Um, maybe your problems are due to the fact that Vista is beta? And maybe that you don't have Vista drivers for you CF card? Perhaps you should wait until the RTM versions.
The only thing true about your first paragraph is the wisdom of the founders. They also called for a strong executive, specifically for circumstances involving war.
And we are NOT at war, no more than we are really at war with drugs, or whatever other war on XYZ is popular at the time. We didn't shift from a peacetime to wartime economy, and even Bush tells us to 'go about our everday business.' That doesn't sound like something you'd say in the middle of a war, does it? The so called war on terrorism is just another excuse for the government to abuse its power, just like the war on drugs has been.
What we have is a group of criminals who do want to harm innocent people. But just like the mob, they are criminals, and we don't declare war against criminals, but we follow law and proceedure to bring them to justice. If we were really at war i'd be we'd be under martial law, wouldn't you agree?
Your second assertion is also not true, or if it is, you cannot prove it. I could construct a large number of scenarios that Al Qaeda cells could use to kill large numbers of us - even if they don't get hold of nukes (which they will one of these days).
Your assertion is much less provable (and logical) than mine. If they could have crashed planes in every city, why did they not do so? You say they 'want to kill as many of us as possible [sic]', so doesn't it logically follow that when they make an attack, they WILL try to kill as many as they possibly can? What reason would they have to hold back? Your assertion that they WILL get a nuke is also unfounded and unprovable, so you should really stop stating it as if it were fact. How do you know they'll get one? Because you said so? Because they want to? There are alot of things i really want too, yet I don't think I'll be able to get them.
The important fact that you miss is that, specifically due to modern technology, a few people, with either no state sponsorship or well hidden sponsorship, can do a whole lot of damage. They did so on 9-11.
9/11 was NOT 'a whole lot of damage.' Four buildings, and 2,000 lives, but comparing that the to total number of building in the US, and the number of people living here, its not much at all. Wiping out NYC entirely, that's 'a whole lot of damage.'
The real damage of 9/11 was the panic it caused in you to make you believe that you actually might get caught in one of their attacks. Statistically, you're much more likely to die in a car crash than a terrorist attack. The US has 300 million people, and those people are pretty well spread out. Given the geography and shear size of our country, the chances of you or someone you love being involved in an attack are small.
The other major damage from 9/11 was our civil liberties, what are supposed to be our most cheerished asset, being throw to the wind as, because people like you are acting not like a logic person, but like a frightened and paniced animal.
They have demonstrated that they still have that capacity in Bali, Madrid, London, Breslan and a number of other places.
And the attacks in those countries did not destroy them did they? Again, the damage they did and the lives they took were small. Its certainly wrong, and I don't think they have a right to be killing anyone, but you seem to be buying into their plan. They want us to panic and act rashly, because we will make more mistakes that way (oh, like pissing off our ally's, destabilizing the middle east and asia) and they want us to prove to them that we are hippocrites that only pay lip service to our ideals.
Al Qaeda has attempted to use chemical weapons (London), has expressed an interest in biological weapons (which can be much more deadly and are a lot easier to get/create than most people think), and has a desire for nuclear weapons (which they don't have the ability to create but might have the money to buy).
And they haven't been very successful either. They can want a nuke all they want, doesn'
To not be able to intercept their international communications because of some paranoia is idiotic.
First, its not paranoia, the government is clearly breaking well established laws. Second, there is a good reason that law exists. The abuse of power has ALREADY happened. The framers weren't dealing with hypotehtical abuses, they had real examples from their time to use, and they decided its better to limit the government, even if that means catching the bad guys is harder.
Get a clue: these people want to kill lots of us (they have a dispensation from Allah to kill 4,000,000 innocents). To do so, they need agents in the US. To stop them, we need to detect those agents.
Indeed. However, they aren't capabile of doing it, and they weren't before 9/11 either. Otherwise, wouldn't there have been a HUGE number of attacks that day, not just in NYC and near Washington? They simply don't have (and never did have) those kinds of resources.
