I believe at this point Lenin is supposed to break out of his glass case and zombie "MUST CRUSH CAPITALISM"
Hey, say what you will about the Cold War but we didn't worry about airplanes flying into our buildings back in those days.
Start with a little bit of saber-rattling here and there. Throw in a few proxy wars and quagmires in Southeast and Southwest Asia. Have an arms race or two followed by the occasional throw-down during the Winter Olympics Hockey games.
Those were the days..... Maybe Putin (err, I mean Medvedev of course...) will get us back to them? Please, pretty please? If not, can we settle our disputes with the Middle East with a good game of hockey? USA! USA! USA! USA!
He was -- I was referencing a well known name to make my argument. If you have to let someone skate on lesser charges to convict someone else of murder.... well that's usually worth doing, isn't it?
Really? So you'd willingly testify in front of a Grand Jury without it? Is giving immunity to Al Capone's bean-counter (who only committed white-collar crimes) in exchange for his testimony to convict Capone of murder a bad idea? Immunity as a concept has been around in our legal system for quite some time and has nothing to do with retroactive immunity for the telecoms.
The idea that immunity makes whistleblowing more likely is a bunch of bullshit and always has been. You shouldnt need immunity if you did nothing wrong
I suppose we should be thankful for Voyager in a way.... it turned a lot of us off to Star Trek such that we were spared from having to gouge our eyes out after watching Enterprise.
If you work for someone like that, and you don't quit once you realize the character of the man you're empowering with your efforts
Did you occur to you that not everyone has the ability to walk away from a job because the boss is a dickhead? It's not all that easy for many people (particularly in this economy) to find another one and if you have a family then you aren't just worrying about your own mouth to feed.....
"Yeah, this could become a commune where everyone, like, helps each other."
"Yeah! We'll have one guy who bakes bread. And another guy who looks after people's safety."
Fast forward to modern times and the USA is trying to claim that the people at Guantanamo are not protected by the conventions but that they are guilty of violating the conventions. Seem a bit inconsistent, in my opinion.
We could just execute them as soon as they are captured. And before I get modded troll, this is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions. During the Battle of the Bulge we captured several Germans wearing Allied uniforms behind the lines. They were subject to summary execution. Nobody lost any sleep over it either.
Those few that were captured in German uniforms were treated as POWs -- but the Conventions offer zero protection to those that fight under false (or no) uniform or flag. The Conventions also require that you fight under Officers commissioned by your country to receive the protections contained therein.
The Geneva Conventions were never intended to be applied to those that refuse to follow the laws and customs of war.
But regardless of whether technically the US is violating the Conventions, it does to violate the spirit.
I disagree. Have you ever read about the behind the lines operations that the Germans did during the Battle of the Bulge? They sent a bunch of English speaking soldiers behind the lines dressed in American and British uniforms with the intent of sowing confusion -- changing road signs, setting up roadblocks, attacking supply convoys, etc, etc. They largely achieved their goals too -- they managed to spread confusion and chaos way out of proportion to their numbers. Eisenhower wind up restricted to his headquarters behind armed guards for a lengthy period because it was (falsely) rumored that one of their objectives was to assassinate him.
Most of the Germans doing this wore their German uniforms underneath the Allied ones -- the theory being that they could ditch the Allied uniforms before a firefight and be captured in uniform and receive the protections of the conventions. Those that were captured wearing their German uniforms were treated as POWs -- those that were captured wearing Allied uniforms were typically subject to summary execution.
Don't get me wrong -- I'd agree that we've violated the spirit of the conventions by engaging in torture. That's absolutely abhorrent and can't be justified by any rational human being. But merely detaining enemy combatants in Gitmo who fought without flag, uniform or officers (the general requirements listed in the Conventions to be considered eligible for the protections therein) is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions in law or in spirit. Executing them on the field of battle wouldn't be a violation of the Conventions either.
You, or others, have a right to steal? You, or others, are somehow magically entitled to all of the free content you can download?
No, but I have a right to use any protocol I wish and the right to run any application I desire on my own PC. I also have "fair use" rights -- if I already own a CD I should be well within my rights to rip that CD to make a ringtone for my cell phone or to upload the music to my mp3 player.
