I think the ballot was a throw on so that people didn't need to the entire gopher thing or trot down to the electronics mega mark to buy a web browser like I did in 1993.
Anyways, the problem isn't really as much of having a choice as it was MS making that choice through capitalization of other assets. Not having IE as the browser isn't as important as not having to have it which was the problem for the longest of time.
That would be the gist of it or how it should be. However, that decision wouldn't stop you from downloading your own browsers and installing them at your own choice.
It wouldn't matter. Some MS only application not owned by MS but that works with them regularly would end up saying they only support IE and offer a button to fix the problem. It'ts not like this will level any playing field or anything. It would just be a matter of time until they were forced back onto IE for some obscure stretch of a reason.
Are you really that inept? The court ruling said that nothing prevented the eminent domain seizures when they were in the public interest outside of written law as long as the constitutionally required compensation is met. This is not carte blanche for the states, they are still bound by their own laws and would have to follow them. In fact, since the ruling on eminent domain, 28 of the states had passed either laws or state constitutional amendments limiting their abilities for eminent domain actions. The laws and amendments are binding on the states and political subdivisions within the states and are completely consistent with the Supreme Court ruling over the matter.
And you should also note that several inferior courts came to the same conclusions which is why it was appealed to the supreme court. When ever you claim the Supreme Court has done something, you need to understand that it is verry rare for them to be the first people ruling on the cases or the first to rule differently. They generally either affirm or deny lower court rulings and in some cases, settle a point in contention with law and the constitution. In order for them to be activist, they would have to be chiming in one cases already settled or something.
If the law doesn't exist, then you can lobby you state legislation to make one exist. When this happens, the political subdivisions will be subject to the terms of the law. That is what the court specifically said in their opinion. If you think it is dumb for the state to make laws and be subjected to follow them, then you should just pack up and move because that is the way it works around here.
As for the state's rights, you really need to look at the history of the United States and all. You seriously have no clue about it, the intent of the founders, the structure of the US government or the limited powers, or the concept behind the 10th amendment which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
I'm not sure what is so damn complicated by that but if you need me to explain the simple language that almost anyone else can understand, I will be happy to. State's rights is a doctrine limiting the power of the federal government to a constitutional rule. This country is a collection of 13 original countries which is why every else in the world, the word state is synonymous for country and it is the basis of the name of our country "The United States of America".
Also, show me where in the constitution, it says that you have a right to keep or own property? It doesn't, it just says that if your property is taken for public use, you need to be justly compensated. If there was somethign actually there, I would probably side with you but as it stands, you seem to be completely confused over the constitution, completely confused over the 10th amendment, completely confused over the history of this country and the system the founders set up, and seriously confused over a ruling made by the supreme court that you appear to have never - ever- fucking read by feel confident in completely misquoting it.
Or you reboot the computer or log it out so they are forced to enter the password. Then you just log the first so many key strokes and continue after a reset or long delay in typing until the buffer is full. You will most likely get access to the encryption, the system, email, and probably a few other things seeing how people like to log in to do something productive.
Delusions, what delusions? You are the one ignoring everything just to repeat stop the killing as if it was a viable option without something else happening or replacing it. If anyone is delusional, it would be you.
Here is the problem I have, "basically criminals" indicates that they didn't break a law, or didn't get charged with breaking a law, nor were they convicted of breaking any laws in a court of their peers, but instead someone either said "there ought to be a law about that" and the government is stepping in with strict monitoring instead of creating a law, or or prosecuting violations of the law.
So you think it is perfectly reasonable for the government to step in a raise your kids because one of the got yelled at and the other takes care of your youngest sibling?
Simply amazing if you ask me. Never in my wildest dreams would I think someone would advocate the government raising their kids because they watched too much TV.
So they are for situations where the entire family has been charges and convicted of a crime and this is an alternative to jail? Well then, that makes it completely different.
If you have to ask how it is different, I'm not sure you will be inteligent enough to understand.
