Dateline NBC and the truck gasoline tanks -- has committed improprieties for ratings and sensationalism). And, mind you, I'm pretty right-wing, so if NPR were flamin' left, I might realize it...
Sure I can. The Florida state government, including the Florida Supreme Court, was obligated under the 10th to apply state law evenly and thus grant equal protection to all its citizens. The FL SC repeatedly failed to do so, by upholding such nonsense as different counting standards for functionally identical ballot types in different counties.
*shrug*
It's a longshot, but I could see how in some circumstances that might be potential blackmail material -- e.g. the employee is married to someone who wouldn't tolerate that sort of thing.
That's aside from any liability the bank may have if it knows about the browsing but fails to do anything about it (sexual harrassment suits -- 'hostile environment' and that sort of thing). That's not quite a security issue, 'tho.
Soviet intelligence wasn't always named the KGB.
Irritatingly enough, I've only seen the sequel. *shrug*
And what if influencing people isn't the attacker's main priority?
For instance, the Yom Kippur/Ramadan War wasn't exactly about trying to win friends -- it was merely trying to drive a people into the sea. Whether or not the Israelis wanted peace was less relevant than the success or failure of the attack. Likewise, neither India nor Pakistan is threatening each other with the intent to seem nice -- they want land.
Things like lives, land and money can be seized even from a victim who wants peace. Ask any mugger whether or not "peaceful victim == unprofitable".
That assumes that the other side starts the war. What if, say, "regime change" in Iraq is to be implemented via Desert Storm II? Unless the conventional forces of Iraq choose to roll over, it would likely be necessary to defeat them (in addition to stopping any unconventional methods that an increasingly cornered Pres. Hussein might try. After all, if he doesn't have a chance at a safe 'out', then what does he have to lose?)
If memory serves -- Iceland has at least at one time, if not now, hosted American and allied military forces due to its strategic location. At least during that time, they could also count on those forces for protection.
Switzerland would be a remarkably tough nut for many forces to crack, since the population (not just a career military) is *very* heavily armed (read: fully automatic weapons, ammunition and training), and the terrain most unfavorable to coherent occupation. Invading is not recommended.
And Ireland is in the UK's backyard. I doubt that the UK would let anybody else try an invasion, and the UK itself has its hands full trying to peacefully disengage from that rather fractious part of Ireland that it still occupies.
Explosives and other large-area-effect devices are much simpler, probably. Like another ol' standby, the AK-47, they're also very common -- e.g. during the Cold War the Czechs flooded the world with Semtex, with the intention of it reaching terrorist groups.
Terrorists usually don't care about finesse or precision, anyway. Although -- if one had, say, assassinated the POTUS (and only him) during the opening ceremony of the Olympics, that'd have been worth FAR more press to the terrorist group than merely blowing up another Israeli disco, I suspect.
Somehow, I doubt that reflective armor would radiate away that amount of heat energy...
Maybe the treaty writers wanted to keep war as inefficient and ineffective as possible. *shrug*
Of course, if somebody wants to violate the treaties, they're just ink on a page. It's not like deliberate maiming and mutilation are at all uncommon in the numerous hot-spots in the world, but you don't see massive intervention forces stomping out all the Big Men or rebellious Big Men-wannabees. I doubt that wantonly amputating civilians for simply being in territory that you just conquered is permitted under international law, either.
Precision weapons are only useful if you can locate the target, er, precisely. You'd still want something conventional like big Gatling guns, AGMs and standard bombs for hitting an area where you suspect something is... lasing a whole area might take non-trivial time and energy.
Firepower happens to be a pretty decent deterrent. I've never heard of a mass shooting in, say, a police station, for instance -- you'd have to be pretty damn stupid to try it, and even if you got away, you'd have a LOT of power coming after you in retribution.
Of course, there are folks that won't be deterred, but, well, that's when you NEED the firepower.
Eh? You don't need to be at war to be physically attacked, last I checked. I doubt that the (presumably) mentally ill chap in England who attacked people in a church with, oh, a katana (!) was formally in a declared state of war with anybody. And between a loon with a sword versus a little ol' granny churchgoer, I'd bet on the loon with the sword. Even if the granny had a sword, too.
Firearms have that odd little trait where skill with one doesn't come close to preventing others from using that same skill on you, which is an equalizing factor versus physical conditioning. IOW, start a fight with melee weapons, and you may be reasonably assured of coming out alive and with the loot, if you're prepared. Start a gunfight with even untrained civillians, and you're taking a FAR higher risk.
The relatively deadliness would depend upon the situation. Inside, say, a crowded classroom or a church, you might greatly prefer an unscoped rifle to a scoped one, and a decent combat knife to an unscoped rifle...
A knife in the right hands, in the right place, can be far worse to deal with than a scoped rifle in the same situation.
Your last statement is only guaranteed to be valid if you consider the Japanese and American cultures and psychology completely identical in other respects. I doubt that's the case.
One's passive. The other normally requires active participation by the user. Or is that an insufficient distinction for your tastes?
Yup. Basically, she could demand sufficient information and tools to replicate the development environment -- and failure to comply would have severe legal ramifications, unless the decision is overturned. And there are judges that you just DON'T piss off (Judge Royce Lambert (sp?) comes to mind; he's quite willing to duke it out with, say, the Dept. of the Interior and other Federal branches, and whoever the heck else shows contempt for his court); this might be one of them.
/.-ers seem to assume that government employees are always signficantly less intelligent than the average /.-er...
Quite a few
Last time I was there (as an intern some years ago), they were so zealously anti-Linux that... they had an internal message group DEVOTED to Linux users, and it was definitely non-empty. And the other employees weren't afraid to ask questions about the 'nix world, or how MSFT is perceived on the 'outside'. IIRC, there is far more anti-MSFT sentiment going around on THIS site than there was anti-Linux (or anti-NIX) being spouted by individuals at MSFT. They were also sufficiently non-fanatical to have, say, "Internet Exploder" posters hanging around, and so forth.
Marketing may vary, of course. Never hung 'round the marketing folks. *shrug*
It's be a trivial contempt of court case, I suspect, if they tried that -- assuming that the judge isn't a complete fool, and I have no reason to believe that she is.
If memory serves,
a) NYC is not terribly fond of long guns, either...
b) 'arms', in contemporary European law, typically referred to man-portable antipersonnel weapons -- e.g. muskets, rifles, that sort of thing, instead of, oh, cannons and mortars. So if the Founders had that sort of meaning in mind, there may in fact be limits (e.g. a self-propelled 155mm howitzer might be right out).
More specifically, it tends to require a petroleum derivative for better consistency and stickiness...
Starting a revolution does tend to be a crime, yes. I don't think the British would have treated Mr. Jefferson very well if he'd lost. In general, if you plan to pick a fight with a major government, you'd better have a plan to win; be out of their reach; or not mind losing.