You have no right to cause damage or injury to anyone else on the highway.
And you can prove that my driving at the speed the highway was designed for is going to cause injury or damage? To others that made the informed choice to use a controled access highway?
Increasing spee limits with, say, 10, would do almost nothing to how fast you get to your destination (those three minutes you save are totally irrelevant) except on very long trips, while at the same time drastically increasing damage, injury, and chance of fatality in the event of an accident.
And if I choose to take the risk of damage/injury or death that's my right. The interstate highways were designed with 75-85mph in mind. Why are most of them posted 55-65? Could it be a revenue source perhaps?
Another rant of mine is when the cops blow past me doing 85mph themselves without their lights on. Am I the only one that thinks they should have to obey all traffic laws unless actually responding to a call/chasing someone? Want to amuse yourself? Get in the left lane right next to Grandma in the right lane doing the speed limit and sit there when the cop illegally tailgates you trying to force you to move over so he can resume his 85mph trek. I held a NYS State Trooper behind me for 15 minutes doing this once. Had he been anybody else he probably would have gotten a ticket for following too closely.
When law enforcement/local judges/local politicians start obeying the speed limit then I'll consider doing so as well. I don't care that you are an off duty trooper or that you have Assemblyman's plates. Obey the law if you expect the rest of us to do so.
I think part of the problem is that the government knows America is not ready for drug availability. Look at alcohol---you have to be 21, driving drunk is a punishable offense, giving it to minors is a punishable offense, using it to manipulate someone is a punishable offense---but it's still a HUGE problem! There's plenty of date rape involving alcohol, lots of minors drinking, lots of people driving drunk---I mean, come on, use common sense if you're going to drink!
Maybe it wouldn't be such a problem if it was legal at an earlier age and people learned how to use it responsibly. Think there is any great mystery to booze in a country where you can legally buy it at 18 and where your parents have been giving it to you at dinnertime since you were 5 years old? Think those countries have a problem with binge drinking?
Only in the United States can I sign away my life to a cell phone company/credit card company/military, vote and be tried as an adult without being able to legally buy booze. And date rape/DUI are completely separate issues and bringing them up seems like FUD.
An interesting idea is a "psychoactive research license." Someone could take a special training course, take an exam, and be granted a license for a few years that would let them purchase small quantities of illegal substances and use them in the privacy of their own home. I mean, the Native American Church has an agreement that's sort of like this for the use of peyote in religious ceremonies (the Church has a permit to buy peyote from special DEA-licensed growing farms for certain restricted uses with registered Church members). Of course, if you trafficked the substances, used anything around a minor, became a public nuisance while intoxicated, or tried to operate a vehicle, you'd have your license revoked and be punished in some way.
Funny you should mention the Native American use of peyote. Native Americans are the only ones that need "permission" from the Federal Government to practice their religion. What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is so hard to understand? What you purpose would only create a massive bureaucracy with further control over our lives.
Here's an idea: Legalize all drugs. Prohibit employers from requiring drug tests with an exception for jobs that actually require you to be sober (i.e: truck drivers). Make people take responsibility for their own actions. You may not agree with that extreme of a viewpoint. But you'd have a hard time convincing me that THC should still be illegal.
In 2004, there was actually talk about "delaying" the elections in light of a mysteriously convenient terrorist threat. Luckily, even Bush didn't have the cajones to go through with it. But they wouldn't hesitate for a second if they thought they could get away with it and were behind in the polls. Sadly, they probably could get away with it now.
That seems like fear-mongering to me. You do know that Bush actually doesn't have the right to delay elections anywhere, right? (Well, except maybe in DC) Elections are a state matter. Few people recall that 9/11 happened during the New York State primary. Think Dubya called off that election? Nope! George Pataki (Governor of NYS) did! Dubya literally would not have the authority to do so.
A reading of the Constitution seems to suggest that Congress might be able to change the date that the electors are chosen (by extension the date of Federal voting for President) -- but Federal law would still require the President and Vice President to step down at the end of thier term regardless of the status of any delayed election. At that point it would either go according to the line of succession or Congress would choose the President and Vice President.
In any case, there is no scenario where the Executive Branch has the authority to stop or delay an election in the United States. And I highly doubt that Congress would do so either. We've held elections in the midst of World Wars. The "threat" of terrorism wouldn't be enough to stop one.
If it is a clueless newb, well, they won't notice someone connecting and as they are on some all you can eat plan, it really doesn't matter. I consider much the same like using a store's restroom or water fountain even if I don't buy anything there.
