http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33777. ht m
OK, I just viewed these charts. How exactly does this support your position?
Before you start speaking all of this racist stuff about 99% of terrorists being Muslim
Actually, my point is hardly racist (even setting aside the fact that Islam is a religion, not a race). Ultimately I do not feel the terrorists from the middle east are Muslims. They have distorted Islam for their own twisted ideas, just as the KKK twists Christianity for theirs. I refer to these types of muslims as Islamo-fascists, just to have a name for them that fits their basic ideals.
you should actually take a look at the numbers. You'd discover that the largest number of terrorists attacks in the past 5 years took place in Latin America. Islamic terrorism beats Latin American guerella terrorism attacks in terms of casualties, but that's only because of a small number of staggeringly successful attacks.
I am sorry if my original points weren't clear, but this to me is the crucial point. If Columbian terrorists are killing a few people a year, I am sorry if I don't count that as high as weekly bombings by terrorists in Iraq killing dozens and hundreds of Iraqi civilians, police, and foreigners. To me, THE important statistic is that of body count. If an islamofascist finds a way to fly airplanes into buildings and kills 3,000 people, that outweighs 500 attacks in Latin America each killing one or two people. And I'm sure the numbers in LA are not that high.
And it's NOWHERE close to 99%.
I have tried to find some numbers of casualties to compare, but cannot find that, please let me know if you do. I agree 99% was hyperbole, but unless there were some major attacks happening in L.A. in the past few years, they'll need some "help" to reach the casualty count for islamofascist terrorist attacks.
Of course, this doesn't go into direct state perpetuated terror, which is really unfair
You're right, the number of governments in the mideast that support terrorists directly and indirectly is truly shocking.
(shock and awe, for example, is almost a literal dictionary definition of terrorism
Yes, taken out of context, it sure is. However, the shock-and-awe campaign was specifically designed to shock and awe Saddam and his military. The US used precision attacks never before used in warfare, designed specifically to avoid civilians. War is hell, but at least the US plays by the rules. We deliberately avoided non-military targets. Real terrorists aim for innocents.
the Israeli army in the OT
I do believe you would see the Israeli army curb its excursions if the Palestinians would stop strapping bombs to their civilians and killing innocent people. But that is a whole other can of worms.
They were also working for the American federal government
Correct.
carrying out orders for officials higher up in the American federal government
Totally unproven. Total bullshit until proven otherwise. Do you think these morons were ordered to procreate in front of the detainees, also? Because that is just one of the stupid things they did. Incidentally, Graner was just found guilty.
These officials were, ultimately, carrying out legal instructions issued by the then-White House chief counsel Alberto Gonzalez, who decided torture as anything that caused less pain than serious physical injury or an organ failure.
I'll not defer to your interpretation of things seeing as how you've already put forth bullshit as fact.
Now, you may not approve of torture, but, bearing in mind that 99% of the world would consider Alberto Gonzalez's legal advice to be nonsense (water-boarding is clearly torture, even if it doesn't lead to "pain equivalent to organ failure"), then it is quite clear that the American state does
First of all, Gonzales was asked to give his legal opinion to Bush. That opinion did not turn into the standard for torture. It also was not "legal instructions" to anyone to "torture" detainees at Abu Ghraib.
You may not be happy about this, but it's what your state does.
I was not aware that my state or my country was able to do anything which requires hands and hearts. Only humans are capable of doing things like that, just as only humans are able to torture other humans.
If you have proof that the US tortured people, please present it to the world. Otherwise, STFU.
How about the people you have detained in Cuba with no rights? You know those English people Bush described as "Bad men". Well they are letting them go today as innocent.
Most of the people detained at gitmo were caught fighting US armed forces, or in the area of people fighting against US armed forces. As their cases are reviewed, if they are found innocent, they are released as you mentioned. Most of the people in gitmo are not innocent.
How do I know this? Because my friend is part of the legal team working with gitmo detainees.
I should have stated my point more accurately. By "active terrorist" I am referring to those actively killing innocent people, or more accurately, if you look at the number of people killed by terrorists in the last 5 years, a vast majority of those people were killed by islamofascists.