First of all, security cameras in businesses are owned and operated by businesses, not the government. Second of all, we are talking about inside a fucking home to monitor the actions of the parents and children in their personal life, not to spot people carrying machine guns into banks or crowded train stations.
When you are in the public view, anyone watching can see your actions. That is different then closing your front door and getting out of the public view. If I put a camera through your window, I would go to jail for being a pervert. If I taped you walking down the street, the most that would happen is a few funny looks. There is a big difference between the privacy of your home and the ability to live your life the way you want and being in public with the government telling you what you can and can't do.
Actually, they were pushing for a reasonable fine. That's the part where the incompetency comes in.
The claim all along was that the fines were excessive, unconstitutional, and that he had fair use. When the judge who is the trier of facts, instead decided to play prosecutor and advocate for the plaintiff and ask the misleading question of "are you liable", the answer was too complicated for a yes or no but when he said yes, all of the rest of his claims were ignored.
The judge should not have been able to ask the question not only because it wasn't his role to investigate on behalf of the complainant, because he had filings noting the defendants position that he was challenging the validity of the amounts of liability. In short, the judge knew he was looking for a reasonable judgment and short circuited it in order to apply the law as written with no objections from his lawyers. The entire case seems like having the three stooges fix your plumbing with Groucho Marks as the site supervisor.
Guilty and liable are two separate things. You can actually violate a law and not be liable to any of it's consequences.
The problem here I believe was that he didn't have the money to settle out of court until after they were committed to trial. At that point, he already talked to a lawyer who saw that he was probably guilty but not liable or at least liable to the extent of the out of court settlement.
When the judge asked if he was liable, the answer should have been no all the way. The big upset here is that the judge is the trier of facts, not a prosecutor or investigator. He shouldn't be able to ask the defendant misleading questions, he is supposed to let counsel present the evidence and then determine what happened. His lawyers should have objected to the question on those grounds alone and instructed Tenenbaum that his position was they he might be guilty but not liable. In fact, that was the position of his case with the constitutionality claims on the penalties and fair use claims and so on.
The question of whether you are liable when the issue is did you do X if so then you are liable is misleading at best because of the intrinsic connection to the guilt of an action. Comming from the judge is even worse. It's like waking someone from a deep sleep to ask them for permission to do something knowing they won't fulling comprehend the question and grant permission. Except in this case, he ended up admitting he was liable under the confusion which negated all of his other claims to a defense against the liability.
No, it will continue because the likes of you on both sides choose to keep killing each other rather than giving your mass murdering revenge a pass for a change supporting life.
It will keep continue because there is no workable alternatives. Fuck, how hard is that for you to understand? There needs to be a solution that hasn't already failed in order for it to fucking stop. And no, giving up or giving in to the demands of thugs worshiping pedophiles is not a solution.
You see them as your enemies, they see you the same way, thus you both need each other to support your murderous policies of destruction.
That happened long before the killing started. That's why you just don't fucking get it. You are a moron if you think an entire country decided to drop bombs or kill as a first resort. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were long times coming with every possible diplomatic solution being tried and failing with the exception of the first Iraq war which the goal was to protect and ally first. Stop killing does not work unless there is a viable alternative to make both agrieved sides happy enough to exist peacefully. You have failed to offer anything that could work in that reguard, you should stick with watching Saturday morning cartoon and asking your mom for spending money instead of international politics which you know absolutely nothing about.
I never said anything about giving up, that's your delusional mind set not getting what is written in front of your eyes mass murdering dude.
That's right, you didn't say anything at all except for quit killing. You have offered nothing constructive and just repeated that at the expense of making yourself look like an idiot. Not killing is not going to solve any of the problems or issues that brought the killing about in the first fucking place. When you offer nothing except to stop, you are in essence saying give up.
The solution is to stop the killing.
And here you are going back to the same damn thing, stop killing- then do what? What should we do instead of killing them that hasn't already been tried and failed? I have asked you to comment on this and you refuse to indicating that you have no fucking clue. Killing was not a first resort, it was the last resort, stopping it does nothing to the underlying problems and it is only one sides which if I remember right, they drew first blood. So what fucking solution can you offer that will make a difference that hasn't already failed. The not killing was tried long before the killing was.
