Instead, they sit on the highway during rush hour.
Where i live, there's so much traffic during rush hour they can't pull anyone over; its simply too dangerous. Hence, we have people going 85+ mph in a 55. Suprisingly, this is mostly done safely. The problems are the people that always weaving back and forth, and tailgating.
You tell me where their priorities are.
Seems to me thier priorities are revenue. Enforcement is alot harsher toward the end of month, and suddenly vanishes at the beginning of the next month. To me, this indicates something wrong with the system.
Denying insurance coverage because you were going 2 miles over the speed limit, faulting the wrong driver, having police pull you over to check if you had been speeding earlier on the highway.
I wouldn't want anyone insisting i was at fault because someone cut in front of me quickly and immediately slam on thier brakes.
It has been nearly 20 years, and the sarcophagus has done its job well.
It has, but from the last i heard, it could collapse at any time, sending radioactive material half way around the world. Not really something i'd really want to see happen any time soon, since the results of such a collaspe would be grave.
Anyone know why they are NOT building the new structor to keep radioactivity in?
So, in the past 18 years, there have been two 'sucessful' bio attacks. One, which causes hundreds to get sick, and another which killed under 10 people if i recall.
Not really much to worry about if you ask me.
It's going to get much nastier.
What makes you think that? Seems to me that bio weapons are kinda useless to anyone. If you stop and think of it, the chances of you being a victim of such an attack is very very low. Whats there to be scared of again?
Given the nutty laws i've been hearing coming out of Australia, i think we'll pass on this idea.
This in turn makes you pay more attention to what the government does.
Proof? Even if this is the case in Australia, our culture is different then yours. I'd argue that people would simply vote randomly. If they are too lazy to vote, what makes you think they'll invest MORE time into researching thier vote when they already can't take 20 minutes just vote in the first place?
Also, not voting can be a form of protest against the current system (ie, 2 party system). The candidates wouldn't know if i really was throwing my support behind them, or if i just picked one because i was forced to vote.
You probably played in college...I played in jnr. high school where the only other kids interested in D&D (it seemed) were anti-social losers (I'm including myself). Unsuprisingly, they didn't make for the best role-players (although I would like to think I gave it an honest try).
Nope, it was in HS. I can't speak for my friends, but i was antisocial b/c of how i was 'welcomed' to public schools (previously i was in a private school). I did continue to play however even after people in my school matured and i made more friends. I don't know if we were 'good' roleplayers, but we had fun, and it was one of the things we did to have fun; playing video games was another.
Thats not how D&D was for me. I only played that w/my friends. The DM would change some things or give us a break if it appeared we were losing intrest, but we followed the rules, and he wouldn't make it obvious. Guess it comes down to know the people you game with.
Over-the-air TV now looks substantially better than digital cable because your local stations are throwing more bits out over the air than your cable provider is down the wire for the same program.
Funny, isn't the spec they chose MORE susceptable to interference. That is, people with analog once got a snowy picture, but when they switched to digital, they got no picture at all. Hardly sounds like a solution to me.
When one person loses their right to privacy, another person gains their right to security, and vise versa.
So its ok to take away my rights so that someone else may have their rights? Sorry, i don't think it works that way. I also don't think anyone is gaining security by losing the right to privacy.
Besides, if you're not going to respect my right to privacy, why should i respect your right to security? I don't think you can say 'well, too f'ing bad about your right to privacy, i want my security' and actually believe people will just say ok.
You do realize that auto accidents kill far more people then hand guns or the attacks last year right? Why aren't you screaming that your right to live is in danger and that only the state should be moving people around?
Do we enjoy the same priveledges of the first amendment now as we did 100 years ago?
No. Now if you speak your mind and your opinion is not popular (ie, in sync with the goverments), you may be watched. Don't tell me the FBI isn't abusing thier power; they were watching MLK, Marolyn Monroe and some private citizens some time ago. Why do you think this practice has changed? Especially now in this climate that GWB has created; disagree with him and risk being labels unpatriotic, or worse.
Are people given help by their government when they are unemployed?
Depends who you are. For the most part, unemployement is paid by your former employer, not the goverment.
Do citizens get some free medical care?
No, they do not. The poor are routinly denied medical care, which is why we were pretty far down the list of nations with the best health care. I don't know of anyone that gets free medical care.
How about right to privacy?
This is the one most heavily under assault at this time.
Or the right to security?
Security, to be safe? For starters, i don't think that anything could 100% stop another attack. Not even close most likely. Is security the freedom to not be killed, or just not to be blown up by a terrorist? If its the former, again, start fighting private car ownership and operation. if its the latter, well the chances of my being killed in a terror attack are already very low. Plus, people already have alot of control over this. If you're really afraid, remove yourself from high risk places. Don't work in the Empire state building or other landmarks. Hell, don't live in a city if you're that scared.
