I believe that homosexuals are not afforded equal protection in all matters (employment particularly). Even US governmental organisations (such as the military) are in violation of this one.
I'll grant you the point on DoD but non-government employment is a private association. It's not a proper role for the state to compel people to associate with one another.
But if you have reason to believe that the attacker has a grudge against you, and not against your five year old granddaughter - which he did - it is reasonable to leave the granddaughter, who is probably safe, and save yourself.
No, it's not "reasonable" to do that. He had no way of knowing that man's mental condition. It's a safe assumption that someone who breaks into your house armed with an axe is dangerous and ought not to be left alone with a five year old child.
But it was obvious that he was a sane zealot
And religious zealots are known for respecting non-combatants and avoiding collateral damage? Give me a break.....
I can't respect someone that leaves a child vulnerable in order to save his own ass. As an adult you have an obligation to defend that child to your death. That's been part of our social contract going back to the plains of Africa. Most people realize and accept this. Those that don't aren't deserving of anything other than scorn. I only wish that I had the opportunity to meet this man so I could tell him to his face what a spineless pussy he is.
Stealth didn't have much to do with it. The Russians always had to worry about being attacked by bombers -- they watched what we did to the Germans and Japanese after all -- they've consequently invested a lot more R&D into building defenses against those bombers. They didn't limit themselves to SAMs either -- the MiG-25 and MiG-31 are purpose built interceptors that aren't real useful for anything other than shooting down bombers and cruise missiles. They don't have any real counterparts in the West. The F-14 might have had the same mission (albeit in a maritime role) but it was equally effective at taking on fighters should the need arise.
I agree with you. Hate crimes legislation is absurd and insulting. Apparently my life is worth less if someone ends it over my property as opposed to ending it over the color of my skin.
Your freedom of opinion does not INCLUDE the freedom to think I or anybody else is less than you.
Yes it does. You can pass all the unconstitutional laws that you want -- you'll never be able to control what people THINK. The absurdity of making THOUGHT CRIMES illegal should be apparent to anyone.
but a madman armed with an axe and knife breaking into your house intent on killing you for having drawn a cartoon is not something to ignore
I lost all respect for that man when I read about that incident. What kind of spineless coward leaves his five year old granddaughter at the mercy of an axe wielding nutjob while he hides in his saferoom? Most people would be willing to die to defend a child, even one that isn't their own. That's just part of the social contract, IMHO anyway.
The West operates under the assumption of having air superiority, if not supremacy. No need for S-400s guarding your country when you have F-22s and E-3s. Or so the thinking goes anyway.
An advance in missile technology that takes missiles well out of the targeting ability of phalanx guns could do the same for aircraft carriers, which would sort of demote the US navy from "scary" to "eh" in a few hours
You still have to find the carrier before you can engage it. Once you've found it you have to get close enough to launch your missiles without being destroyed by the defensive fighters and/or SAMs from the escorting ships. Neither one of these are easy tasks.
The US wouldn't have been "fucked". Nuclear weapons and ICBMs were going to be invented sooner or later -- it would have been a Cold War between the Axis Powers and United States.
Besides, you didn't bother reading my link. Hitler's own writings show that he didn't plan on war with the United States until much later (1980s) in the ballgame.
Yes, there has always been domestic wiretapping, but presumably it was always under warrant or other form of due process.
You wouldn't be making that assumption if you'd read the original FISA law. All the Government had to do was claim that you were an agent of a foreign power.
Same for signing statements - they existed and were used long before, but never as often or to change the intent of the law as significantly.
I don't know about that. Clinton did the same thing. So did Bush I and Reagan. Reagan was the President that really kick started the whole process.
But would you rather he hadn't?
Yes, I would. Just as I would rather Lincoln had fought the Civil War without throwing opposing newspaper editors into jail, installing a puppet government in Maryland and splitting the State of Virginia into two pieces. FDR is the whole reason that the United States became interventionist. The powers that he granted himself have been abused by every subsequent President.
He was conversing with a German man immediately post-War, and was surprised to know that the German knew about his hometown - fairly knowledgable, in fact. Turns out that there were plans to appoint that German man to be in charge of the region of the US man's hometown - after Germany won the war.
I'm not so sure I believe that. Hitler's own words show that he didn't anticipate a war with the United States until much later. Germany never had the ability or the desire to occupy the United States. It seems odd that they would be preparing people for such an outcome.
I didn't say she was the sharpest tack in the drawer. Still, she should have a reasonable expectation of privacy on her personally owned cell phone. I find it absurd that the Crackberry will share your SMS/call info with your employer when you own the device. I wonder how many customers they would lose if this was more widely known?