Maybe you are just that fucking stupid and think the killing started because of killing. But that stupidity won't make you right.
Well, yea, it's the same witht he bios hack. You gain access to the system, install your malware, leave then come back and either take the system with unfettered access to the data on it or simply use it in place and hope no one detects it.
Yea, it will continue because you failed to present some alternative that hasn't already fail. This goes back to my original point, sometimes you have no other options but to kill and that if not a bad or evil thing. You yourself have admitted there was no other options outside of giving up which isn't an option.
I'm not entirely sure why the malware can't just forward the boot sector. The hack intercepts the interrupt 13h then forwards it but it doesn't say that it limits it's function. Your script would probably return the same boot sector information whether whether using the bios it kernel level access.
Well, as they say you're doomed to be stuck in your mass murdering ways. You are no different than Charles Manson or that flesh eating Dahmerdude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer) or the multitude of other mass murders in human history.
You need to get back to reality.
Send aid not bombs.
That failed in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If you had been paying attention, you would know that. It has historically failed and it is currently it is failing in the Palestine territory too. We send aid and they still send mortars and rockets into the neighborhoods of innocent civilians. They make bombs and go into crowded market places and blow themselves up in order to kill innocent civilians who have done nothing to them besides being alive.
If someone bombed your family I'd bet you'd want revenge. Yes? Well then those that you bomb and thereby kill are really no different than you mass murdering dude.
I would want revenge on the persons who bombed my family. I am not so ignorant that I would hate an entire race or class of people because of the actions of a few. Perhaps you are not that intelligent.
Someone has to break the cycle and that might mean sucking it up for a long while taking the hits without seeking revenge till the other sides see that you've really changed your mass murdering ways. Until then expect the worst to happen due to your own policies from those groups that you've killed and brought death to. It's basic raw politics dude.
OK, so here is you answer, we should allow the other side to attack us without a response. That line of thinking brought us 9/11 and the death of almost 3000 people in a single day.
Here is a better idea, how about we just continue to fight and kill the people who are hostile to us or our allies and if we create one more enemy while killing 20, they will eventually run out. Then your little fear of them getting mad goes away. Either way, here is a hint, we are killing them because we already expect the worst to happen. All other forms of interaction with them has caused the worse to happen already. If we stop killing them, we are going to expect the worst to still be going to happen because it already was. Here is where you simply fail.. If you looked far enough into the situation to not be a ignorant puss, you would have already known that.
That's why I've moved away from the main target cities: NYC and DC. Heck even the USA Government is moving out of DC by building new facilities at least 50 to 75 miles away from DC. They know a nuke is coming to the capital and are getting prepared for that eventuality that they know they've brought on by their own policies of spreading death and destruction across the planet.
Lol.. And if a nuke gets used, then they will be used in return. Giving up and not doing anything is not a solution. BTW, 50 miles will not be very effect in guarding against a nuke.
So terrorist mass murdering dude change your ways or expect the worst from those who seek revenge against mass murderers like you. Duck and cover.
It just sounds to me like we need to kill more of them faster in order to stop your doom and gloom prophecy from taking place. Maybe you right, a nuke is what is needed, we should turn their homeland into a glass parking lot and be done with it once and for all. I mean how pissed can you get if you are dead alongside the rest of your family.
Sounds like you just read fictional revisionist history pieces since you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Umm.. Try a history book, Lincoln only getting 40% of the popular vote is a verifiable fact.
Thats not what I said at all. Leave it to an asshole software guy to take a statement and blow it completely out of proportion. If you can't follow a conversation and just twist what you think you heard into some ridiculous absolute, then I can't explain it to you.
Then what did you fucking say. And remember, just like history, there is a record of it so explain your statement as you intended it to mean and we will see if you just have a problem with your communication skills.