All of those rights are being eroded in the name of fighting piracy. If trusted computing is ever mandated you can kiss the PC as we know it goodbye. If ??AA has their way you won't be able to rip your CDs for any of the aforementioned legitimate activities. If AT&T has their way you won't be able to use any protocol you want on the internet nor will you be able to distribute your own content to others as easily -- unless you pay the premium to get access to the "fast lane" on the new and improved tiered internet.
Bottom line: This isn't just about piracy. I rarely pirate anything (I'd be lying if I said I never had -- but it's a rarity for me now that I'm not a broke student) but I'm still scared as hell by what's going on right now.
In five years time, I doubt that a typical USA or UK resident will have more than two or three broadband ISPs from whom they can obtain service
Two or three? We should all be that "lucky". Most people around here only have one they can choose from. The lucky few live close enough to the central offices to get DSL -- most are stuck with cable as their sole option.
If this passes they might as well ban people from driving cars because they can be used to traffic illegal drugs
Laugh, but that might be too far from the truth. I'm not aware of how it works in the EU but here in the US we have asset forfeiture laws that let the Government seize any property remotely connected to drugs. Drove your car to the dealers house to buy some pot? Kiss it goodbye if you are unlucky enough to live in one of the harsher states. As I recall some genius Congresscritter was proposing the same thing for piracy -- you'd forfeit your PC and any other hardware.
The cute part is they don't even need a criminal conviction. Somehow the state seizing your property winds up in the civil system where the burden of proof is much lower.
The Founding Fathers are probably spinning in their graves over that one.
Drill more isn't a solution. We need renewables. But, enough renewables to satisfy energy demand are decades away. Until then we still need fossil fuels to drive the trucks, trains, and planes in large quantities
I would agree with most of what you've had. The problem is that more drilling == more supply == cheaper costs == zero incentive to invest in alternative energy. Forget about bemoaning the money spent in Iraq -- I'm upset that we knew this was going to be a problem going back at least as far as the 70s (for all his other faults Carter did try and warn people about this) and nobody bothered to do a goddamn thing about it.
Say what you will about $4/gal gasoline but it's finally making people change their habits and begin to seriously look at alternatives.
First they came for the oil companies, no one spoke out because oil companies were unpopular - then they came for me.
You are using a quote historically linked to the Holocaust in a discussion about a windfall profits tax on the oil companies? Do you not realize how absurd that sounds? You've clearly lost any sense of perspective that you might have had at the beginning of this conversation.
This is an EXTREMELY dangerous precedent - it would most likely (and I kid you not) totally destroy our economy
Actually it's been tried before (there was a windfall profits tax in the 80s) and somehow it didn't "totally destroy" our economy.
if a congressman can steal money from anyone unpopular
They already do that -- tried buying a pack of smokes in New York State these days?
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not convinced that a windfall profits tax on big oil is sound policy -- but you've used so much hyperbole in this conversation that it's becoming harder and harder to take you seriously.
Economics won't solve our addiction to fossil fuels as long as the true cost of using them isn't factored into the equation. That's the theory behind the concept of a carbon tax.
Profit taxes are a knee-jerk reaction to the problem but I'd argue that they could be worthwhile if the money is directed into alternative energy R&D instead of going into the general fund for pork.
I have to say that I find "true believers" of any stripe to be scary as hell. Some of the free market zealots are just as scary as the most committed Marxist -- both are utterly convinced that their way is the ONLY way and that their way will solve EVERY problem regardless of the historical evidence that suggests otherwise.
see what the Democrats are doing about the oil shortage, vs the Republican response
The Democrats are being idiots but "drill more!" isn't a acceptable solution to our addiction to a finite resource. If the Democrats are guilty of ignoring supply and demand then the Republicans are equally guilty of just sticking their head in the sand and ignoring the larger problems, mainly that A) Oil is a finite resource that WILL run out sooner or later, B) Using Fossil Fuels is pushing the climate over the cliff
You should also take a look at some of the reasons for Democratic opposition. Starting with the basic question of why aren't the oil and gas companies using the leases that they already have on public lands instead of trying to get rights to new land?