You can be held responsible if certain things happen directly because you posted certain types of information, but there very specific rules about what kinds of information this applies to - generally it must relate to causing direct harm to US soldiers or other similar personnel.
Believe it or not, but that's not illegal either, unless you had a security clearance and the released information was classified. If you don't hold such a clearance and come into the possession of such information there is no law that prevents you from releasing it. As an example, it's illegal for a DoD employee with a clearance to leak classified information about an ongoing military operation to a reporter. It's not illegal for that reporter to publish that information once received.
It says that in several of the State Constitutions. Here's Virgina's: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The US Constitution also limits Army-related spending appropriations to two years. The people of that era had an aversion to standing armies. History is littered with examples going all the way back to Rome of standing armies that turned on the populations they were supposed to protect.
Coordinated domestic wiretapping. The Unitary President. Hundreds if not thousands of "signing statements." Etc., etc.
The last three items on your list were going on long before 9/11. The secret FISA court was created during the Cold War. Signing statements have been around since Monroe and have been commonly used since Reagan. Practically every President has tried to expand Executive power, particularly FDR and those that came after him.
Yeah, things like bomb making and child porn get you in trouble.
Bomb making gets you into trouble but there's no law in the United States against sharing the knowledge to do so. Hell, you can even publish the designs for a fusion bomb in the United States. I wonder if the same is true in China?
The drivers license/passport photo is an area worth discussion. But the debate in Europe isn't about that -- they intend to outlaw the wearing of the garment in public. This is religious intolerance, plain and simple. It does not matter that many (most?) Muslims don't think it's required. What matters is that some of them hold it to be a tenet of their faith.
Your last line is frightening. You really think that Government should be in the business of "improving" religion?
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that homosexuals are not afforded equal protection in all matters (employment particularly). Even US governmental organisations (such as the military) are in violation of this one.
I'll grant you the point on DoD but non-government employment is a private association. It's not a proper role for the state to compel people to associate with one another.
is THAT not by your OWN logic equally wrong ?
Did I say otherwise?
we HAD to institute corrective laws to end this terrible atrocity.
No we didn't. All we had to do was apply the existing laws equally to all citizens, as required by the 14th amendment.
And yet people still live who genuinely believe that how you look is an excuse to harbor opinions about who you are.
And they have the right to believe that, no matter how abhorrent the rest of us find those viewpoints to be.
But if you have reason to believe that the attacker has a grudge against you, and not against your five year old granddaughter - which he did - it is reasonable to leave the granddaughter, who is probably safe, and save yourself.
No, it's not "reasonable" to do that. He had no way of knowing that man's mental condition. It's a safe assumption that someone who breaks into your house armed with an axe is dangerous and ought not to be left alone with a five year old child.
But it was obvious that he was a sane zealot
And religious zealots are known for respecting non-combatants and avoiding collateral damage? Give me a break.....
I can't respect someone that leaves a child vulnerable in order to save his own ass. As an adult you have an obligation to defend that child to your death. That's been part of our social contract going back to the plains of Africa. Most people realize and accept this. Those that don't aren't deserving of anything other than scorn. I only wish that I had the opportunity to meet this man so I could tell him to his face what a spineless pussy he is.
Stealth didn't have much to do with it. The Russians always had to worry about being attacked by bombers -- they watched what we did to the Germans and Japanese after all -- they've consequently invested a lot more R&D into building defenses against those bombers. They didn't limit themselves to SAMs either -- the MiG-25 and MiG-31 are purpose built interceptors that aren't real useful for anything other than shooting down bombers and cruise missiles. They don't have any real counterparts in the West. The F-14 might have had the same mission (albeit in a maritime role) but it was equally effective at taking on fighters should the need arise.
I agree with you. Hate crimes legislation is absurd and insulting. Apparently my life is worth less if someone ends it over my property as opposed to ending it over the color of my skin.
Nobody, because TSA doesn't determine whether or not you can enter the country. Perhaps you've confused them with CBP?
I'll bite. What part of the Universal Declaration do you think the United States is not already complaint with?
Republicans want to censor porn
Elena Kagan is a Republican?
Your freedom of opinion does not INCLUDE the freedom to think I or anybody else is less than you.
Yes it does. You can pass all the unconstitutional laws that you want -- you'll never be able to control what people THINK. The absurdity of making THOUGHT CRIMES illegal should be apparent to anyone.
but a madman armed with an axe and knife breaking into your house intent on killing you for having drawn a cartoon is not something to ignore
I lost all respect for that man when I read about that incident. What kind of spineless coward leaves his five year old granddaughter at the mercy of an axe wielding nutjob while he hides in his saferoom? Most people would be willing to die to defend a child, even one that isn't their own. That's just part of the social contract, IMHO anyway.