From the ridiculous placing of hyphens it is clear all you did was cut and paste someone elses opinion piece. You did exactly what you are accusing me of.
Actually, no - you can't make that conclusion. The hyphens and commas are common on western keyboards. The irregularities in your cut and past are formatting marks in some mark up languages that seem to want to transfer with a cut and paste. You can't make the same assumption about what I wrote. However, I did cut and past much of the explanation of the decision from the ruling itself because it directly contradicted your position. It's not verbatim but it isn't hidden seeing how I told you I was pointing it out. Now, if you would have cut and pasted from the actual ruling and not some biased third party without ever looking at the ruling yourself, you wouldn't have came to the same conclusions. How do I know that, because you would have had the real information in front of you and not have been a tool for someone elses agenda.
Are you saying that just because they are biased in a few cases that they then must be biased in all cases and cant make any good decisions? These people got to where they are because of good decisions and obvious intelligence, but that does not mean they cannot be biased like I pointed out.
No, I am saying that because they are making good decisions, your entire biased accusation is unfounded bullshit based around your own biases. As I already pointed out, the case you mentioned didn't even rule on the topics to toss the case out, it ruled that a lower court was justified in their ruling and the claims the complaintant files against it were inconsistent and unfounded with the law. That's completely different then being biased. Now, if you still think that was biased, then simply show where it was in the law and where the opinion of the court was in error. IF you can't, then like I said, your claims of being biased is bullshit.
Everything seems it must be black or white in your world - a world of absolutes. You will never be a good software coder until you open your mind and realize there is more out there than your tiny little imaginary world of absolutes.
Things are black and white and absolute. Not all things but there are things that are. So far, you have pointed to a case that was decided in a lower court and uphelp all the way to the supreme court as a point in their being biased but you neglect the facts that a lower court made the ruling, justified the ruling, and did so in a way that was consistent with the law of the land. That is what the supreme court upheld and it took a great deal of effort supporting that opinion with case laws and statutes that are in black and white.
Perhaps you should not worry about how good I am or not and start worry about how grounded your ideals are in reality.
I've given you an alternative, stop killing people, it's quite simple really.
No you haven't. Stop killing people is not an alternative when killing people was the last resort. You have done nothing to address the underlying issues or the alternatives that have failed to date resulting in the killing of people. In essence, you are saying give up and give in instead of standing your ground for what is right and what you believe in. Stop doing something that is preventing that is not a fucking alternative.
The problem with your mass murdering methods is that your very policy of mass murdering people gives them implicit permission to mass murder you back. When you get that maybe you'll see the folly in your methods.
Actually, I believe it was the other way around. Their actions allowed ours. And quit calling killing murder. You are fucking idiot if you don't see the differences between the two.
Mass murderers like you deeply worry people. In fact people with your policy are considered terrorists by most governments of the world.
Like I said, offer some constructive alternatives that hasn't already failed and required killing to be part of the solution and the killing will stop. You havn't done so after 3 separate request for you to produce something because you damn well know that nothing else was working and that nothing else will work. You are simply spouting off to spout off and the rest of the world thinks your a crack whore idiot.
Learn to think man. You've got a brain don't you?
Actually, you learn to think. Seriously, this is the third time you have failed to provide any alternative to killing but insist on it should be stopped. Now either shut the fuck up or be constructive and add something useful to the conversation. Not doing what was the last resort is not an option that addresses any of the problem leading up to the killing in the first place. Put you dope down for a minute and fucking think further then one sentence and see what happens.
Prove to me that I will get sick or that I will default my creditors because of getting sick and I will buy insurance. Until then, you are acting as if you are afraid of the dark and want to force me to build a fire with my hard earned money.
I don't think universal health care is as much the problem as the way they want to implement it. This is especially the case with the current purposed piece or crap that passed the house without even enough time to read the damn thing let alone understand it.