And if they aren't on an all you can eat plan? What if they have that AP hooked up to a celluar service where they pay for each megabyte? I don't think the store would let you use their restroom if they paid $5 per flush;)
a knife is a sharp object and you arent allowed to carry knives in the UK either.
And I could make the case that the UK is ten times closer to becoming a police state then the US is. Our Government isn't trying to force us to all adopt mandatory biometric IDs (yet). We don't have a country wide system of cameras monitoring our highways and cities. But all of that is really besides the point, isn't it? Just because your gun/weapon laws work for the UK doesn't mean they would work for the US. I find it interesting that Europeans get all hot and bothered when they perceive that we are trying to force our values on them -- but then they turn around and do the same thing!
and what about the other half of the population that doesnt support him? should they allow him to rule them when he wasnt legally elected? quite frankly the half that do support him shouldnt' let him get away with cheating either.
You do understand that according to the laws in the United States he was actually legally elected? He received a majority of the Electoral College. That's it, game over. Don't you think that if it was actually illegal Gore would have fought it more? I'm not defending the way he won the election or his policies but I don't quite understand how you make the leap to "illegal".
You've always been allowed to listen to radio transmissions. Is the same reason you can listen to police, fire department, etc. radios. If they don't want you to listen, then they will encrypt the transmission.
Actually it's illegal in the United States to listen to wireless phone conversations. This applies to both cordless phones that plug into POTS and older AMPS cell phones that could be listened to with scanners.
Of course this isn't really enforceable -- if you buy a scanner and hack it to listen to these conversations nobody can really prove that you are doing it. But the point that it is actually illegal still stands.
If you don't secure a wireless connection that spills onto other people's property, why shouldn't they use it until told otherwise?
If your cordless phone connection spills onto their property, why shouldn't they use your base station or listen to your calls until told otherwise?
Of course, they can't do that you'll say, because it might cost you money. Using their internet connection might cost them money! Granted, it's rare, but what if they receive internet service from celluar and pay for each megabyte?
I just think it's pretty arrogant to assume that you can use it without permission just because it's unsecured.
plus, you can't hold up a bank with a blunt object
Really? I beg to differ. Have you ever been a bank teller? We were told to just give them the money regardless of what kind of weapon they had. Do you know how many banks are robbed with nothing more then a note saying "give me the money"?
and you cant take out a room full of unarmed people with a blunt object.
Seemed to work for the 9/11 hijackers. Granted, probably wouldn't work in the post 9/11 world, but the point is still valid. And what do you mean by "take out"? Kill or neturalize? Because if all you mean is "neturalize" then I can think of lots of convenance stores that get robbed by punks armed with nothing more then a knife. Yes, the people in the store could probably take him down. But is it worth getting cut for someone elses money?
if the american gun lobby is so sure that giving the general population guns will stop the government misbehaving, why isnt anyone storming the whitehouse with uzis, taking out the unelected emperor that stole control of their country 7 years ago?
Because half the population supports the "unelected emperor"?
Hey, I'm not a big fan of guns either. I don't own one. But I don't see any harm in letting people own them either. Firearms have been a part of American history since the first Minuteman picked up his farmers musket and took aim at the Redcoats.
However, it could quite feasibly be logged; some networks use channel bots, such as P on Netgamers and Q on Quakenet, which could quite easily be instructed to log all lines from any channel it resides in.
Actually those bots are usually umode +d (deaf) or whatever the non ircu equiv is. They don't see any channel text. Not that it would be impossible for them to use them to log stuff. But there would be easier ways of monitoring an IRC channel then to rely on it's channel bot.
I think that it's partially a case of Iraqi patriotism, partially a case of the Sunni's not wanting to become a minority power in a country they ruled for decades, and partially the sheer amount of ineptitude that we took into the country in the first place (no plan for the post-war).
The first case is pretty obvious. Think of how you'd react if our country was invaded? Even if we were being ruled by an insane dictator who was running rape rooms and oppressing 2/3's of the population.
The second case is also pretty obvious. The Sunni's were the ruling power under Saddam. Whether or not most of them approved of his methods (the power elite certainly did -- I'd like to think the average Sunni on the street did not) they have to be scared shitless that the same kind of stuff will happen to them if they become a minority power. Think of the ruling power in South Africa and the fears they had. To this day it still amazes me that was solved without much bloodshed.
The third case is where it gets muddy. We obviously didn't win any hearts and minds by securing the oil fields whilst letting hospitals get looted. It's hard to win hearts and minds when you can't even keep the lights on 24 hours a day. Disbanding the Iraqi military was a huge mistake.