You may have the right to live at the base of an active volcano, but don't expect the state to help safeguard your home. If you chose to do that, take the responsibility to ensure your own safety.
But when something drastic comes along, say a major terrorist threat, everyone competes for their most important rights, and we have to settle into a new balance.
So every time a new threat comes along, we fight for a few of the remaining important rights, correct? And then a new threat comes along, and we start fighting from a reduced set of rights. You see, we don't actually seem to get the rights that we lose back, which is part of the problem.
This whole 'we need more police powers' reminds me of Star wars Episode 2. Seriously. A significant threat comes along, they panic, grant emergency powers to the Chancellor, which he promises to reliquish 'as soon as the threat is gone', of course, and well, we all know how that ended up.
Don't think it could happen because its in a movie? Tell me, whats in place to stop it?
You cannot stop terrorists and prevent future attacks unless the government has some ability to tap into private citizens conversations when they feel its justified.
You're assuming its possible to stop them. I'm sure in history there are very secure police states that still had problems with security. Should we clamp down ever more then them?
but I'm confident that these small degredations in our personal privacy are as far as they can go.
Funny how they seem to be getting worse and worse every day. First the patriot act, then this TIA talk. I haven't seen any indication that infringement of our privacy rights is declining.
This is because, in America, we have paranoid, untrusting, civil rights wackos who do a great job of keeping any civil rights degredations in check.
So what you're saying is that you're not going to do the job, because you want someone else to do it for you?
Plus, some of these wackos truely are wacko. Do you really want them to deterime your future?
Well, i hope you at least reconsider your position. Let history be your guide when evaluating your views. Typically the first thing a tyrant ruler will do is disarm the people. You have to look at most 7 decades ago to see this.
If you want a more recent example, look at Englands installation of CC cameras everywhere. Studies i've seen show they do little to stop crime, and are mainly used to watch girls kissing thier boyfriends or looking down thier blouse.
Also, if i may add, i don't think terrorism is stopping your right to pursuit of happiness. Your choosing to let your fear of an attack stop it. You could choose just to go about your everyday tasks and not let it stop you. Lets face it, you're going to die no matter what you do. Personally i'd rather go quickly and unexpectedly then lie there knowing i'm dying and not being able to do anything about it.
Anyway, i hope you think hard about your views, but in the end if you're unchanged, i guess we are going to agree to disagree.:-)
But thats sure the inpression that I get when I watch American Nightly News.
Which is basically why i stopped watching the news. its just shootings in the bad parts of the city, plus some stupid fluff story. The kind of thing that appeals to cowardly idiots.
Ugh. As an alumni of RIT, your attitude makes me sick. You must be an IT major though, since all the CS labs are (or were) running SunOS.
Maybe you should take Carithers' Privacy and Security class, or just go talk to him about MS. I'm sure he can tell you why MS is generally a bad thing.
Think about it: If some lowlife shot your husband, wife, or child wouldn't you suddenly find yourself gung-ho for gun control, irregardless of your present political beliefs.
No, i would have wished that it was legal for them to be armed, so they could have defended themselves.
If you're really that scared, move out of Manhattan. God forbid you be inconvienced so that everyone else can have some privacy.
Nevermind the fact that being killed in a terrorist attack is statistically low. Maybe you should look at the facts before letting fear rule your life.
Oh, and something else i find interesting about your last paragraph. You say the government shouldn't regulate technology, but its ok because they've already regulated the telephone system.
This seems rather contradictary; if you really believed in your position, you'd be calling for deregulation.
Finally, you seem to miss the point that these DNC lists ARE regulations in the telecommunications industry, so your idea doesn't apply by your own admission.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever wonder how the "blank recordable media" tax came to be?
Ever notice that the tax is only on discs labled for use with audio? Do you think that makes plain old blank cdrs useless for making audio cds?
Instead, they sit on the highway during rush hour.
Where i live, there's so much traffic during rush hour they can't pull anyone over; its simply too dangerous. Hence, we have people going 85+ mph in a 55. Suprisingly, this is mostly done safely. The problems are the people that always weaving back and forth, and tailgating.
You tell me where their priorities are.
Seems to me thier priorities are revenue. Enforcement is alot harsher toward the end of month, and suddenly vanishes at the beginning of the next month. To me, this indicates something wrong with the system.
What are the abuses?
Denying insurance coverage because you were going 2 miles over the speed limit, faulting the wrong driver, having police pull you over to check if you had been speeding earlier on the highway.
