Yes, the Americans were asleep at the wheel on the 7th of November, 2000(and have been since 1964), and the accident is still in progress. The death toll just keeps on climbing.
But seriously, where did I say anything about an accident?
to stay away from computer controlled airplanes? Wired or wireless. Not that hydraulics are any better. I think I'll just take the train or a boat. And don't try to convince me with statistics. I'm a lousy gambler.
Gotta love the wording here: "The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely published..." Emphasis mine. Fake? The only fake part is that it would be a Cuban attack, as opposed to actually being American. Please don't try to tell me that intentionally killing innocent Cubans is any less despicable than killing innocent Americans.
But seriously, the government would never do such a thing because they would never get away with it!
Jim Jones is the president and you're drinking his Kool-Aid. Your statement is a perfect explaination of just how they do get away with it. The government covered up the lies of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which never happened, specifically to justify a war. It caused the death of over 58,000 Americans and 2 million(!) Vietnamese. Yes, the government will kill ANYBODY that gets in its way. Oh, and "Remember the Maine". Use that as a reminder that we don't really know who was behind 9/11.
The airlines don't even want to install secure cockpit doors. They would probably be even less interested in putting the necessary work into secure wireless. They would more likely adopt the tactic used by the cell phone companies* and try to pass a law banning the possession of bluetooth cannons** or other emp device.
What we need is "pilotless"*. They're still the ones responsible for most crashes. Oh, and don't even fly this thing into a thunderstorm, made even worse by all these static producing composites. And if they want to protect these from outside hackers, they'd better go back to good old aluminum.
*almost...cockpit crew consists of one pilot and a dog. The dog is there to bite off the pilot's hand if he reaches for any of the controls.
I can't see wireless saving more than a few kilograms over fibre connections.
Damn cheap airlines count every kilo. Remember these are the people who are STILL reluctant to put in secure cockpit doors because of the weight. I rode in one airline(Allegro) that quite literally took out all the seat cushions and placed the fabric seat cover directly on the metal seats and seat backs.
I think the key here is mobility. Wireless provides the ability to reduce the dependance on fixed, corporate run ISPs. It has the potential to bring about a true peer to peer internet. The server-client model we use is little more than TV with a really fancy remote, and has proven to be not so robust after all. But then, that's not what the article is about. It makes a lot of noise about competition from small companies buying up spectrum. Well, for one thing, this is an auction. Most small companies will get priced out. If they do manage to get their hands on some spectrum, they will be bought out. The quote of the day, "It's a billionaires' high-stakes poker game...". Nothing's going to change. Some big companies will spin off or create "small" divisions to buy up what they can and then re-merge. Though it would be nice to have ubiquitous wireless. This does nothing to relieve us of corporate control. Only a loose community wireless mesh made up of hundreds of desktop and laptop machines run by our neighbors will do that. This is what can protect us from the snoops. I think things along the lines of VPN might help to keep nosy neighbors out. And the mobility will keep the spies off balance. I am on topic...right? Probably redundant as well...
Patent law unambiguously grants owners of intellectual property the same rights as regular property holders, including the right to exclude others from using their property.
You're right. They should have replaced "Patent law" with "IP law".
The abortion issue was decided by the Supreme court, not by any legislation from either side. Have the democrats ever sided with the decision by passing laws for abortions rights? Or do they simply let the decision stand? I would love to see what laws we would have if the Supreme Court said nothing about it. I know some states would outlaw it, but are there any that would re-enforce a mother's rights? Pragmatically, it is illogical to criminalize it for all the obvious reasons.
The ones who think big government contracts should go to their friends rather than pass through an objective process.
Though not directly contract related, Clinton did pass off $20billion(that's with a "B") to some of his buddies to save them some "embarrassment" over their bad Mexican investments. And he did sign NAFTA, which I consider every bit as bad as what Halliburton is getting. While you might agree with whom the democrats give their money, from a non-aligned point of view, they could be just as evil as Cheney's Halliburton. Yes, the democrats' methods and business partners might be different from the republicans, but their real intention of maintaining their power is in lock-step. If I could see beyond that, I would be more likely see their differences. But their basic motivations of power, money, and chicks overwhelms everything, and to me, makes the differences trivial.
It's easy to vote your conscience knowing that the vote may not make a difference today or tomorrow, but may 20 years down the road; it's much harder to live with the immediate consequences of having another 4 years of the right-wing government we've ended up with.