You're right, we need to detect those agents. But lets do it within the confines of the law, and not let one man decide based on his whims. I prefer rule of law over rule of man.
Perhaps those of you that are so vehemently against the NSA's actions would like to be in the next crowd of people that die from a terrorist attack when, not if, it happens?
Please, give it a rest already. First off, you're going to die no matter what. Second, if its inevitable that another terrorist attack is going to happen, then why violate well established law if its not going to stop an attack?
Would that make you happy if it meant dying because your whining and crying changed the law to make it illegal to wiretap a conversation from a phone outside our country to a known terrorist?
I'd be dead, so I probably wouldn't care either way anymore. At any rate, I think you need to get your facts straight; an American calling another country is STILl protected by the US Consititution. I know, you hate law, it gets in the way of whatever Bush wants to do. Lets go back to rule of man, that was a much better system.
If that meant that call wasn't monitored and they were able to carry out another attack and you or your family died? Would that make you happy?
What kind of idiocy is that? Your question does nothing to argue about the legality of the wiretaps, you're attempting to play on emotions to force people into action without thinking, because you're so fucking scared of dying. Like a child (or an animal), you have no thought process and act soley on your emotions. Good for you, you're being played by the terrorists like a fiddle. For a reality check, there were at least 10.5 times the amount of traffic fatalities as there were killed in the WTC attack. So you're much more likely to die in a car crash than a terrorist attack.
I REALLY wish people would stop making statements of "fact" that the wiretaps were illegal.
They were. You ignore the FACT that there are two people (at least) in a phone converstation, and calls going overseas involve (at least) one US citizen. A wiretap is a search, and a search is illegal unless it was authorized by a warrant. That's called Due Process and spelled out very clearly in the 4th Amendment. No warrant for a wiretap that involves a US citizen is an illegal search. It doesn't matter if its the NSA, or FBI, or the President himself, the government can't do it.
It's LEGAL for the NSA to wiretap that conversation! The NSA deals with people outside the USA making contact with others outsite the USA AND those outside contacting people inside our country.
The bold part is where it becomes illegal; again, try reading the 4th Amendment sometime. Your own arguement admits spying was done inside the country without a warrant. Not very bright..
Personally I think its a bit short sighted to just say 'I hate MS.' Its like saying that the US gov't is evil. Yes, there are parts of it that are, but do you really think that the Dept. of Parks (or whatever the official name is) is evil? Probably not.
MS is just too big to paint the entire company one color;.net is a great platform to build applications in, but VB6 really sucks. Their licensing policy is crappy (although most commercial software is in the same boat), but they don't seem to be smashing people with patents.
MS has its good aspects as well as its bad; lean on the bad ones to see if you can't get them to turn around, but its not necessary to try and bash them at every turn.
Visual Studio 2005 format is incompatible with 2003. It doesn't even seem to have an export function.
Wow, you just seem to want to jump on the bash MS train don't you?
First off, lets be clear. Its only the Solution and Project files that are incompatible, and there's a very good reason for that. You CANNOT develop.Net 1.0 or 1.1 application using VS2005, nor can you develop.Net 2.0 applications with VS2003. VS2005 can upgrade your solution and project files to the newer version if you want to move your code to 2.0.
All the other files however are compatible, and if you really wanted to, you could create a new project file and just add the existing code files.
I learned my first year of college that buying textbooks was a waste, with the exception being math text books (since they contained the problems assigned for homework).
I found that if i paid attention in class and took really good notes, that was sufficient to do well on the tests. It probably also helped that I took a concentration in philosophy in addition to my CS major.:-)
If i truly did nothing wrong except piss off the cops, yes various laws would protect me, because I would charge the cops in question with wrongful arrest and any other relevent violations.
The law states cops are not above yet; thats the foundation of our government.
Oh, and I have "run my mouth off" at a cop; one that tried to make up a speeding ticket, but once he found out that I knew my rights, he backed down and let me go on my way.