Just like they should have slowly deflated the housing bubble starting in 2003, they should have been working on alternate energy back in the 90s so the new tech would be available for businesses now.
they should have been working on alternate energy back in the 70s
NEVER! As a race, the only time we go backwards is because of politics, not economics.
That's a pretty broad statement you've made there. I'd try and dispute you but I suspect that you are one of those free-market types that would find a way to twist every example of economic contraction I could find into the Government being responsible.
It is not at all reasonable or economically feasible to try to mine metals of the moon or other bodies. I mean, come on, this is a desperate delusion. We can barely get a shuttle off the ground at enormous expense.
Wouldn't it be more fair to say that it's not reasonable or economically feasible to mine metals off the moon today? It seems pretty pessimistic to assume that we won't be able to do it tomorrow, necessity being the mother of invention and all that....
As an off-topic aside, bravo on your signature. That's a hard cause to fight for given the amount of misinformed people out there. I admire you for taking up that effort.
A very small percentage of bad apples in our society spoil a lot of things for the rest of us. I'm all for using technology that makes it easier to identify the bad apples from the rest of us that just want to live our lives peacefully.
And a much larger percentage of people engage in victim-less crimes like pot-smoking that don't spoil anything for the rest of us and they still find themselves on the wrong end of the criminal justice system. The Government still uses every single resource that it has to track them down and prosecute them. Meanwhile it doesn't use the resources it already has to prevent more serious crimes, like terrorism, yet it always wants more power and more resources?
You'll forgive me if I'm not leaping at the prospect of giving law enforcement "more tools" when they use the ones they already have to go after people who aren't harming me while failing to catch those that seek to harm us.
Slashdot Mirror
if the satellites and space shuttles could kill Iraquis
I thought they could?
I believe at this point Lenin is supposed to break out of his glass case and zombie "MUST CRUSH CAPITALISM"
Hey, say what you will about the Cold War but we didn't worry about airplanes flying into our buildings back in those days.
Start with a little bit of saber-rattling here and there. Throw in a few proxy wars and quagmires in Southeast and Southwest Asia. Have an arms race or two followed by the occasional throw-down during the Winter Olympics Hockey games.
Those were the days..... Maybe Putin (err, I mean Medvedev of course...) will get us back to them? Please, pretty please? If not, can we settle our disputes with the Middle East with a good game of hockey? USA! USA! USA! USA!
He was -- I was referencing a well known name to make my argument. If you have to let someone skate on lesser charges to convict someone else of murder.... well that's usually worth doing, isn't it?
What has term limits done for the presidency?
Prevented GWB from running again?
I firmly believe immunity for ANYONE is too much
Really? So you'd willingly testify in front of a Grand Jury without it? Is giving immunity to Al Capone's bean-counter (who only committed white-collar crimes) in exchange for his testimony to convict Capone of murder a bad idea? Immunity as a concept has been around in our legal system for quite some time and has nothing to do with retroactive immunity for the telecoms.
The idea that immunity makes whistleblowing more likely is a bunch of bullshit and always has been. You shouldnt need immunity if you did nothing wrong
I guess you've never heard of being scapegoated?
just make it all olympics all the time and they won't have a choice but to watch
TVs don't have off switches in China?
>.< are they complaining about hotness?
No, just shallowness.
I suppose we should be thankful for Voyager in a way.... it turned a lot of us off to Star Trek such that we were spared from having to gouge our eyes out after watching Enterprise.
If you work for someone like that, and you don't quit once you realize the character of the man you're empowering with your efforts
Did you occur to you that not everyone has the ability to walk away from a job because the boss is a dickhead? It's not all that easy for many people (particularly in this economy) to find another one and if you have a family then you aren't just worrying about your own mouth to feed.....
...adapt to their defenses and continue assimilation.
Having big boobs and a catsuit helps too ;)
Interim solution - abolish corporations
"Yeah, this could become a commune where everyone, like, helps each other."
"Yeah! We'll have one guy who bakes bread. And another guy who looks after people's safety."