Always vote your conscience, no matter what. Then you don't have to feel responsible for anything 20 years from now. Otherwise, you're only doing your part to insure the status quo remains in effect. Don't let your fear of future determine how you act now. If you act conscienciously, your conscience will remain squeaky clean. Don't ever regret doing what you know is right. Let the chips fall where they may. It is difficult to counteract the whackos now because they are relativley united while the opposition remains deeply fragmented. Remember, they are a very small, noisy part of the population. Imagine what would happen if a real majority actually speaks up. Part of this arises from people just trying to go along. If they were to act conscienciously, they would coalesce quite naturally into a formidable force. Look how easy it is for the other guys.
It's very much a case of "if you don't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard will win" (for those who are familiar with the works of Douglas Adams).
Yeah, I read it(and liked it). It seems to accurately reflect how people think. In reality there is no "wrong" or "right" lizard. They're still lizards. Identical in every way(every way that actually means anything). Simply there to protect their own power. Best not to vote all if that is your only choice. Or at least make it clear that "none of the above" receives an accurate count. "Vote for Nobody, because Nobody cares." However, you are right to look after the local politicians. You have a bit more control over them. And of course the party might allow a maverick here or there, but they will never acquire a seat on an important committee or anything so influencial. They will be nothing but background noise. Oh, they might speak up on an important issue or two, but they know full well that any of their proposals will die in committee if it get that far. But they still look good to their constituents.
Oh, and it's time to forget about that idea of throwing your vote away when voting for alternatives. That's precisely what the crooks want you to think. Instead of just going with the flow, try to convince others that the alternatives will serve them better than the status quo. That might be difficult just because the vast majority simply votes their own self interests regardless of how it might affect others. But now I'm getting into reasons why majority rule is not a good thing.
If you vote for an individual who owes his alleginace to any particular party, then, in effect you are voting for that party. Those kind of politicians must tow the party line to get any support from the higher ups. Too lazy to link, but look up what the democrats did to a guy named Paul Hackett. Good candidates rarely make it make past the primaries. Or even into the primaries. Too many of your neighbors are towing the party line also. We need to try to convinces them to vote for a candidate that's aligned with the voter and the country, and more importantly, the well being of the planet, not the party.
Just remember, if you vote democrat, you're still voting republican. Everything we see here is a bi-partisan effort. One party kills kittens. The other eats babies. The only way to fix this is to vote for a non-aligned candidate.
You don't understand. When I say 'party', it includes the "two" major parties that run "against" each other. In fact there is only one party which has two faces. Then there are the alternatives which usually get anywhere from 1% to 5% of the vote. This effectively leaves us with a "yes or no" ballot. 99% voted "yes" in 2004. No less than 95% will vote "yes" this year, and if people begin to wake up by '08, it should be down to about 75-80%. And that's being very optimistic. We have to face up to the fact that people are going to vote for the one that can flash the most cash and for their own personal interests. I find these people to be just as despicable as the politicians they vote for. Unless there's a nationwide epiphany, you can bet that it will remain business as usual.
Although I'm not in the loop, but it wouldn't be too far off base to say that the elections are as predictable as professional wrestling. Besides that, the power is in the party, not the individual. What you see on camera is the head of public relations. There will be no real change until you vote the party out of office. This is why things like term limits are silly. We had some good choices in the primaries in 2004. They didn't make it.
There will be no change of direction while the mjor party remains in power. A change of velocity is possible. The march to fascism stumbled a bit after Nixon, but it regained its "composure" with Reagan's election, and has been marching double time ever since.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the Americans were asleep at the wheel on the 7th of November, 2000(and have been since 1964), and the accident is still in progress. The death toll just keeps on climbing.
But seriously, where did I say anything about an accident?
to stay away from computer controlled airplanes? Wired or wireless. Not that hydraulics are any better. I think I'll just take the train or a boat. And don't try to convince me with statistics. I'm a lousy gambler.
Gotta love the wording here:
"The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely published..." Emphasis mine.
Fake? The only fake part is that it would be a Cuban attack, as opposed to actually being American. Please don't try to tell me that intentionally killing innocent Cubans is any less despicable than killing innocent Americans.
But seriously, the government would never do such a thing because they would never get away with it!