Because I see employers that want Sql Server or Oracle skills, yet haven't seen any that require MySql?
I bet if you took the time to port your database to one of those two and did some benchmarks, you'd probably see better performance... not helpful if your site isn't busy, but if you want to work for an employer who's site will be busy, proably a good thing.
I agree. My seat belt law would be 'if you don't wear it, thats your choice, but if you don't, your medical insurance doesn't have to pay for your injuries.'
Let people suffer the consequences of thier actions, instead of trying to protect them. I'd think people would smarten up pretty quick if we took that route.
If I wanted to fool the machine, I'd simply memorize what was on TV, and pick shows that were reruns (which I had seen). The only lie would be that I didn't watch them on the night in question... but everything would be true.
I don't think its possible to build a machine to detect lying, as reality only exists in your head anyway.
Anonyminity goes a long way to keeping your affairs private.
At the very least the other party of the transaction (the airline) has a right to know who you are.
As long as the seat you are sitting in is paid for, why should they care at all?
However, since most airlines are subject to government regulation, they are considered a public form of travel.
All forms of travel are subject to government regulation, even walking. So by your logic, you cannot travel anonymously. Seems to me like that'd be a great way to keep disidents under control, if they had to show papers every time they wanted to travel. Maybe thats why the Soviets and scores of Fascist governments have always had a strong policy requiring you to identify yourself.
A cop can do to you whatever he pleases. Freedom does not mean do as thou willst is the whole of the law.
Those two statements are contradictory. Unless you want to say that cops are above the law. However in the US, nobody is supposed to be above the law, so no, the cop CANNOT do whatever he pleases to you.
Whether Joe Idiot or Judge Dufus thinks tapping phone lines is fine or not the Constitution clearly says it is illegal for the Federal Government to do so. Now if the states or cities did it...
It would be just as illegal. States and cities still must follow federal law, including the Constitution.
Having someone stamp your ballot means someone else has seen your ballot, and in the US votes are supposed to be anonymous (so that you can vote as you please without fear of retribution if you don't vote the way someone else wants you to).
It seems that without the stamp, your system quickly falls apart, because its possible to stuff the ballot now.
Your solutions are basically "keep producing or die". That's nonsense.
Why? Don't I have to work everyday to keep a roof over my head and food on the table? Why should an artist do a few things and then get to retire early? If you aren't producing something, what value are you to society?
Sure, there are new media out there, such as XM or Web radio, but they lack broadcast's "critical mass"
XM has 6 million subscribers. No, its not as much as commercial radio, but its not insignificant either. Sirrus has 3 million (although if you look at the latest Barrons, they are in trouble, while XM is looking to grow even more rapidly).
I don't think the problem is 'talking heads', as just before i stopped listening to commercial music, the stations were actually starting to play MORE music and less talk. But its still mainly the same top 40 crap, that's the problem.
While I bought XM mainly for the talk radio, I've heard some new bands i would have never heard on commercial radio, because there is no commercial radio station that plays the music I like. XM even has a few channels dedicated to unsigned artists.
I don't think its radio per say; i think its the RIAA's control over radio that is music's biggest problem.
That may be, but I'm not arguing the act isn't selfish, I'm arguing that the act was not noble. So I think your point is irrelevent to the case I'm trying to make (that the US' removing of a dictator they put in place to begin with is not a noble act).
In general undoing a wrong you've committed is the right thing to do; however I don't believe in praising people when they've done something right (because I expect people to do the right thing) and I certainly don't think that one should be held in high esteem for undoing a wrong they committed.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, maybe your problems are due to the fact that Vista is beta? And maybe that you don't have Vista drivers for you CF card? Perhaps you should wait until the RTM versions.
Why would you use a beta for production work at all?
The only thing true about your first paragraph is the wisdom of the founders. They also called for a strong executive, specifically for circumstances involving war.