Fast forward to modern times and the USA is trying to claim that the people at Guantanamo are not protected by the conventions but that they are guilty of violating the conventions. Seem a bit inconsistent, in my opinion.
We could just execute them as soon as they are captured. And before I get modded troll, this is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions. During the Battle of the Bulge we captured several Germans wearing Allied uniforms behind the lines. They were subject to summary execution. Nobody lost any sleep over it either.
Those few that were captured in German uniforms were treated as POWs -- but the Conventions offer zero protection to those that fight under false (or no) uniform or flag. The Conventions also require that you fight under Officers commissioned by your country to receive the protections contained therein.
The Geneva Conventions were never intended to be applied to those that refuse to follow the laws and customs of war.
But regardless of whether technically the US is violating the Conventions, it does to violate the spirit.
I disagree. Have you ever read about the behind the lines operations that the Germans did during the Battle of the Bulge? They sent a bunch of English speaking soldiers behind the lines dressed in American and British uniforms with the intent of sowing confusion -- changing road signs, setting up roadblocks, attacking supply convoys, etc, etc. They largely achieved their goals too -- they managed to spread confusion and chaos way out of proportion to their numbers. Eisenhower wind up restricted to his headquarters behind armed guards for a lengthy period because it was (falsely) rumored that one of their objectives was to assassinate him.
Most of the Germans doing this wore their German uniforms underneath the Allied ones -- the theory being that they could ditch the Allied uniforms before a firefight and be captured in uniform and receive the protections of the conventions. Those that were captured wearing their German uniforms were treated as POWs -- those that were captured wearing Allied uniforms were typically subject to summary execution.
Don't get me wrong -- I'd agree that we've violated the spirit of the conventions by engaging in torture. That's absolutely abhorrent and can't be justified by any rational human being. But merely detaining enemy combatants in Gitmo who fought without flag, uniform or officers (the general requirements listed in the Conventions to be considered eligible for the protections therein) is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions in law or in spirit. Executing them on the field of battle wouldn't be a violation of the Conventions either.
You, or others, have a right to steal? You, or others, are somehow magically entitled to all of the free content you can download?
No, but I have a right to use any protocol I wish and the right to run any application I desire on my own PC. I also have "fair use" rights -- if I already own a CD I should be well within my rights to rip that CD to make a ringtone for my cell phone or to upload the music to my mp3 player.
All of those rights are being eroded in the name of fighting piracy. If trusted computing is ever mandated you can kiss the PC as we know it goodbye. If ??AA has their way you won't be able to rip your CDs for any of the aforementioned legitimate activities. If AT&T has their way you won't be able to use any protocol you want on the internet nor will you be able to distribute your own content to others as easily -- unless you pay the premium to get access to the "fast lane" on the new and improved tiered internet.
Bottom line: This isn't just about piracy. I rarely pirate anything (I'd be lying if I said I never had -- but it's a rarity for me now that I'm not a broke student) but I'm still scared as hell by what's going on right now.
In five years time, I doubt that a typical USA or UK resident will have more than two or three broadband ISPs from whom they can obtain service
Two or three? We should all be that "lucky". Most people around here only have one they can choose from. The lucky few live close enough to the central offices to get DSL -- most are stuck with cable as their sole option.
If this passes they might as well ban people from driving cars because they can be used to traffic illegal drugs
Laugh, but that might be too far from the truth. I'm not aware of how it works in the EU but here in the US we have asset forfeiture laws that let the Government seize any property remotely connected to drugs. Drove your car to the dealers house to buy some pot? Kiss it goodbye if you are unlucky enough to live in one of the harsher states. As I recall some genius Congresscritter was proposing the same thing for piracy -- you'd forfeit your PC and any other hardware.
The cute part is they don't even need a criminal conviction. Somehow the state seizing your property winds up in the civil system where the burden of proof is much lower.
The Founding Fathers are probably spinning in their graves over that one.