I wouldn't want anyone insisting i was at fault because someone cut in front of me quickly and immediately slam on thier brakes.
I thought they were [building the new structor to keep radioactivity in].
From the article:
The new shelter will not "contain" the core's radioactivity but will be weatherproof.
There's a river that flows nearby as well, and a wall was constructed underground about 30 meters deep to prevent
If you believe other postings, this wall is falling apart too.
I hope that things really aren't as bad as they were thought in 1996, but i wouldn't want to gamble on it.
As opposed to the nutty laws coming out of the US and UK?
:-)
Point taken. Until recently though, it seemed as if the UK and Aust were leading in this repect.
It has been nearly 20 years, and the sarcophagus has done its job well.
It has, but from the last i heard, it could collapse at any time, sending radioactive material half way around the world. Not really something i'd really want to see happen any time soon, since the results of such a collaspe would be grave.
Anyone know why they are NOT building the new structor to keep radioactivity in?
So, in the past 18 years, there have been two 'sucessful' bio attacks. One, which causes hundreds to get sick, and another which killed under 10 people if i recall.
Not really much to worry about if you ask me.
It's going to get much nastier.
What makes you think that? Seems to me that bio weapons are kinda useless to anyone. If you stop and think of it, the chances of you being a victim of such an attack is very very low. Whats there to be scared of again?
Given the nutty laws i've been hearing coming out of Australia, i think we'll pass on this idea.
This in turn makes you pay more attention to what the government does.
Proof? Even if this is the case in Australia, our culture is different then yours. I'd argue that people would simply vote randomly. If they are too lazy to vote, what makes you think they'll invest MORE time into researching thier vote when they already can't take 20 minutes just vote in the first place?
Also, not voting can be a form of protest against the current system (ie, 2 party system). The candidates wouldn't know if i really was throwing my support behind them, or if i just picked one because i was forced to vote.
You probably played in college...I played in jnr. high school where the only other kids interested in D&D (it seemed) were anti-social losers (I'm including myself). Unsuprisingly, they didn't make for the best role-players (although I would like to think I gave it an honest try).
Nope, it was in HS. I can't speak for my friends, but i was antisocial b/c of how i was 'welcomed' to public schools (previously i was in a private school). I did continue to play however even after people in my school matured and i made more friends. I don't know if we were 'good' roleplayers, but we had fun, and it was one of the things we did to have fun; playing video games was another.
'Bio-terror', in this sense, has already occured. The Aum Shinrikyo sarin attack in Tokyo, for example.
Sarin gas is a chemical weapon. That doesn't support your claim that bioterror has already occured. The anthrax attacks of 2001 would be 'bioterror'.
You seem not to know this simple fact, so i doubt the rest of your post is any more factual.
Sorry, if you're that weakminded, maybe you deserve what you get.
A chemical addiction, ok, i can see that. But a game. Please.
I love games, i could spend all day playing them, but i don't. I know there are other things i have to do, and other more fun things to do as well.
Thats not how D&D was for me. I only played that w/my friends. The DM would change some things or give us a break if it appeared we were losing intrest, but we followed the rules, and he wouldn't make it obvious. Guess it comes down to know the people you game with.
Not buried cable; compared to analog broadcasts. I'll try to find the article about it, it was mentioned here a while ago.
Over-the-air TV now looks substantially better than digital cable because your local stations are throwing more bits out over the air than your cable provider is down the wire for the same program.
Funny, isn't the spec they chose MORE susceptable to interference. That is, people with analog once got a snowy picture, but when they switched to digital, they got no picture at all. Hardly sounds like a solution to me.
When one person loses their right to privacy, another person gains their right to security, and vise versa.
So its ok to take away my rights so that someone else may have their rights? Sorry, i don't think it works that way. I also don't think anyone is gaining security by losing the right to privacy.
Besides, if you're not going to respect my right to privacy, why should i respect your right to security? I don't think you can say 'well, too f'ing bad about your right to privacy, i want my security' and actually believe people will just say ok.
You do realize that auto accidents kill far more people then hand guns or the attacks last year right? Why aren't you screaming that your right to live is in danger and that only the state should be moving people around?
Do we enjoy the same priveledges of the first amendment now as we did 100 years ago?
No. Now if you speak your mind and your opinion is not popular (ie, in sync with the goverments), you may be watched. Don't tell me the FBI isn't abusing thier power; they were watching MLK, Marolyn Monroe and some private citizens some time ago. Why do you think this practice has changed? Especially now in this climate that GWB has created; disagree with him and risk being labels unpatriotic, or worse.
Are people given help by their government when they are unemployed?