The West operates under the assumption of having air superiority, if not supremacy. No need for S-400s guarding your country when you have F-22s and E-3s. Or so the thinking goes anyway.
An advance in missile technology that takes missiles well out of the targeting ability of phalanx guns could do the same for aircraft carriers, which would sort of demote the US navy from "scary" to "eh" in a few hours
You still have to find the carrier before you can engage it. Once you've found it you have to get close enough to launch your missiles without being destroyed by the defensive fighters and/or SAMs from the escorting ships. Neither one of these are easy tasks.
It's a potential kinetic CIWS replacement (i.e. phalanx)
Isn't Phalanx already slated to be replaced by the rolling airframe missile?
Someone will still only save to "My Documents" or C: drive
You know it only takes about five seconds to use group policy to map "My Documents" to a network location, right?
The UK is probably a lost cause at this point.
The US wouldn't have been "fucked". Nuclear weapons and ICBMs were going to be invented sooner or later -- it would have been a Cold War between the Axis Powers and United States.
Besides, you didn't bother reading my link. Hitler's own writings show that he didn't plan on war with the United States until much later (1980s) in the ballgame.
Just use diceware. It's got more than enough entropy and uses real words that are easy to remember.
Communications birds are probably the least vulnerable of all. Most of them are higher up than GPS. Besides, there's always HF.
Yes, there has always been domestic wiretapping, but presumably it was always under warrant or other form of due process.
You wouldn't be making that assumption if you'd read the original FISA law. All the Government had to do was claim that you were an agent of a foreign power.
Same for signing statements - they existed and were used long before, but never as often or to change the intent of the law as significantly.
I don't know about that. Clinton did the same thing. So did Bush I and Reagan. Reagan was the President that really kick started the whole process.
But would you rather he hadn't?
Yes, I would. Just as I would rather Lincoln had fought the Civil War without throwing opposing newspaper editors into jail, installing a puppet government in Maryland and splitting the State of Virginia into two pieces. FDR is the whole reason that the United States became interventionist. The powers that he granted himself have been abused by every subsequent President.
He was conversing with a German man immediately post-War, and was surprised to know that the German knew about his hometown - fairly knowledgable, in fact. Turns out that there were plans to appoint that German man to be in charge of the region of the US man's hometown - after Germany won the war.
I'm not so sure I believe that. Hitler's own words show that he didn't anticipate a war with the United States until much later. Germany never had the ability or the desire to occupy the United States. It seems odd that they would be preparing people for such an outcome.
I didn't say she was the sharpest tack in the drawer. Still, she should have a reasonable expectation of privacy on her personally owned cell phone. I find it absurd that the Crackberry will share your SMS/call info with your employer when you own the device. I wonder how many customers they would lose if this was more widely known?
You can be held responsible if certain things happen directly because you posted certain types of information, but there very specific rules about what kinds of information this applies to - generally it must relate to causing direct harm to US soldiers or other similar personnel.
Believe it or not, but that's not illegal either, unless you had a security clearance and the released information was classified. If you don't hold such a clearance and come into the possession of such information there is no law that prevents you from releasing it. As an example, it's illegal for a DoD employee with a clearance to leak classified information about an ongoing military operation to a reporter. It's not illegal for that reporter to publish that information once received.
It says that in several of the State Constitutions. Here's Virgina's: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The US Constitution also limits Army-related spending appropriations to two years. The people of that era had an aversion to standing armies. History is littered with examples going all the way back to Rome of standing armies that turned on the populations they were supposed to protect.
Coordinated domestic wiretapping. The Unitary President. Hundreds if not thousands of "signing statements." Etc., etc.
The last three items on your list were going on long before 9/11. The secret FISA court was created during the Cold War. Signing statements have been around since Monroe and have been commonly used since Reagan. Practically every President has tried to expand Executive power, particularly FDR and those that came after him.
Yeah, things like bomb making and child porn get you in trouble.
Bomb making gets you into trouble but there's no law in the United States against sharing the knowledge to do so. Hell, you can even publish the designs for a fusion bomb in the United States. I wonder if the same is true in China?
The drivers license/passport photo is an area worth discussion. But the debate in Europe isn't about that -- they intend to outlaw the wearing of the garment in public. This is religious intolerance, plain and simple. It does not matter that many (most?) Muslims don't think it's required. What matters is that some of them hold it to be a tenet of their faith.
Your last line is frightening. You really think that Government should be in the business of "improving" religion?