Americans put their hands over their hearts and preach to the world about freedom and human rights, and then turn around and torture prisoners
I guarantee you the Americans espousing freedom and human rights were NOT the same people as those ignorant assholes in Abu Ghraib.
It's like saying Muslims are terrorists, just because 99% of the active terrorists in the world espouse [a bastardized version of] Islam.
You probably also think Slashdot represents a single hive-mind, and are confused when some people here love to watch the latest movies, while others are boycotting the MPAA.
Try to realize that the world is not black and white.
Hopefully, with the proliferation of braindead, thought-numbing programming like "Survivor," "Who's My Daddy," and "The Bachelorette," more marginal cases will slide down the tube that precludes them from ever having to think critically, thus freeing up salary and promotion space for the rest of us.
The problem is that there are more of those kinds of people, and they will gradually take more and more of your earnings away through taxes to cover social programs for themselves.
I never watched it because the reviews of it were so awful, but Michael Crichton's book (EATERS OF THE DEAD) was actually a modern re-telling of Beowulf, and it was made into the movie THE 13TH WARRIOR, starring Antonio "youcantunderstandmythickaccent" Banderas.
Say I usually go to site A to do my banking. And I have a trusted security certificate for that site.
I get infected with one of these phishing worms which alters my host file so that whenever I type out the URL to site A, I get the IP address to site B.
I inadvertly go to site B. Site B doesn't require a security certificate. When would I get a warning about "incorrect" security certificates? As opposed to "expired" or "missing" certificates?
Assuming you are smart enough to require a site to be secured with SSL before submitting your information to them, you'd first look to see if the connection is secure. If it IS secure, that means the SSL certificate that site has must match up to the domain your browser thinks you are viewing.
The phishing site might trick you into thinking you're at bankofamerica.com, they may also have an SSL certificate installed on their phishing hole, but there is no way in hell they have an SSL certificate (from a trusted SA) for that bankofamerica.com domain. They'd need BoA's private key for that kind of trickery.
Therefore 1 of 3 things should tip you off:
1. The site is not SSL secured. Stop.
or
2. The site is SSL secured, but the SSL certificate triggers an alert that the domain in the cert doesn't match the domain you're viewing. Stop.
or
3. The site is SSL secured, the domain in the cert matches, but your browser triggers an alert because it was not issued by a trusted SA.
The girls' names usually led to porn sites. Come to think of it, that must be have been kind of hurtful when the girls see how they are just seen as sex objects
Give it up, berk. There are no girls here on slashdot, so that fake sensitivity crap will get you nowhere.
The UK moved from a system like SS to a "privatized" one like the one proposed by Bush. Earlier this month it was described as a "bloody mess" by an English economist, summarizing the general conclusion there.
You said it's "like" the one proposed by Bush. But how is it different? And why EXACTLY is it a "bloody mess"? We can learn from the UK's mistakes. Just because something similar was tried before doesn't mean any future tries that resemble it will turn out the same way.
Let's start with this one, first paragraph, first sentence: " promote the general Welfare".
How about not quoting it out of context? If you read the full sentence, you will understand that they were not giving the government an order to "promote the general Welfare," they were saying they created the Consitution in order to help do that. Two completely different things!
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
If that's not enough for you, let's try: The entirety of Article 1, Section 7.
Uh huh. Where in section 7 does it outline the social security taxes? It explains how funds can be raised, who can raise them, but section 7 does not codify when and why they can be raised.
Going further we find in Section 8: "Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
Yes, please re-read that sentence. The funds are to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the UNITED STATES, not "provide welfare for the citizens."
What were you saying about studying the Constitution before sinking to ad-hominem attacks?
I don't consider a cursory reading and quoting out of context "understanding" the constitution, thanks.
Just a guess, I only know a tiny bit about US politics, but has the representative who proposed this bill ever recieved money (for his campaign or whatever) off the RCAA or MPAA?
Based on previous bills, I bet its very likely.
If so, its nice to see democracy working as it does: Bills like this that only a small percentage of the population want but have wealthy people/companies backers want get passed while Bills say to do with the enviroment which nearly everyone want except a few wealthy people/companies, fail miserably.