Depends who you are. For the most part, unemployement is paid by your former employer, not the goverment.
Do citizens get some free medical care?
No, they do not. The poor are routinly denied medical care, which is why we were pretty far down the list of nations with the best health care. I don't know of anyone that gets free medical care.
How about right to privacy?
This is the one most heavily under assault at this time.
Or the right to security?
Security, to be safe? For starters, i don't think that anything could 100% stop another attack. Not even close most likely. Is security the freedom to not be killed, or just not to be blown up by a terrorist? If its the former, again, start fighting private car ownership and operation. if its the latter, well the chances of my being killed in a terror attack are already very low. Plus, people already have alot of control over this. If you're really afraid, remove yourself from high risk places. Don't work in the Empire state building or other landmarks. Hell, don't live in a city if you're that scared.
You may have the right to live at the base of an active volcano, but don't expect the state to help safeguard your home. If you chose to do that, take the responsibility to ensure your own safety.
But when something drastic comes along, say a major terrorist threat, everyone competes for their most important rights, and we have to settle into a new balance.
So every time a new threat comes along, we fight for a few of the remaining important rights, correct? And then a new threat comes along, and we start fighting from a reduced set of rights. You see, we don't actually seem to get the rights that we lose back, which is part of the problem.
This whole 'we need more police powers' reminds me of Star wars Episode 2. Seriously. A significant threat comes along, they panic, grant emergency powers to the Chancellor, which he promises to reliquish 'as soon as the threat is gone', of course, and well, we all know how that ended up.
Don't think it could happen because its in a movie? Tell me, whats in place to stop it?
You cannot stop terrorists and prevent future attacks unless the government has some ability to tap into private citizens conversations when they feel its justified.
You're assuming its possible to stop them. I'm sure in history there are very secure police states that still had problems with security. Should we clamp down ever more then them?
but I'm confident that these small degredations in our personal privacy are as far as they can go.
Funny how they seem to be getting worse and worse every day. First the patriot act, then this TIA talk. I haven't seen any indication that infringement of our privacy rights is declining.
This is because, in America, we have paranoid, untrusting, civil rights wackos who do a great job of keeping any civil rights degredations in check.
So what you're saying is that you're not going to do the job, because you want someone else to do it for you?
Plus, some of these wackos truely are wacko. Do you really want them to deterime your future?
Well, i hope you at least reconsider your position. Let history be your guide when evaluating your views. Typically the first thing a tyrant ruler will do is disarm the people. You have to look at most 7 decades ago to see this.
:-)
If you want a more recent example, look at Englands installation of CC cameras everywhere. Studies i've seen show they do little to stop crime, and are mainly used to watch girls kissing thier boyfriends or looking down thier blouse.
Also, if i may add, i don't think terrorism is stopping your right to pursuit of happiness. Your choosing to let your fear of an attack stop it. You could choose just to go about your everyday tasks and not let it stop you. Lets face it, you're going to die no matter what you do. Personally i'd rather go quickly and unexpectedly then lie there knowing i'm dying and not being able to do anything about it.
Anyway, i hope you think hard about your views, but in the end if you're unchanged, i guess we are going to agree to disagree.
But thats sure the inpression that I get when I watch American Nightly News.
Which is basically why i stopped watching the news. its just shootings in the bad parts of the city, plus some stupid fluff story. The kind of thing that appeals to cowardly idiots.
Ugh. As an alumni of RIT, your attitude makes me sick. You must be an IT major though, since all the CS labs are (or were) running SunOS.
Maybe you should take Carithers' Privacy and Security class, or just go talk to him about MS. I'm sure he can tell you why MS is generally a bad thing.
Think about it: If some lowlife shot your husband, wife, or child wouldn't you suddenly find yourself gung-ho for gun control, irregardless of your present political beliefs.
No, i would have wished that it was legal for them to be armed, so they could have defended themselves.
The right to life IS a civil right.
Your right to live doesn't trump my right to privacy however. Rights are equal in thier importance. To lose some is to soon lose all.
If you're really that scared, move out of Manhattan. God forbid you be inconvienced so that everyone else can have some privacy.
Nevermind the fact that being killed in a terrorist attack is statistically low. Maybe you should look at the facts before letting fear rule your life.
they should be able to do anything they want with THEIR PRODUCT
Until it becomes a monopoly, at which point they lose some control.
Oh, and something else i find interesting about your last paragraph. You say the government shouldn't regulate technology, but its ok because they've already regulated the telephone system.
This seems rather contradictary; if you really believed in your position, you'd be calling for deregulation.
Finally, you seem to miss the point that these DNC lists ARE regulations in the telecommunications industry, so your idea doesn't apply by your own admission.