And we are NOT at war, no more than we are really at war with drugs, or whatever other war on XYZ is popular at the time. We didn't shift from a peacetime to wartime economy, and even Bush tells us to 'go about our everday business.' That doesn't sound like something you'd say in the middle of a war, does it? The so called war on terrorism is just another excuse for the government to abuse its power, just like the war on drugs has been.
What we have is a group of criminals who do want to harm innocent people. But just like the mob, they are criminals, and we don't declare war against criminals, but we follow law and proceedure to bring them to justice. If we were really at war i'd be we'd be under martial law, wouldn't you agree?
Your second assertion is also not true, or if it is, you cannot prove it. I could construct a large number of scenarios that Al Qaeda cells could use to kill large numbers of us - even if they don't get hold of nukes (which they will one of these days).
Your assertion is much less provable (and logical) than mine. If they could have crashed planes in every city, why did they not do so? You say they 'want to kill as many of us as possible [sic]', so doesn't it logically follow that when they make an attack, they WILL try to kill as many as they possibly can? What reason would they have to hold back? Your assertion that they WILL get a nuke is also unfounded and unprovable, so you should really stop stating it as if it were fact. How do you know they'll get one? Because you said so? Because they want to? There are alot of things i really want too, yet I don't think I'll be able to get them.
The important fact that you miss is that, specifically due to modern technology, a few people, with either no state sponsorship or well hidden sponsorship, can do a whole lot of damage. They did so on 9-11.
9/11 was NOT 'a whole lot of damage.' Four buildings, and 2,000 lives, but comparing that the to total number of building in the US, and the number of people living here, its not much at all. Wiping out NYC entirely, that's 'a whole lot of damage.'
The real damage of 9/11 was the panic it caused in you to make you believe that you actually might get caught in one of their attacks. Statistically, you're much more likely to die in a car crash than a terrorist attack. The US has 300 million people, and those people are pretty well spread out. Given the geography and shear size of our country, the chances of you or someone you love being involved in an attack are small.
The other major damage from 9/11 was our civil liberties, what are supposed to be our most cheerished asset, being throw to the wind as, because people like you are acting not like a logic person, but like a frightened and paniced animal.
They have demonstrated that they still have that capacity in Bali, Madrid, London, Breslan and a number of other places.
And the attacks in those countries did not destroy them did they? Again, the damage they did and the lives they took were small. Its certainly wrong, and I don't think they have a right to be killing anyone, but you seem to be buying into their plan. They want us to panic and act rashly, because we will make more mistakes that way (oh, like pissing off our ally's, destabilizing the middle east and asia) and they want us to prove to them that we are hippocrites that only pay lip service to our ideals.
Al Qaeda has attempted to use chemical weapons (London), has expressed an interest in biological weapons (which can be much more deadly and are a lot easier to get/create than most people think), and has a desire for nuclear weapons (which they don't have the ability to create but might have the money to buy).
And they haven't been very successful either. They can want a nuke all they want, doesn'
To not be able to intercept their international communications because of some paranoia is idiotic.
First, its not paranoia, the government is clearly breaking well established laws. Second, there is a good reason that law exists. The abuse of power has ALREADY happened. The framers weren't dealing with hypotehtical abuses, they had real examples from their time to use, and they decided its better to limit the government, even if that means catching the bad guys is harder.
Get a clue: these people want to kill lots of us (they have a dispensation from Allah to kill 4,000,000 innocents). To do so, they need agents in the US. To stop them, we need to detect those agents.
Indeed. However, they aren't capabile of doing it, and they weren't before 9/11 either. Otherwise, wouldn't there have been a HUGE number of attacks that day, not just in NYC and near Washington? They simply don't have (and never did have) those kinds of resources.
You're right, we need to detect those agents. But lets do it within the confines of the law, and not let one man decide based on his whims. I prefer rule of law over rule of man.
Perhaps those of you that are so vehemently against the NSA's actions would like to be in the next crowd of people that die from a terrorist attack when, not if, it happens?