The thing that sticks out in my head the most however was this Iraqi man that got interviewed on the street by a CNN crew embedded with our forces during the first few days of the War. He kept asking our troops "Not like 1991 is it? You won't leave this time?" Think about what we did after the First Gulf War. We (Bush Sr.) encouraged them to rise up and throw off the shackles of Saddam. Then we allowed Saddam to use his helicopters and stood by and did nothing while he slaughtered and brutally crushed them.
Take that little bit of history then toss it on top of the criminal incompetence that went on during/right after the fall of Saddam's regime and you can see why winning hearts and minds is a next to impossible task.
The really sad thing is that I don't see any way out of this mess. I don't see a way out of it for us, I don't see a way out of it for the Iraqi insurgent fighter that really thinks he's fighting for his own freedom and I don't see a way out of it for the Iraqi people. I completely disagreed with going into the country in the first place but I'm more upset about the sheer incompetence that followed the war then I am with the war in the first place.
OK, you don't really believe that do you? YOu REALLY think that the Islamic Fundamentalists / Jihad Crew / Suicide Bombers have a respect for the SANCTITY OF LIFE? They don't respect life AT ALL!
Did I say the Fundamentalists have a respect for life? Did I say that? I don't recall saying that. I recall saying that the insurgents have respect for it.
I think there's a pretty big difference between an Al Quada scumbag hiding in a cave somewhere (whose major goal is to incite a war between the West and Islam) and the Iraqi insurgent fighting for what he believes is the freedom of his homeland. You might say that blowing up cars and checkpoints isn't the best way to go about obtaining your freedom.... well, the British said that hiding behind trees and sniping at Redcoats wasn't the best way to obtain ours either. And as for them attacking "innocents"? Go back to 1776 and talk to some British Loyalists and find out what life was like for them during the Revolutionary War. In fact after the war most of them were forced to move to Canada. Was that right? Probably not. But it's a fact of history.
I have some respect for the Iraqi insurgents. I have zero respect for the religious fanatics that are over there now trying to turn it into a Holy War against the infidel west. The fact that you don't realize there is a difference between the two is a little sad and shows how misinformed you are.
Where the hell did I say war on terror? Why did you even bring that up? I largely agree with you that the war on terror is bullshit! I took exception to your insulting comments about people in the military. I didn't even specify which military I was talking about and went so far as to include insurgents in my example of how badly people are scarred by war.
As for the "low threshold". If these people placed any value on the lives of others they would question being in the military and seriously give oppressing other nations a rest.
Give me a fucking break. Oppressing other nations? They don't see it that way. Hell, I'm opposed to the war and I don't see it that way! The difference between you and I is that I'm willing to acknowledge your viewpoint and you have no idea where mine is coming from.
*** TEN TIMES *** the number of dead on 9/11 have died in Iraq since March 2003.
How the hell is that relevant to your insulting comment that started this "discussion"? Why do you even bring that up if for no other reason then to inflame opinion? I'm trying to decide if you are interested in a relational conversation or just a flamefest. I'm leaning towards flamefest.
*** YOU ARE *** the terrorists you sick fucking depraved lunatics!
If I'm the "terrorist" and I largely agree with your thoughts about the war then what does that make people who supported it? You are a radical leftist flower child who is just as dangerous as the radical rightist neo-con. Where is the sanity and the rational discussion with people like you (on either side)?
First off, the average marine/army recruit is between the age of 17 and 22. Second, that amounts to jack squat in life experience.
And your point is?
Third, the Military preys on the poor and least educated folk under the guise of "military education". E.g. give us 5 years of your life and we might give you a college education. These people are vulnerable in that they come from poor families and/or don't think they have any chances to make it in the real world.
Again, your point?
Fourth, it's no secret that the US goals in the middle east are far less than altruistic. You [including other UN nations of which I'm ashamed to say Canada was party to] let the Rwandans get slaughtered, you let blood diamond mining go on, etc, etc, etc, yet it's SOOOOO important to "liberate" Iraq and Iran. Despite the fact you basically brought Iraq to a civil war....
So your opposed to the war? Big shock there. Again, how the hell is it relevant? I took serious exception to your "low threshold" remark and you haven't done a damn thing to defend it. Have you ever talked to anybody who has been in a war? It doesn't matter which war. Take your pick. WW2, Vietnam, Falklands.... If you think that soldiers/insurgents have a low threshold for the sanctity of life and that they are able to take that life lightly and without being bothered by it for the rest of their lives then you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
It's people like you that give the rest of us on the left a bad name.