Here is a simple solution to health care problems in the US. Get rid of the government created and encouraged HMO's (that's right, Ted Kennedy and half the very same people complaining about HMO's created them and fucked them up then, and for some reason we are supposed to trust them this time), go back to complete indemnity systems that follows the Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement rates for catastrophic injury and terminal illness. Back in 1979, I had a immensity policy that paid 80% of all the bills unless there was a broken bone of a stitch in which case it paid 100% and it only cost $150 a month for the entire family (two adults and 4 kids). It didn't cover doctors visits for the cold or stuff like that but that was only $20 at the time. Allow a HMO type of preventative care and possible a maintenance plan that would cover doctors visits, and limit malpractice torts to actual damages and losses just like most workers compensation programs in most states do. You can even add language that if someone isn't insured and needs emergency medical treatment, they can purchase a policy after being treated that will cover the treatment if they agree to carry it for 5-10 years after.
All the sudden, people who want coverage will have major coverage whether they initially pay for it or not. People who want additional coverage will have it and not have to worry about being denied something, both will cost less and you won't have the government telling you what to do.
The health care system can be fixed with all it's flaws and all. IT doesn't need to be a government run entity. It doesn't need to be forced onto people and it doesn't need to intrude into people's lives. Right now, I can get Blue cross blue shield coverage for about $100 a week being self employed and single with no dependents. It's not like it isn't availible, its as if they don't want to buy it until after something happens. Of course there is a $2000 deducible on the insurance, but hey, there is a HSA program that allows this much to be put away for it that doesn't even get taxed. At $35k a year (on the low end) that's around 6 to 7 percent of your income and is totally affordable unless you are paying off big screen TVs and sports cars and stuff. With some changes, it can be even less.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the ballot was a throw on so that people didn't need to the entire gopher thing or trot down to the electronics mega mark to buy a web browser like I did in 1993.
Anyways, the problem isn't really as much of having a choice as it was MS making that choice through capitalization of other assets. Not having IE as the browser isn't as important as not having to have it which was the problem for the longest of time.
That would be the gist of it or how it should be. However, that decision wouldn't stop you from downloading your own browsers and installing them at your own choice.
It wouldn't matter. Some MS only application not owned by MS but that works with them regularly would end up saying they only support IE and offer a button to fix the problem. It'ts not like this will level any playing field or anything. It would just be a matter of time until they were forced back onto IE for some obscure stretch of a reason.
Wow. Just Wow.
Are you really that inept? The court ruling said that nothing prevented the eminent domain seizures when they were in the public interest outside of written law as long as the constitutionally required compensation is met. This is not carte blanche for the states, they are still bound by their own laws and would have to follow them. In fact, since the ruling on eminent domain, 28 of the states had passed either laws or state constitutional amendments limiting their abilities for eminent domain actions. The laws and amendments are binding on the states and political subdivisions within the states and are completely consistent with the Supreme Court ruling over the matter.
And you should also note that several inferior courts came to the same conclusions which is why it was appealed to the supreme court. When ever you claim the Supreme Court has done something, you need to understand that it is verry rare for them to be the first people ruling on the cases or the first to rule differently. They generally either affirm or deny lower court rulings and in some cases, settle a point in contention with law and the constitution. In order for them to be activist, they would have to be chiming in one cases already settled or something.
If the law doesn't exist, then you can lobby you state legislation to make one exist. When this happens, the political subdivisions will be subject to the terms of the law. That is what the court specifically said in their opinion. If you think it is dumb for the state to make laws and be subjected to follow them, then you should just pack up and move because that is the way it works around here.
As for the state's rights, you really need to look at the history of the United States and all. You seriously have no clue about it, the intent of the founders, the structure of the US government or the limited powers, or the concept behind the 10th amendment which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
I'm not sure what is so damn complicated by that but if you need me to explain the simple language that almost anyone else can understand, I will be happy to. State's rights is a doctrine limiting the power of the federal government to a constitutional rule. This country is a collection of 13 original countries which is why every else in the world, the word state is synonymous for country and it is the basis of the name of our country "The United States of America".