Drill more isn't a solution. We need renewables. But, enough renewables to satisfy energy demand are decades away. Until then we still need fossil fuels to drive the trucks, trains, and planes in large quantities
I would agree with most of what you've had. The problem is that more drilling == more supply == cheaper costs == zero incentive to invest in alternative energy. Forget about bemoaning the money spent in Iraq -- I'm upset that we knew this was going to be a problem going back at least as far as the 70s (for all his other faults Carter did try and warn people about this) and nobody bothered to do a goddamn thing about it.
Say what you will about $4/gal gasoline but it's finally making people change their habits and begin to seriously look at alternatives.
First they came for the oil companies, no one spoke out because oil companies were unpopular - then they came for me.
You are using a quote historically linked to the Holocaust in a discussion about a windfall profits tax on the oil companies? Do you not realize how absurd that sounds? You've clearly lost any sense of perspective that you might have had at the beginning of this conversation.
This is an EXTREMELY dangerous precedent - it would most likely (and I kid you not) totally destroy our economy
Actually it's been tried before (there was a windfall profits tax in the 80s) and somehow it didn't "totally destroy" our economy.
if a congressman can steal money from anyone unpopular
They already do that -- tried buying a pack of smokes in New York State these days?
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not convinced that a windfall profits tax on big oil is sound policy -- but you've used so much hyperbole in this conversation that it's becoming harder and harder to take you seriously.
Economics won't solve our addiction to fossil fuels as long as the true cost of using them isn't factored into the equation. That's the theory behind the concept of a carbon tax.
Profit taxes are a knee-jerk reaction to the problem but I'd argue that they could be worthwhile if the money is directed into alternative energy R&D instead of going into the general fund for pork.
I have to say that I find "true believers" of any stripe to be scary as hell. Some of the free market zealots are just as scary as the most committed Marxist -- both are utterly convinced that their way is the ONLY way and that their way will solve EVERY problem regardless of the historical evidence that suggests otherwise.
see what the Democrats are doing about the oil shortage, vs the Republican response
The Democrats are being idiots but "drill more!" isn't a acceptable solution to our addiction to a finite resource. If the Democrats are guilty of ignoring supply and demand then the Republicans are equally guilty of just sticking their head in the sand and ignoring the larger problems, mainly that A) Oil is a finite resource that WILL run out sooner or later, B) Using Fossil Fuels is pushing the climate over the cliff
You should also take a look at some of the reasons for Democratic opposition. Starting with the basic question of why aren't the oil and gas companies using the leases that they already have on public lands instead of trying to get rights to new land?
Just like they should have slowly deflated the housing bubble starting in 2003, they should have been working on alternate energy back in the 90s so the new tech would be available for businesses now.
they should have been working on alternate energy back in the 70s
Fixed that for you.
NEVER! As a race, the only time we go backwards is because of politics, not economics.
That's a pretty broad statement you've made there. I'd try and dispute you but I suspect that you are one of those free-market types that would find a way to twist every example of economic contraction I could find into the Government being responsible.
It is not at all reasonable or economically feasible to try to mine metals of the moon or other bodies. I mean, come on, this is a desperate delusion. We can barely get a shuttle off the ground at enormous expense.
Wouldn't it be more fair to say that it's not reasonable or economically feasible to mine metals off the moon today? It seems pretty pessimistic to assume that we won't be able to do it tomorrow, necessity being the mother of invention and all that....
As an off-topic aside, bravo on your signature. That's a hard cause to fight for given the amount of misinformed people out there. I admire you for taking up that effort.
A very small percentage of bad apples in our society spoil a lot of things for the rest of us. I'm all for using technology that makes it easier to identify the bad apples from the rest of us that just want to live our lives peacefully.
And a much larger percentage of people engage in victim-less crimes like pot-smoking that don't spoil anything for the rest of us and they still find themselves on the wrong end of the criminal justice system. The Government still uses every single resource that it has to track them down and prosecute them. Meanwhile it doesn't use the resources it already has to prevent more serious crimes, like terrorism, yet it always wants more power and more resources?
You'll forgive me if I'm not leaping at the prospect of giving law enforcement "more tools" when they use the ones they already have to go after people who aren't harming me while failing to catch those that seek to harm us.
Still it took balls for Taco to be as honest as he was considering that he got the keyboard for free
Taco has never had a problem being honest: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."