Yay for corporate democracy.
The root problem is that Americans have caved in to the government on everything. Over the years, we have traded freedom for security. When you give them more power and money, this is what you get back... more stupid laws.
Now personally, I don't have a problem with California passing this kind of law at the state level. I mean, the bill is stupid, of course. But if you like it, at least you can move to a different state. That is the incentive to California not to pass a law -- brain drain, essentially.
But the real problem is when this shit makes it to a federal level. Quite a bit harder to leave your country than your state.
I take it this idiot senator believes all the world's coders live in the US, right? And that Russians and Poles and Brits and Aussies are all too backward to write P2P code..?
We just get the added bonus that the "compiled" code is not actually compiled
Well, umm my C++ code is not compiled either. Until I compiled it into a program. I tend to like editing C++ code directly, not in binary. How is this any different? It is just storing your code in a different format.
and is stored in the most padded verbose unreadable format that could reasonably be arranged?
Unreadable? By whom? XML is designed specifically to be a format for storing structured text in a way that makes it (a) eXtensible, (b) easy for programs to parse, and (c) compatible across platforms that know how to read a schema.
They are not trying to get you to program in XML here. I think the point is that they are decoupling the view of how your code looks to you from the logic behind it. This seems like a cool idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I did. Why don't you?
. ht m
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33777
OK, I just viewed these charts. How exactly does this support your position?
Before you start speaking all of this racist stuff about 99% of terrorists being Muslim
Actually, my point is hardly racist (even setting aside the fact that Islam is a religion, not a race). Ultimately I do not feel the terrorists from the middle east are Muslims. They have distorted Islam for their own twisted ideas, just as the KKK twists Christianity for theirs. I refer to these types of muslims as Islamo-fascists, just to have a name for them that fits their basic ideals.
you should actually take a look at the numbers. You'd discover that the largest number of terrorists attacks in the past 5 years took place in Latin America. Islamic terrorism beats Latin American guerella terrorism attacks in terms of casualties, but that's only because of a small number of staggeringly successful attacks.
I am sorry if my original points weren't clear, but this to me is the crucial point. If Columbian terrorists are killing a few people a year, I am sorry if I don't count that as high as weekly bombings by terrorists in Iraq killing dozens and hundreds of Iraqi civilians, police, and foreigners. To me, THE important statistic is that of body count. If an islamofascist finds a way to fly airplanes into buildings and kills 3,000 people, that outweighs 500 attacks in Latin America each killing one or two people. And I'm sure the numbers in LA are not that high.
And it's NOWHERE close to 99%.
I have tried to find some numbers of casualties to compare, but cannot find that, please let me know if you do. I agree 99% was hyperbole, but unless there were some major attacks happening in L.A. in the past few years, they'll need some "help" to reach the casualty count for islamofascist terrorist attacks.
Of course, this doesn't go into direct state perpetuated terror, which is really unfair
You're right, the number of governments in the mideast that support terrorists directly and indirectly is truly shocking.
(shock and awe, for example, is almost a literal dictionary definition of terrorism
Yes, taken out of context, it sure is. However, the shock-and-awe campaign was specifically designed to shock and awe Saddam and his military. The US used precision attacks never before used in warfare, designed specifically to avoid civilians. War is hell, but at least the US plays by the rules. We deliberately avoided non-military targets. Real terrorists aim for innocents.
the Israeli army in the OT
I do believe you would see the Israeli army curb its excursions if the Palestinians would stop strapping bombs to their civilians and killing innocent people. But that is a whole other can of worms.
They were also working for the American federal government
Correct.
carrying out orders for officials higher up in the American federal government
Totally unproven. Total bullshit until proven otherwise. Do you think these morons were ordered to procreate in front of the detainees, also? Because that is just one of the stupid things they did. Incidentally, Graner was just found guilty.
These officials were, ultimately, carrying out legal instructions issued by the then-White House chief counsel Alberto Gonzalez, who decided torture as anything that caused less pain than serious physical injury or an organ failure.