Besides, the average marine has about a high school education, no morals and a low threshold for the sanctity of life. They might as well be robots anyways.:-)
That's a pretty insulting comment to make from somebody that has no fucking clue what he's talking about. Whatever you think about the "War" (I was/am opposed to it) saying that either side has a low threshold for the "sanctity of life" is just plain insulting and rude.
Ever hear of PTSD? Shell-shock? Do you think that Marines/soliders or even the insurgents that they are fighting take life lightly? And what the hell does the level of education have to do with anything? That's just being a snob.
The newspapers were discolsing secret details of crime investigations.. you know, those little details they use to confirm confessions that are sensitive to leads in the investigations? This newspaper, desperate to give more details than the others, compromised the police departments ability to investigate crimes.
You got a well deserved +5 insightful.... but for the wrong reason IMHO.
Freedom of the press is too important of a right to have it compromised to protect the police departments ability to investigate crimes. If that's all you need to do to shut the press up then all the Government has to do is call something a crime and it becomes illegal for them to publish anything about it. See the problem here?
The reason you deserve that +5 however is the fact that the newspaper stepped way over the line on this one. In order to obtain information for a story they broke into a computer network and thus committed a crime. Had they published this information merely by obtaining it from sources then I'd have no problem. The source that gave them the password should have just given them the information directly.
Frankly, I'm not mad at the government for being unable to stop the 9/11 attacks.
Frankly, I'm mad as hell about it considering that they had all sorts of warning signs that either got lost in the bureaucracy or ignored by the higher-ups in the Bush administration.
The sad truth about 9/11 is that they had ample warning and could have prevented it with the laws in place without the need for any big brotherish "Patriot Act".
The sad truth about post 9/11 is that you could solve the airline threat by simply keeping guns off the planes (was already done) and fortifying the cockpit door. That's it! Problem solved! No need for TSA, no need to show ID to get on the plane, none of that!
Basically our Government completely failed us and now it wants more power. People should have been asking why they weren't using the power they had effectively in the first place -- instead of why they need more.
. Add in the fact that the Firemen who responded bravely (abet dumb) fought the fire without any protective equipment
It's easy to be brave when the KGB is pointing guns at you and telling you to "put out the fire". Or when your bosses give you paper suits and tell you that they will protect you from the radioactivity;)
Yeah, I bet they all "volunteered" to go into that plant and put out the fire.
Even if the onus of proof is on the prosecution, that won't stop them from creating a long, drawn-out trial that will bankrupt the defendant before the case even gets close to providing justice.
Maybe we need a right to a speedy trial for civil suits then as well as criminal?
In a criminal prosecution they would not be able to bankrupt you doing this -- in most states anyway. In my state they only have six months to bring any felony (besides murder) to trial once you are charged. Perhaps this would be a reasonable rule for civil trials as well?
There's no reason that any lawsuit should be allowed to drag on for years and years.
They are censoring Kazaa lite in response to a DMCA complaint. Scroll down to the bottom of the search results and you'll see something rather interesting.
They get props for that one IMHO. A great big "fuck you" to the DMCA. Too bad they lost that moral backbone and decided to do business with China.
Although this may be an unpopular viewpoint here - Google did what they had to do. However they did it reluctantly. As they pointed out they have to follow the laws of the country they're in. Regarding censorship - there are ways around the GFC and people benefit from even the censored version of Google compared to nothing at all.
Bullshit they did "what they had to do". If they wanted to take a moral stand they'd refuse to sell their product in China. Ditto for all American companies. They need us just as badly as we need them.
And don't give me that "duty to maximize shareholder wealth" line either. As I recall Google's common stock only has 1/10 the voting power that the insiders do. They can't use shareholder pressure as an excuse for doing this. It's pure greed.
Driving without a license != having a license but not having it on your person.
I can drive anywhere I want within my own state without having my license on my physical person -- as long as I'm able to present it within 24 hours of being asked.
For all the hooplah around the "Papers Please" guy, if he had just said, "I'm sorry officer, but I don't have my license on me at this moment" instead of throwing a hissy fit and screaming then nothing would have happened.
Repeat after me: "I'm sorry officer, but I don't have my license on me at this moment. My name is [whatever]." You aren't going to get arrested for that anywhere in the United States.
Slashdot Mirror
You have no right to cause damage or injury to anyone else on the highway.
And you can prove that my driving at the speed the highway was designed for is going to cause injury or damage? To others that made the informed choice to use a controled access highway?
Oh wait, your just a troll. N/m then.
Increasing spee limits with, say, 10, would do almost nothing to how fast you get to your destination (those three minutes you save are totally irrelevant) except on very long trips, while at the same time drastically increasing damage, injury, and chance of fatality in the event of an accident.