Please, give it a rest already. First off, you're going to die no matter what. Second, if its inevitable that another terrorist attack is going to happen, then why violate well established law if its not going to stop an attack?
Would that make you happy if it meant dying because your whining and crying changed the law to make it illegal to wiretap a conversation from a phone outside our country to a known terrorist?
I'd be dead, so I probably wouldn't care either way anymore. At any rate, I think you need to get your facts straight; an American calling another country is STILl protected by the US Consititution. I know, you hate law, it gets in the way of whatever Bush wants to do. Lets go back to rule of man, that was a much better system.
If that meant that call wasn't monitored and they were able to carry out another attack and you or your family died? Would that make you happy?
What kind of idiocy is that? Your question does nothing to argue about the legality of the wiretaps, you're attempting to play on emotions to force people into action without thinking, because you're so fucking scared of dying. Like a child (or an animal), you have no thought process and act soley on your emotions. Good for you, you're being played by the terrorists like a fiddle. For a reality check, there were at least 10.5 times the amount of traffic fatalities as there were killed in the WTC attack. So you're much more likely to die in a car crash than a terrorist attack.
I REALLY wish people would stop making statements of "fact" that the wiretaps were illegal.
They were. You ignore the FACT that there are two people (at least) in a phone converstation, and calls going overseas involve (at least) one US citizen. A wiretap is a search, and a search is illegal unless it was authorized by a warrant. That's called Due Process and spelled out very clearly in the 4th Amendment. No warrant for a wiretap that involves a US citizen is an illegal search. It doesn't matter if its the NSA, or FBI, or the President himself, the government can't do it.
It's LEGAL for the NSA to wiretap that conversation! The NSA deals with people outside the USA making contact with others outsite the USA AND those outside contacting people inside our country.
The bold part is where it becomes illegal; again, try reading the 4th Amendment sometime. Your own arguement admits spying was done inside the country without a warrant. Not very bright..
Personally I think its a bit short sighted to just say 'I hate MS.' Its like saying that the US gov't is evil. Yes, there are parts of it that are, but do you really think that the Dept. of Parks (or whatever the official name is) is evil? Probably not.
.net is a great platform to build applications in, but VB6 really sucks. Their licensing policy is crappy (although most commercial software is in the same boat), but they don't seem to be smashing people with patents.
MS is just too big to paint the entire company one color;
MS has its good aspects as well as its bad; lean on the bad ones to see if you can't get them to turn around, but its not necessary to try and bash them at every turn.
I think Nedit can highlight PHP code. If not there are certainly other applications that can. One I know of is KDE based..can't remember the name.
Visual Studio 2005 format is incompatible with 2003. It doesn't even seem to have an export function.
.Net 1.0 or 1.1 application using VS2005, nor can you develop .Net 2.0 applications with VS2003. VS2005 can upgrade your solution and project files to the newer version if you want to move your code to 2.0.
Wow, you just seem to want to jump on the bash MS train don't you?
First off, lets be clear. Its only the Solution and Project files that are incompatible, and there's a very good reason for that. You CANNOT develop
All the other files however are compatible, and if you really wanted to, you could create a new project file and just add the existing code files.
I learned my first year of college that buying textbooks was a waste, with the exception being math text books (since they contained the problems assigned for homework).
:-)
I found that if i paid attention in class and took really good notes, that was sufficient to do well on the tests. It probably also helped that I took a concentration in philosophy in addition to my CS major.
If i truly did nothing wrong except piss off the cops, yes various laws would protect me, because I would charge the cops in question with wrongful arrest and any other relevent violations.
The law states cops are not above yet; thats the foundation of our government.
Oh, and I have "run my mouth off" at a cop; one that tried to make up a speeding ticket, but once he found out that I knew my rights, he backed down and let me go on my way.
As an aside, there are free .Net IDE's out there (well, one at least). Google for SharpDevelop.. if fact the UI looks very similar to Studio 2005.
.Net components, like SharpZipLib, which allows you to work with Zip files.