I'll not defer to your interpretation of things seeing as how you've already put forth bullshit as fact.
Now, you may not approve of torture, but, bearing in mind that 99% of the world would consider Alberto Gonzalez's legal advice to be nonsense (water-boarding is clearly torture, even if it doesn't lead to "pain equivalent to organ failure"), then it is quite clear that the American state does
First of all, Gonzales was asked to give his legal opinion to Bush. That opinion did not turn into the standard for torture. It also was not "legal instructions" to anyone to "torture" detainees at Abu Ghraib.
You may not be happy about this, but it's what your state does.
I was not aware that my state or my country was able to do anything which requires hands and hearts. Only humans are capable of doing things like that, just as only humans are able to torture other humans.
If you have proof that the US tortured people, please present it to the world. Otherwise, STFU.
How about the people you have detained in Cuba with no rights? You know those English people Bush described as "Bad men". Well they are letting them go today as innocent.
Most of the people detained at gitmo were caught fighting US armed forces, or in the area of people fighting against US armed forces. As their cases are reviewed, if they are found innocent, they are released as you mentioned. Most of the people in gitmo are not innocent.
How do I know this? Because my friend is part of the legal team working with gitmo detainees.
I should have stated my point more accurately. By "active terrorist" I am referring to those actively killing innocent people, or more accurately, if you look at the number of people killed by terrorists in the last 5 years, a vast majority of those people were killed by islamofascists.
Americans put their hands over their hearts and preach to the world about freedom and human rights, and then turn around and torture prisoners
I guarantee you the Americans espousing freedom and human rights were NOT the same people as those ignorant assholes in Abu Ghraib.
It's like saying Muslims are terrorists, just because 99% of the active terrorists in the world espouse [a bastardized version of] Islam.
You probably also think Slashdot represents a single hive-mind, and are confused when some people here love to watch the latest movies, while others are boycotting the MPAA.
Try to realize that the world is not black and white.
inthefuturepeopledontusespacebarsd00d
nordowehaveshiftkeys
they need to make the user happy otherwise we will find an alternative.
Exactly!
May I recommend battle.net?
Hopefully, with the proliferation of braindead, thought-numbing programming like "Survivor," "Who's My Daddy," and "The Bachelorette," more marginal cases will slide down the tube that precludes them from ever having to think critically, thus freeing up salary and promotion space for the rest of us.
The problem is that there are more of those kinds of people, and they will gradually take more and more of your earnings away through taxes to cover social programs for themselves.
Ph34r the tyranny of the [dumb] majority.
...I'll point you to where you can download an episode of "Geeks in Space."
User error.
Loved the previous 2 iterations, and this one looks to be getting a nice new engine to go along with the great gameplay.
h eory/index.php
http://www.splintercell.com/us/splintercellchaost
I never watched it because the reviews of it were so awful, but Michael Crichton's book (EATERS OF THE DEAD) was actually a modern re-telling of Beowulf, and it was made into the movie THE 13TH WARRIOR, starring Antonio "youcantunderstandmythickaccent" Banderas.
Seriously, what's the purpose of sharing your password with your SO?
You're assuming he shared it with her.
1. Did he have auto-logon turned on?
2. Did he use the same stupid password for every thing he did?
You're painting this as if she was battling his addictions for the good of their relationship.
We don't have all the details, but it appears she was just being a vindictive bitch.
Odds are you'll end up with something if you buy 3 pepsi's
1 in 3 people will already understand this concept!
Say I usually go to site A to do my banking. And I have a trusted security certificate for that site.
I get infected with one of these phishing worms which alters my host file so that whenever I type out the URL to site A, I get the IP address to site B.
I inadvertly go to site B. Site B doesn't require a security certificate. When would I get a warning about "incorrect" security certificates? As opposed to "expired" or "missing" certificates?
Assuming you are smart enough to require a site to be secured with SSL before submitting your information to them, you'd first look to see if the connection is secure. If it IS secure, that means the SSL certificate that site has must match up to the domain your browser thinks you are viewing.