Jim Jones is the president and you're drinking his Kool-Aid. Your statement is a perfect explaination of just how they do get away with it. The government covered up the lies of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which never happened, specifically to justify a war. It caused the death of over 58,000 Americans and 2 million(!) Vietnamese. Yes, the government will kill ANYBODY that gets in its way. Oh, and "Remember the Maine". Use that as a reminder that we don't really know who was behind 9/11.
America's last "declared war" ended in 1945.
If the U.S. gov't tried to do something like this, thousands of people would of have to known about it.
The plot has been on the table for over forty years. You're not one of those that believe that our government would never do such a thing, are you?
The airlines don't even want to install secure cockpit doors. They would probably be even less interested in putting the necessary work into secure wireless. They would more likely adopt the tactic used by the cell phone companies* and try to pass a law banning the possession of bluetooth cannons** or other emp device.
*scanner law
**sounds cooler than rifle
What we need is "pilotless"*. They're still the ones responsible for most crashes. Oh, and don't even fly this thing into a thunderstorm, made even worse by all these static producing composites. And if they want to protect these from outside hackers, they'd better go back to good old aluminum.
*almost...cockpit crew consists of one pilot and a dog. The dog is there to bite off the pilot's hand if he reaches for any of the controls.
I can't see wireless saving more than a few kilograms over fibre connections.
Damn cheap airlines count every kilo. Remember these are the people who are STILL reluctant to put in secure cockpit doors because of the weight. I rode in one airline(Allegro) that quite literally took out all the seat cushions and placed the fabric seat cover directly on the metal seats and seat backs.
I think the key here is mobility. Wireless provides the ability to reduce the dependance on fixed, corporate run ISPs. It has the potential to bring about a true peer to peer internet. The server-client model we use is little more than TV with a really fancy remote, and has proven to be not so robust after all. But then, that's not what the article is about. It makes a lot of noise about competition from small companies buying up spectrum. Well, for one thing, this is an auction. Most small companies will get priced out. If they do manage to get their hands on some spectrum, they will be bought out. The quote of the day, "It's a billionaires' high-stakes poker game...". Nothing's going to change. Some big companies will spin off or create "small" divisions to buy up what they can and then re-merge. Though it would be nice to have ubiquitous wireless. This does nothing to relieve us of corporate control. Only a loose community wireless mesh made up of hundreds of desktop and laptop machines run by our neighbors will do that. This is what can protect us from the snoops. I think things along the lines of VPN might help to keep nosy neighbors out. And the mobility will keep the spies off balance. I am on topic...right? Probably redundant as well...
Patent law unambiguously grants owners of intellectual property the same rights as regular property holders, including the right to exclude others from using their property.
You're right. They should have replaced "Patent law" with "IP law".
Also, this might be a problem for the gov't sniffers since they would have a harder time associating an IP with a location.
Can't tell if you're serious, but that's the idea.
The abortion issue was decided by the Supreme court, not by any legislation from either side. Have the democrats ever sided with the decision by passing laws for abortions rights? Or do they simply let the decision stand? I would love to see what laws we would have if the Supreme Court said nothing about it. I know some states would outlaw it, but are there any that would re-enforce a mother's rights? Pragmatically, it is illogical to criminalize it for all the obvious reasons.
The ones who think big government contracts should go to their friends rather than pass through an objective process.
Though not directly contract related, Clinton did pass off $20billion(that's with a "B") to some of his buddies to save them some "embarrassment" over their bad Mexican investments. And he did sign NAFTA, which I consider every bit as bad as what Halliburton is getting. While you might agree with whom the democrats give their money, from a non-aligned point of view, they could be just as evil as Cheney's Halliburton. Yes, the democrats' methods and business partners might be different from the republicans, but their real intention of maintaining their power is in lock-step. If I could see beyond that, I would be more likely see their differences. But their basic motivations of power, money, and chicks overwhelms everything, and to me, makes the differences trivial.
It's easy to vote your conscience knowing that the vote may not make a difference today or tomorrow, but may 20 years down the road; it's much harder to live with the immediate consequences of having another 4 years of the right-wing government we've ended up with.
Always vote your conscience, no matter what. Then you don't have to feel responsible for anything 20 years from now. Otherwise, you're only doing your part to insure the status quo remains in effect. Don't let your fear of future determine how you act now. If you act conscienciously, your conscience will remain squeaky clean. Don't ever regret doing what you know is right. Let the chips fall where they may. It is difficult to counteract the whackos now because they are relativley united while the opposition remains deeply fragmented. Remember, they are a very small, noisy part of the population. Imagine what would happen if a real majority actually speaks up. Part of this arises from people just trying to go along. If they were to act conscienciously, they would coalesce quite naturally into a formidable force. Look how easy it is for the other guys.