The site that has SharpDevelop also has some other useful
Because I see employers that want Sql Server or Oracle skills, yet haven't seen any that require MySql?
I bet if you took the time to port your database to one of those two and did some benchmarks, you'd probably see better performance... not helpful if your site isn't busy, but if you want to work for an employer who's site will be busy, proably a good thing.
I agree. My seat belt law would be 'if you don't wear it, thats your choice, but if you don't, your medical insurance doesn't have to pay for your injuries.'
Let people suffer the consequences of thier actions, instead of trying to protect them. I'd think people would smarten up pretty quick if we took that route.
This is much more analytical than intuitive to do.
But if you practice something enough, does it not become intiuitive, even if it was analyzed first?
If I wanted to fool the machine, I'd simply memorize what was on TV, and pick shows that were reruns (which I had seen). The only lie would be that I didn't watch them on the night in question... but everything would be true.
I don't think its possible to build a machine to detect lying, as reality only exists in your head anyway.
Privacy is not the same thing as anonymity.
Anonyminity goes a long way to keeping your affairs private.
At the very least the other party of the transaction (the airline) has a right to know who you are.
As long as the seat you are sitting in is paid for, why should they care at all?
However, since most airlines are subject to government regulation, they are considered a public form of travel.
All forms of travel are subject to government regulation, even walking. So by your logic, you cannot travel anonymously. Seems to me like that'd be a great way to keep disidents under control, if they had to show papers every time they wanted to travel. Maybe thats why the Soviets and scores of Fascist governments have always had a strong policy requiring you to identify yourself.
There is NOTHING that can prevent that abuse of power from taking place. If there was, it wouldn't be power.
I would argue the Constitution is in place to prevent abuses of power.
A cop can do to you whatever he pleases.
Freedom does not mean do as thou willst is the whole of the law.
Those two statements are contradictory. Unless you want to say that cops are above the law. However in the US, nobody is supposed to be above the law, so no, the cop CANNOT do whatever he pleases to you.
What cause did they even have to ask for his name?
Whether Joe Idiot or Judge Dufus thinks tapping phone lines is fine or not the Constitution clearly says it is illegal for the Federal Government to do so. Now if the states or cities did it...
It would be just as illegal. States and cities still must follow federal law, including the Constitution.
I'm not sure your system would work here.
Having someone stamp your ballot means someone else has seen your ballot, and in the US votes are supposed to be anonymous (so that you can vote as you please without fear of retribution if you don't vote the way someone else wants you to).
It seems that without the stamp, your system quickly falls apart, because its possible to stuff the ballot now.
Does that mean the companies in your country would not try something similar?
Your solutions are basically "keep producing or die". That's nonsense.
Why? Don't I have to work everyday to keep a roof over my head and food on the table? Why should an artist do a few things and then get to retire early? If you aren't producing something, what value are you to society?
Sure, there are new media out there, such as XM or Web radio, but they lack broadcast's "critical mass"
XM has 6 million subscribers. No, its not as much as commercial radio, but its not insignificant either. Sirrus has 3 million (although if you look at the latest Barrons, they are in trouble, while XM is looking to grow even more rapidly).
I don't think the problem is 'talking heads', as just before i stopped listening to commercial music, the stations were actually starting to play MORE music and less talk. But its still mainly the same top 40 crap, that's the problem.
While I bought XM mainly for the talk radio, I've heard some new bands i would have never heard on commercial radio, because there is no commercial radio station that plays the music I like. XM even has a few channels dedicated to unsigned artists.
I don't think its radio per say; i think its the RIAA's control over radio that is music's biggest problem.
That may be, but I'm not arguing the act isn't selfish, I'm arguing that the act was not noble. So I think your point is irrelevent to the case I'm trying to make (that the US' removing of a dictator they put in place to begin with is not a noble act).
In general undoing a wrong you've committed is the right thing to do; however I don't believe in praising people when they've done something right (because I expect people to do the right thing) and I certainly don't think that one should be held in high esteem for undoing a wrong they committed.