And if I choose to take the risk of damage/injury or death that's my right. The interstate highways were designed with 75-85mph in mind. Why are most of them posted 55-65? Could it be a revenue source perhaps?
Another rant of mine is when the cops blow past me doing 85mph themselves without their lights on. Am I the only one that thinks they should have to obey all traffic laws unless actually responding to a call/chasing someone? Want to amuse yourself? Get in the left lane right next to Grandma in the right lane doing the speed limit and sit there when the cop illegally tailgates you trying to force you to move over so he can resume his 85mph trek. I held a NYS State Trooper behind me for 15 minutes doing this once. Had he been anybody else he probably would have gotten a ticket for following too closely.
When law enforcement/local judges/local politicians start obeying the speed limit then I'll consider doing so as well. I don't care that you are an off duty trooper or that you have Assemblyman's plates. Obey the law if you expect the rest of us to do so.
I think part of the problem is that the government knows America is not ready for drug availability. Look at alcohol---you have to be 21, driving drunk is a punishable offense, giving it to minors is a punishable offense, using it to manipulate someone is a punishable offense---but it's still a HUGE problem! There's plenty of date rape involving alcohol, lots of minors drinking, lots of people driving drunk---I mean, come on, use common sense if you're going to drink!
Maybe it wouldn't be such a problem if it was legal at an earlier age and people learned how to use it responsibly. Think there is any great mystery to booze in a country where you can legally buy it at 18 and where your parents have been giving it to you at dinnertime since you were 5 years old? Think those countries have a problem with binge drinking?
Only in the United States can I sign away my life to a cell phone company/credit card company/military, vote and be tried as an adult without being able to legally buy booze. And date rape/DUI are completely separate issues and bringing them up seems like FUD.
An interesting idea is a "psychoactive research license." Someone could take a special training course, take an exam, and be granted a license for a few years that would let them purchase small quantities of illegal substances and use them in the privacy of their own home. I mean, the Native American Church has an agreement that's sort of like this for the use of peyote in religious ceremonies (the Church has a permit to buy peyote from special DEA-licensed growing farms for certain restricted uses with registered Church members). Of course, if you trafficked the substances, used anything around a minor, became a public nuisance while intoxicated, or tried to operate a vehicle, you'd have your license revoked and be punished in some way.
Funny you should mention the Native American use of peyote. Native Americans are the only ones that need "permission" from the Federal Government to practice their religion. What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is so hard to understand? What you purpose would only create a massive bureaucracy with further control over our lives.
Here's an idea: Legalize all drugs. Prohibit employers from requiring drug tests with an exception for jobs that actually require you to be sober (i.e: truck drivers). Make people take responsibility for their own actions. You may not agree with that extreme of a viewpoint. But you'd have a hard time convincing me that THC should still be illegal.
In 2004, there was actually talk about "delaying" the elections in light of a mysteriously convenient terrorist threat. Luckily, even Bush didn't have the cajones to go through with it. But they wouldn't hesitate for a second if they thought they could get away with it and were behind in the polls. Sadly, they probably could get away with it now.
That seems like fear-mongering to me. You do know that Bush actually doesn't have the right to delay elections anywhere, right? (Well, except maybe in DC) Elections are a state matter. Few people recall that 9/11 happened during the New York State primary. Think Dubya called off that election? Nope! George Pataki (Governor of NYS) did! Dubya literally would not have the authority to do so.
A reading of the Constitution seems to suggest that Congress might be able to change the date that the electors are chosen (by extension the date of Federal voting for President) -- but Federal law would still require the President and Vice President to step down at the end of thier term regardless of the status of any delayed election. At that point it would either go according to the line of succession or Congress would choose the President and Vice President.
In any case, there is no scenario where the Executive Branch has the authority to stop or delay an election in the United States. And I highly doubt that Congress would do so either. We've held elections in the midst of World Wars. The "threat" of terrorism wouldn't be enough to stop one.
If it is a clueless newb, well, they won't notice someone connecting and as they are on some all you can eat plan, it really doesn't matter. I consider much the same like using a store's restroom or water fountain even if I don't buy anything there.
And if they aren't on an all you can eat plan? What if they have that AP hooked up to a celluar service where they pay for each megabyte? I don't think the store would let you use their restroom if they paid $5 per flush ;)
Yeah, I know. Unlikely. But it's a valid point.
a knife is a sharp object and you arent allowed to carry knives in the UK either.