Also, show me where in the constitution, it says that you have a right to keep or own property? It doesn't, it just says that if your property is taken for public use, you need to be justly compensated. If there was somethign actually there, I would probably side with you but as it stands, you seem to be completely confused over the constitution, completely confused over the 10th amendment, completely confused over the history of this country and the system the founders set up, and seriously confused over a ruling made by the supreme court that you appear to have never - ever- fucking read by feel confident in completely misquoting it.
Or you reboot the computer or log it out so they are forced to enter the password. Then you just log the first so many key strokes and continue after a reset or long delay in typing until the buffer is full. You will most likely get access to the encryption, the system, email, and probably a few other things seeing how people like to log in to do something productive.
Delusions, what delusions? You are the one ignoring everything just to repeat stop the killing as if it was a viable option without something else happening or replacing it. If anyone is delusional, it would be you.
Here is the problem I have, "basically criminals" indicates that they didn't break a law, or didn't get charged with breaking a law, nor were they convicted of breaking any laws in a court of their peers, but instead someone either said "there ought to be a law about that" and the government is stepping in with strict monitoring instead of creating a law, or or prosecuting violations of the law.
As for Camera's, Britain now has more CCTV cameras in public spaces than any other country in the world and it seems the average Briton is being recorded 3,000 times a week. That point there doesn't bother me as much as violating the privacy of citizens in their own homes with a "well, the basically or might as well broke a law".
So you think it is perfectly reasonable for the government to step in a raise your kids because one of the got yelled at and the other takes care of your youngest sibling?
Simply amazing if you ask me. Never in my wildest dreams would I think someone would advocate the government raising their kids because they watched too much TV.
So they are for situations where the entire family has been charges and convicted of a crime and this is an alternative to jail? Well then, that makes it completely different.
If you have to ask how it is different, I'm not sure you will be inteligent enough to understand.
First of all, security cameras in businesses are owned and operated by businesses, not the government. Second of all, we are talking about inside a fucking home to monitor the actions of the parents and children in their personal life, not to spot people carrying machine guns into banks or crowded train stations.
When you are in the public view, anyone watching can see your actions. That is different then closing your front door and getting out of the public view. If I put a camera through your window, I would go to jail for being a pervert. If I taped you walking down the street, the most that would happen is a few funny looks. There is a big difference between the privacy of your home and the ability to live your life the way you want and being in public with the government telling you what you can and can't do.
Why don't you get it strait, downloading was never the issue here, it was the distribution.
Copyright law doesn't cover you getting the stuff, it covers the stuff being distributed and copied. Downloading does neither.
Actually, they were pushing for a reasonable fine. That's the part where the incompetency comes in.
The claim all along was that the fines were excessive, unconstitutional, and that he had fair use. When the judge who is the trier of facts, instead decided to play prosecutor and advocate for the plaintiff and ask the misleading question of "are you liable", the answer was too complicated for a yes or no but when he said yes, all of the rest of his claims were ignored.
The judge should not have been able to ask the question not only because it wasn't his role to investigate on behalf of the complainant, because he had filings noting the defendants position that he was challenging the validity of the amounts of liability. In short, the judge knew he was looking for a reasonable judgment and short circuited it in order to apply the law as written with no objections from his lawyers. The entire case seems like having the three stooges fix your plumbing with Groucho Marks as the site supervisor.
Might as well ad the US to the list. Except in our case, the discs have to be labeled as music. CDs labeled as "data" avoid the tax.
Canada has the same laws but it goes to anything a song could be placed on and at one point in time, it included hard drives.
Guilty and liable are two separate things. You can actually violate a law and not be liable to any of it's consequences.
The problem here I believe was that he didn't have the money to settle out of court until after they were committed to trial. At that point, he already talked to a lawyer who saw that he was probably guilty but not liable or at least liable to the extent of the out of court settlement.