The phishing site might trick you into thinking you're at bankofamerica.com, they may also have an SSL certificate installed on their phishing hole, but there is no way in hell they have an SSL certificate (from a trusted SA) for that bankofamerica.com domain. They'd need BoA's private key for that kind of trickery.
Therefore 1 of 3 things should tip you off:
1. The site is not SSL secured. Stop.
or
2. The site is SSL secured, but the SSL certificate triggers an alert that the domain in the cert doesn't match the domain you're viewing. Stop.
or
3. The site is SSL secured, the domain in the cert matches, but your browser triggers an alert because it was not issued by a trusted SA.
Common sense. Okay, maybe not common sense to most people.
Hmmmm...........
I... feel duped
No, no, no... that comes later. Possibly as early as tomorrow.
The girls' names usually led to porn sites. Come to think of it, that must be have been kind of hurtful when the girls see how they are just seen as sex objects
Give it up, berk. There are no girls here on slashdot, so that fake sensitivity crap will get you nowhere.
The UK moved from a system like SS to a "privatized" one like the one proposed by Bush. Earlier this month it was described as a "bloody mess" by an English economist, summarizing the general conclusion there.
You said it's "like" the one proposed by Bush. But how is it different? And why EXACTLY is it a "bloody mess"? We can learn from the UK's mistakes. Just because something similar was tried before doesn't mean any future tries that resemble it will turn out the same way.
Let's start with this one, first paragraph, first sentence: " promote the general Welfare".
How about not quoting it out of context? If you read the full sentence, you will understand that they were not giving the government an order to "promote the general Welfare," they were saying they created the Consitution in order to help do that. Two completely different things!
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
If that's not enough for you, let's try: The entirety of Article 1, Section 7.
Uh huh. Where in section 7 does it outline the social security taxes? It explains how funds can be raised, who can raise them, but section 7 does not codify when and why they can be raised.
Going further we find in Section 8: "Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
Yes, please re-read that sentence. The funds are to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the UNITED STATES, not "provide welfare for the citizens."
What were you saying about studying the Constitution before sinking to ad-hominem attacks?
I don't consider a cursory reading and quoting out of context "understanding" the constitution, thanks.
Just a guess, I only know a tiny bit about US politics, but has the representative who proposed this bill ever recieved money (for his campaign or whatever) off the RCAA or MPAA?
Based on previous bills, I bet its very likely.
If so, its nice to see democracy working as it does: Bills like this that only a small percentage of the population want but have wealthy people/companies backers want get passed while Bills say to do with the enviroment which nearly everyone want except a few wealthy people/companies, fail miserably.
Yay for corporate democracy.
The root problem is that Americans have caved in to the government on everything. Over the years, we have traded freedom for security. When you give them more power and money, this is what you get back... more stupid laws.
Now personally, I don't have a problem with California passing this kind of law at the state level. I mean, the bill is stupid, of course. But if you like it, at least you can move to a different state. That is the incentive to California not to pass a law -- brain drain, essentially.
But the real problem is when this shit makes it to a federal level. Quite a bit harder to leave your country than your state.
I take it this idiot senator believes all the world's coders live in the US, right? And that Russians and Poles and Brits and Aussies are all too backward to write P2P code..?
Well, maybe the Poles, yeah.
Do commercial entities normally do DoD satellite launches? That doesn't seem right to me.
Why not? The DoD pays companies to build its weapons, vehicles, planes, etc. Why on earth wouldn't they pay companies to launch their satellites?
We just get the added bonus that the "compiled" code is not actually compiled
Well, umm my C++ code is not compiled either. Until I compiled it into a program. I tend to like editing C++ code directly, not in binary. How is this any different? It is just storing your code in a different format.
and is stored in the most padded verbose unreadable format that could reasonably be arranged?
Unreadable? By whom? XML is designed specifically to be a format for storing structured text in a way that makes it (a) eXtensible, (b) easy for programs to parse, and (c) compatible across platforms that know how to read a schema.
They are not trying to get you to program in XML here. I think the point is that they are decoupling the view of how your code looks to you from the logic behind it. This seems like a cool idea.
Doesn't sound like a vast improvement.
Unlike you, I will wait to see it in action.