And I could make the case that the UK is ten times closer to becoming a police state then the US is. Our Government isn't trying to force us to all adopt mandatory biometric IDs (yet). We don't have a country wide system of cameras monitoring our highways and cities. But all of that is really besides the point, isn't it? Just because your gun/weapon laws work for the UK doesn't mean they would work for the US. I find it interesting that Europeans get all hot and bothered when they perceive that we are trying to force our values on them -- but then they turn around and do the same thing!
and what about the other half of the population that doesnt support him? should they allow him to rule them when he wasnt legally elected? quite frankly the half that do support him shouldnt' let him get away with cheating either.
You do understand that according to the laws in the United States he was actually legally elected? He received a majority of the Electoral College. That's it, game over. Don't you think that if it was actually illegal Gore would have fought it more? I'm not defending the way he won the election or his policies but I don't quite understand how you make the leap to "illegal".
You've always been allowed to listen to radio transmissions. Is the same reason you can listen to police, fire department, etc. radios. If they don't want you to listen, then they will encrypt the transmission.
Actually it's illegal in the United States to listen to wireless phone conversations. This applies to both cordless phones that plug into POTS and older AMPS cell phones that could be listened to with scanners.
Of course this isn't really enforceable -- if you buy a scanner and hack it to listen to these conversations nobody can really prove that you are doing it. But the point that it is actually illegal still stands.
If you don't secure a wireless connection that spills onto other people's property, why shouldn't they use it until told otherwise?
If your cordless phone connection spills onto their property, why shouldn't they use your base station or listen to your calls until told otherwise?
Of course, they can't do that you'll say, because it might cost you money. Using their internet connection might cost them money! Granted, it's rare, but what if they receive internet service from celluar and pay for each megabyte?
I just think it's pretty arrogant to assume that you can use it without permission just because it's unsecured.
plus, you can't hold up a bank with a blunt object
Really? I beg to differ. Have you ever been a bank teller? We were told to just give them the money regardless of what kind of weapon they had. Do you know how many banks are robbed with nothing more then a note saying "give me the money"?
and you cant take out a room full of unarmed people with a blunt object.
Seemed to work for the 9/11 hijackers. Granted, probably wouldn't work in the post 9/11 world, but the point is still valid. And what do you mean by "take out"? Kill or neturalize? Because if all you mean is "neturalize" then I can think of lots of convenance stores that get robbed by punks armed with nothing more then a knife. Yes, the people in the store could probably take him down. But is it worth getting cut for someone elses money?
if the american gun lobby is so sure that giving the general population guns will stop the government misbehaving, why isnt anyone storming the whitehouse with uzis, taking out the unelected emperor that stole control of their country 7 years ago?
Because half the population supports the "unelected emperor"?
Hey, I'm not a big fan of guns either. I don't own one. But I don't see any harm in letting people own them either. Firearms have been a part of American history since the first Minuteman picked up his farmers musket and took aim at the Redcoats.
I'm just hoping that this obviously bright and hardworking fella didn't make a deal that he can't wiggle out of.
If you are bright enough then you can make a deal with them that you no longer need to be a hardworking fella.
However, it could quite feasibly be logged; some networks use channel bots, such as P on Netgamers and Q on Quakenet, which could quite easily be instructed to log all lines from any channel it resides in.
Actually those bots are usually umode +d (deaf) or whatever the non ircu equiv is. They don't see any channel text. Not that it would be impossible for them to use them to log stuff. But there would be easier ways of monitoring an IRC channel then to rely on it's channel bot.
I think that it's partially a case of Iraqi patriotism, partially a case of the Sunni's not wanting to become a minority power in a country they ruled for decades, and partially the sheer amount of ineptitude that we took into the country in the first place (no plan for the post-war).
The first case is pretty obvious. Think of how you'd react if our country was invaded? Even if we were being ruled by an insane dictator who was running rape rooms and oppressing 2/3's of the population.
The second case is also pretty obvious. The Sunni's were the ruling power under Saddam. Whether or not most of them approved of his methods (the power elite certainly did -- I'd like to think the average Sunni on the street did not) they have to be scared shitless that the same kind of stuff will happen to them if they become a minority power. Think of the ruling power in South Africa and the fears they had. To this day it still amazes me that was solved without much bloodshed.
The third case is where it gets muddy. We obviously didn't win any hearts and minds by securing the oil fields whilst letting hospitals get looted. It's hard to win hearts and minds when you can't even keep the lights on 24 hours a day. Disbanding the Iraqi military was a huge mistake.