When the judge asked if he was liable, the answer should have been no all the way. The big upset here is that the judge is the trier of facts, not a prosecutor or investigator. He shouldn't be able to ask the defendant misleading questions, he is supposed to let counsel present the evidence and then determine what happened. His lawyers should have objected to the question on those grounds alone and instructed Tenenbaum that his position was they he might be guilty but not liable. In fact, that was the position of his case with the constitutionality claims on the penalties and fair use claims and so on.
The question of whether you are liable when the issue is did you do X if so then you are liable is misleading at best because of the intrinsic connection to the guilt of an action. Comming from the judge is even worse. It's like waking someone from a deep sleep to ask them for permission to do something knowing they won't fulling comprehend the question and grant permission. Except in this case, he ended up admitting he was liable under the confusion which negated all of his other claims to a defense against the liability.
It will keep continue because there is no workable alternatives. Fuck, how hard is that for you to understand? There needs to be a solution that hasn't already failed in order for it to fucking stop. And no, giving up or giving in to the demands of thugs worshiping pedophiles is not a solution.
That happened long before the killing started. That's why you just don't fucking get it. You are a moron if you think an entire country decided to drop bombs or kill as a first resort. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were long times coming with every possible diplomatic solution being tried and failing with the exception of the first Iraq war which the goal was to protect and ally first. Stop killing does not work unless there is a viable alternative to make both agrieved sides happy enough to exist peacefully. You have failed to offer anything that could work in that reguard, you should stick with watching Saturday morning cartoon and asking your mom for spending money instead of international politics which you know absolutely nothing about.
That's right, you didn't say anything at all except for quit killing. You have offered nothing constructive and just repeated that at the expense of making yourself look like an idiot. Not killing is not going to solve any of the problems or issues that brought the killing about in the first fucking place. When you offer nothing except to stop, you are in essence saying give up.
And here you are going back to the same damn thing, stop killing- then do what? What should we do instead of killing them that hasn't already been tried and failed? I have asked you to comment on this and you refuse to indicating that you have no fucking clue. Killing was not a first resort, it was the last resort, stopping it does nothing to the underlying problems and it is only one sides which if I remember right, they drew first blood. So what fucking solution can you offer that will make a difference that hasn't already failed. The not killing was tried long before the killing was.
Maybe you are just that fucking stupid and think the killing started because of killing. But that stupidity won't make you right.
Well, yea, it's the same witht he bios hack. You gain access to the system, install your malware, leave then come back and either take the system with unfettered access to the data on it or simply use it in place and hope no one detects it.
Yea, it will continue because you failed to present some alternative that hasn't already fail. This goes back to my original point, sometimes you have no other options but to kill and that if not a bad or evil thing. You yourself have admitted there was no other options outside of giving up which isn't an option.
I'm not entirely sure why the malware can't just forward the boot sector. The hack intercepts the interrupt 13h then forwards it but it doesn't say that it limits it's function. Your script would probably return the same boot sector information whether whether using the bios it kernel level access.
I'm not so sure a mac is the answer. With a mac, you can just install the code in the keyboard and grab the keys directly.
You need to get back to reality.
That failed in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If you had been paying attention, you would know that. It has historically failed and it is currently it is failing in the Palestine territory too. We send aid and they still send mortars and rockets into the neighborhoods of innocent civilians. They make bombs and go into crowded market places and blow themselves up in order to kill innocent civilians who have done nothing to them besides being alive.
I would want revenge on the persons who bombed my family. I am not so ignorant that I would hate an entire race or class of people because of the actions of a few. Perhaps you are not that intelligent.
OK, so here is you answer, we should allow the other side to attack us without a response. That line of thinking brought us 9/11 and the death of almost 3000 people in a single day.
Here is a better idea, how about we just continue to fight and kill the people who are hostile to us or our allies and if we create one more enemy while killing 20, they will eventually run out. Then your little fear of them getting mad goes away. Either way, here is a hint, we are killing them because we already expect the worst to happen. All other forms of interaction with them has caused the worse to happen already. If we stop killing them, we are going to expect the worst to still be going to happen because it already was. Here is where you simply fail.. If you looked far enough into the situation to not be a ignorant puss, you would have already known that.