It's very much a case of "if you don't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard will win" (for those who are familiar with the works of Douglas Adams).
Yeah, I read it(and liked it). It seems to accurately reflect how people think. In reality there is no "wrong" or "right" lizard. They're still lizards. Identical in every way(every way that actually means anything). Simply there to protect their own power. Best not to vote all if that is your only choice. Or at least make it clear that "none of the above" receives an accurate count. "Vote for Nobody, because Nobody cares." However, you are right to look after the local politicians. You have a bit more control over them. And of course the party might allow a maverick here or there, but they will never acquire a seat on an important committee or anything so influencial. They will be nothing but background noise. Oh, they might speak up on an important issue or two, but they know full well that any of their proposals will die in committee if it get that far. But they still look good to their constituents.
Oh, and it's time to forget about that idea of throwing your vote away when voting for alternatives. That's precisely what the crooks want you to think. Instead of just going with the flow, try to convince others that the alternatives will serve them better than the status quo. That might be difficult just because the vast majority simply votes their own self interests regardless of how it might affect others. But now I'm getting into reasons why majority rule is not a good thing.
If you vote for an individual who owes his alleginace to any particular party, then, in effect you are voting for that party. Those kind of politicians must tow the party line to get any support from the higher ups. Too lazy to link, but look up what the democrats did to a guy named Paul Hackett. Good candidates rarely make it make past the primaries. Or even into the primaries. Too many of your neighbors are towing the party line also. We need to try to convinces them to vote for a candidate that's aligned with the voter and the country, and more importantly, the well being of the planet, not the party.
BOA is using a pictograph means to reduce pishing.
But then your bladder might exshplode.
Yep, that Bush is a real straight-shooter.
:-)
Better than Cheney, I would hope
Just remember, if you vote democrat, you're still voting republican. Everything we see here is a bi-partisan effort. One party kills kittens. The other eats babies. The only way to fix this is to vote for a non-aligned candidate.
You don't understand. When I say 'party', it includes the "two" major parties that run "against" each other. In fact there is only one party which has two faces. Then there are the alternatives which usually get anywhere from 1% to 5% of the vote. This effectively leaves us with a "yes or no" ballot. 99% voted "yes" in 2004. No less than 95% will vote "yes" this year, and if people begin to wake up by '08, it should be down to about 75-80%. And that's being very optimistic. We have to face up to the fact that people are going to vote for the one that can flash the most cash and for their own personal interests. I find these people to be just as despicable as the politicians they vote for. Unless there's a nationwide epiphany, you can bet that it will remain business as usual.
Although I'm not in the loop, but it wouldn't be too far off base to say that the elections are as predictable as professional wrestling. Besides that, the power is in the party, not the individual. What you see on camera is the head of public relations. There will be no real change until you vote the party out of office. This is why things like term limits are silly. We had some good choices in the primaries in 2004. They didn't make it.
There will be no change of direction while the mjor party remains in power. A change of velocity is possible. The march to fascism stumbled a bit after Nixon, but it regained its "composure" with Reagan's election, and has been marching double time ever since.
I do not currently own an automobile.
Then you ARE a terrorist! Your not doing your part to support the war effort.
I never, ever thought I'd be saying this: Mod parent funny!
I just can't believe that anybody could possibly say all that and keep a straight face.
It doesn't matter. He would win because the "opposition" will just set up some other nincompoop that's even worse to lose the election.
You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is comin' to town
Santa Claus is comin' to town
Santa Claus is comin' to town
He's making a list
He's checking it twice
He's gonna find out
Who's naughty or nice
Santa Claus is comin' to town
Santa Claus is comin' to town
Santa Claus is comin' to town
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake
So you better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is comin' to town
Santa Claus is comin' to town
Santa Claus is comin' to town
The kids in girl and boyland
Will have a jubilee
They're gonna build a toyland
All around the Christmas tree
So you better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus (is comin' to town)
Santa Claus (is comin' to town)
Santa Claus is comin'
Santa Claus is comin'
Santa Claus is comin'
To town
If communism wins, the government will become unnecessary and cease to exist. Something about "withering on the vine."