The thing that sticks out in my head the most however was this Iraqi man that got interviewed on the street by a CNN crew embedded with our forces during the first few days of the War. He kept asking our troops "Not like 1991 is it? You won't leave this time?" Think about what we did after the First Gulf War. We (Bush Sr.) encouraged them to rise up and throw off the shackles of Saddam. Then we allowed Saddam to use his helicopters and stood by and did nothing while he slaughtered and brutally crushed them.
Take that little bit of history then toss it on top of the criminal incompetence that went on during/right after the fall of Saddam's regime and you can see why winning hearts and minds is a next to impossible task.
The really sad thing is that I don't see any way out of this mess. I don't see a way out of it for us, I don't see a way out of it for the Iraqi insurgent fighter that really thinks he's fighting for his own freedom and I don't see a way out of it for the Iraqi people. I completely disagreed with going into the country in the first place but I'm more upset about the sheer incompetence that followed the war then I am with the war in the first place.
*Sigh*
OK, you don't really believe that do you? YOu REALLY think that the Islamic Fundamentalists / Jihad Crew / Suicide Bombers have a respect for the SANCTITY OF LIFE? They don't respect life AT ALL!
Did I say the Fundamentalists have a respect for life? Did I say that? I don't recall saying that. I recall saying that the insurgents have respect for it.
I think there's a pretty big difference between an Al Quada scumbag hiding in a cave somewhere (whose major goal is to incite a war between the West and Islam) and the Iraqi insurgent fighting for what he believes is the freedom of his homeland. You might say that blowing up cars and checkpoints isn't the best way to go about obtaining your freedom.... well, the British said that hiding behind trees and sniping at Redcoats wasn't the best way to obtain ours either. And as for them attacking "innocents"? Go back to 1776 and talk to some British Loyalists and find out what life was like for them during the Revolutionary War. In fact after the war most of them were forced to move to Canada. Was that right? Probably not. But it's a fact of history.
I have some respect for the Iraqi insurgents. I have zero respect for the religious fanatics that are over there now trying to turn it into a Holy War against the infidel west. The fact that you don't realize there is a difference between the two is a little sad and shows how misinformed you are.
First off, "war on terror" != "WW2".
Where the hell did I say war on terror? Why did you even bring that up? I largely agree with you that the war on terror is bullshit! I took exception to your insulting comments about people in the military. I didn't even specify which military I was talking about and went so far as to include insurgents in my example of how badly people are scarred by war.
As for the "low threshold". If these people placed any value on the lives of others they would question being in the military and seriously give oppressing other nations a rest.
Give me a fucking break. Oppressing other nations? They don't see it that way. Hell, I'm opposed to the war and I don't see it that way! The difference between you and I is that I'm willing to acknowledge your viewpoint and you have no idea where mine is coming from.
*** TEN TIMES *** the number of dead on 9/11 have died in Iraq since March 2003.
How the hell is that relevant to your insulting comment that started this "discussion"? Why do you even bring that up if for no other reason then to inflame opinion? I'm trying to decide if you are interested in a relational conversation or just a flamefest. I'm leaning towards flamefest.
*** YOU ARE *** the terrorists you sick fucking depraved lunatics!
If I'm the "terrorist" and I largely agree with your thoughts about the war then what does that make people who supported it? You are a radical leftist flower child who is just as dangerous as the radical rightist neo-con. Where is the sanity and the rational discussion with people like you (on either side)?
I'm not wasting anymore time with you.
First off, the average marine/army recruit is between the age of 17 and 22. Second, that amounts to jack squat in life experience.
And your point is?
Third, the Military preys on the poor and least educated folk under the guise of "military education". E.g. give us 5 years of your life and we might give you a college education. These people are vulnerable in that they come from poor families and/or don't think they have any chances to make it in the real world.
Again, your point?
Fourth, it's no secret that the US goals in the middle east are far less than altruistic. You [including other UN nations of which I'm ashamed to say Canada was party to] let the Rwandans get slaughtered, you let blood diamond mining go on, etc, etc, etc, yet it's SOOOOO important to "liberate" Iraq and Iran. Despite the fact you basically brought Iraq to a civil war....
So your opposed to the war? Big shock there. Again, how the hell is it relevant? I took serious exception to your "low threshold" remark and you haven't done a damn thing to defend it. Have you ever talked to anybody who has been in a war? It doesn't matter which war. Take your pick. WW2, Vietnam, Falklands.... If you think that soldiers/insurgents have a low threshold for the sanctity of life and that they are able to take that life lightly and without being bothered by it for the rest of their lives then you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
It's people like you that give the rest of us on the left a bad name.