Lol.. And if a nuke gets used, then they will be used in return. Giving up and not doing anything is not a solution. BTW, 50 miles will not be very effect in guarding against a nuke.
It just sounds to me like we need to kill more of them faster in order to stop your doom and gloom prophecy from taking place. Maybe you right, a nuke is what is needed, we should turn their homeland into a glass parking lot and be done with it once and for all. I mean how pissed can you get if you are dead alongside the rest of your family.
Just don't use the GPLv3 and someone will assuedly attempt to claim Apples lockin violates it somehow.
Umm.. Try a history book, Lincoln only getting 40% of the popular vote is a verifiable fact.
Then what did you fucking say. And remember, just like history, there is a record of it so explain your statement as you intended it to mean and we will see if you just have a problem with your communication skills.
No you haven't. Stop killing people is not an alternative when killing people was the last resort. You have done nothing to address the underlying issues or the alternatives that have failed to date resulting in the killing of people. In essence, you are saying give up and give in instead of standing your ground for what is right and what you believe in. Stop doing something that is preventing that is not a fucking alternative.
Actually, I believe it was the other way around. Their actions allowed ours. And quit calling killing murder. You are fucking idiot if you don't see the differences between the two.
Like I said, offer some constructive alternatives that hasn't already failed and required killing to be part of the solution and the killing will stop. You havn't done so after 3 separate request for you to produce something because you damn well know that nothing else was working and that nothing else will work. You are simply spouting off to spout off and the rest of the world thinks your a crack whore idiot.
Actually, you learn to think. Seriously, this is the third time you have failed to provide any alternative to killing but insist on it should be stopped. Now either shut the fuck up or be constructive and add something useful to the conversation. Not doing what was the last resort is not an option that addresses any of the problem leading up to the killing in the first place. Put you dope down for a minute and fucking think further then one sentence and see what happens.
Prove to me that I will get sick or that I will default my creditors because of getting sick and I will buy insurance. Until then, you are acting as if you are afraid of the dark and want to force me to build a fire with my hard earned money.
I don't think universal health care is as much the problem as the way they want to implement it. This is especially the case with the current purposed piece or crap that passed the house without even enough time to read the damn thing let alone understand it.
Here is a simple solution to health care problems in the US. Get rid of the government created and encouraged HMO's (that's right, Ted Kennedy and half the very same people complaining about HMO's created them and fucked them up then, and for some reason we are supposed to trust them this time), go back to complete indemnity systems that follows the Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement rates for catastrophic injury and terminal illness. Back in 1979, I had a immensity policy that paid 80% of all the bills unless there was a broken bone of a stitch in which case it paid 100% and it only cost $150 a month for the entire family (two adults and 4 kids). It didn't cover doctors visits for the cold or stuff like that but that was only $20 at the time. Allow a HMO type of preventative care and possible a maintenance plan that would cover doctors visits, and limit malpractice torts to actual damages and losses just like most workers compensation programs in most states do. You can even add language that if someone isn't insured and needs emergency medical treatment, they can purchase a policy after being treated that will cover the treatment if they agree to carry it for 5-10 years after.
All the sudden, people who want coverage will have major coverage whether they initially pay for it or not. People who want additional coverage will have it and not have to worry about being denied something, both will cost less and you won't have the government telling you what to do.
The health care system can be fixed with all it's flaws and all. IT doesn't need to be a government run entity. It doesn't need to be forced onto people and it doesn't need to intrude into people's lives. Right now, I can get Blue cross blue shield coverage for about $100 a week being self employed and single with no dependents. It's not like it isn't availible, its as if they don't want to buy it until after something happens. Of course there is a $2000 deducible on the insurance, but hey, there is a HSA program that allows this much to be put away for it that doesn't even get taxed. At $35k a year (on the low end) that's around 6 to 7 percent of your income and is totally affordable unless you are paying off big screen TVs and sports cars and stuff. With some changes, it can be even less.