Besides, the average marine has about a high school education, no morals and a low threshold for the sanctity of life. They might as well be robots anyways. :-)
That's a pretty insulting comment to make from somebody that has no fucking clue what he's talking about. Whatever you think about the "War" (I was/am opposed to it) saying that either side has a low threshold for the "sanctity of life" is just plain insulting and rude.
Ever hear of PTSD? Shell-shock? Do you think that Marines/soliders or even the insurgents that they are fighting take life lightly? And what the hell does the level of education have to do with anything? That's just being a snob.
The newspapers were discolsing secret details of crime investigations.. you know, those little details they use to confirm confessions that are sensitive to leads in the investigations? This newspaper, desperate to give more details than the others, compromised the police departments ability to investigate crimes.
You got a well deserved +5 insightful.... but for the wrong reason IMHO.
Freedom of the press is too important of a right to have it compromised to protect the police departments ability to investigate crimes. If that's all you need to do to shut the press up then all the Government has to do is call something a crime and it becomes illegal for them to publish anything about it. See the problem here?
The reason you deserve that +5 however is the fact that the newspaper stepped way over the line on this one. In order to obtain information for a story they broke into a computer network and thus committed a crime. Had they published this information merely by obtaining it from sources then I'd have no problem. The source that gave them the password should have just given them the information directly.
See the difference?
Frankly, I'm not mad at the government for being unable to stop the 9/11 attacks.
Frankly, I'm mad as hell about it considering that they had all sorts of warning signs that either got lost in the bureaucracy or ignored by the higher-ups in the Bush administration.
The sad truth about 9/11 is that they had ample warning and could have prevented it with the laws in place without the need for any big brotherish "Patriot Act".
The sad truth about post 9/11 is that you could solve the airline threat by simply keeping guns off the planes (was already done) and fortifying the cockpit door. That's it! Problem solved! No need for TSA, no need to show ID to get on the plane, none of that!
Basically our Government completely failed us and now it wants more power. People should have been asking why they weren't using the power they had effectively in the first place -- instead of why they need more.
. Add in the fact that the Firemen who responded bravely (abet dumb) fought the fire without any protective equipment
It's easy to be brave when the KGB is pointing guns at you and telling you to "put out the fire". Or when your bosses give you paper suits and tell you that they will protect you from the radioactivity ;)
Yeah, I bet they all "volunteered" to go into that plant and put out the fire.
I find I'd rather go to bars and restaurants, where the price tends to keep it limited to people that know how to properly behave and be polite
People who know how to properly behave and be polite? You have obviously never been in a bar where I live ;)
Even if the onus of proof is on the prosecution, that won't stop them from creating a long, drawn-out trial that will bankrupt the defendant before the case even gets close to providing justice.
Maybe we need a right to a speedy trial for civil suits then as well as criminal?
In a criminal prosecution they would not be able to bankrupt you doing this -- in most states anyway. In my state they only have six months to bring any felony (besides murder) to trial once you are charged. Perhaps this would be a reasonable rule for civil trials as well?
There's no reason that any lawsuit should be allowed to drag on for years and years.
They are censoring Kazaa lite in response to a DMCA complaint. Scroll down to the bottom of the search results and you'll see something rather interesting.
They get props for that one IMHO. A great big "fuck you" to the DMCA. Too bad they lost that moral backbone and decided to do business with China.
Although this may be an unpopular viewpoint here - Google did what they had to do. However they did it reluctantly. As they pointed out they have to follow the laws of the country they're in. Regarding censorship - there are ways around the GFC and people benefit from even the censored version of Google compared to nothing at all.
Bullshit they did "what they had to do". If they wanted to take a moral stand they'd refuse to sell their product in China. Ditto for all American companies. They need us just as badly as we need them.
And don't give me that "duty to maximize shareholder wealth" line either. As I recall Google's common stock only has 1/10 the voting power that the insiders do. They can't use shareholder pressure as an excuse for doing this. It's pure greed.
As is driving without a license.
Driving without a license != having a license but not having it on your person.
I can drive anywhere I want within my own state without having my license on my physical person -- as long as I'm able to present it within 24 hours of being asked.
For all the hooplah around the "Papers Please" guy, if he had just said, "I'm sorry officer, but I don't have my license on me at this moment" instead of throwing a hissy fit and screaming then nothing would have happened.
Repeat after me: "I'm sorry officer, but I don't have my license on me at this moment. My name is [whatever]." You aren't going to get arrested for that anywhere in the United States.
Ouch! I make a wiseass remark and you use it to slam me for an opinion I stated (that I still stand by) in a discussion weeks ago.
;)
Dunno if I should be mad or amused. I'm opting for amused right now