[i]You don't have to be anti-gun control to be anti-police state. To wit - if there was a sufficient amount of gun control then the state would not need to carry lethal weapons - they could get away with stun guns or even less. In such a case the police have *less* power.[/i][p][p]
I've read some very scary statements on slashdot over the years but this rates as one of the most bizzare and outlandish statements I've seen. If only the State has guns then we are in an even worse situation then we are currently. Bush has done a lot to undermine the personal freedoms we have, but if you take away the 2nd Amendment then the Government has no final check and balance.[p][p]
[i]The only people who would need access to high-powwered armaments should be the military. And since the military should be forbidden to intervene in domestic matters, it should prevent the creation of a police state.[/i][p][p]History has shown the exact opposite. Once the State is the only organization with weapons the people have no choice. Take a look at Germany and one of the contributing factors was the exterme gun control that was enacted in 1919 before Hitler's rise to power. There was no means for the people to resist him even if they had wanted to. I'd also like to know just how you forbid the military to intervene in domestic matters, ask nicely? Looks at what rules and asking nicely have gotten with this latest NSA domestic spy program![p][p]
[i]Personal freedoms shouldn't have to be won by the barrel of a gun. They should be able to be given freely.
Then again - I am a dreamer. Perhaps if the general populace would stop electing warmongers to lead nations we wouldn't have so much of a problem.[/i][p][p] I personally consider being able to own high powered firearms a personal freedom. Without this personal freedom I fear for the future of the US. Personal freedom in this country was won by the barrel of guns in the hands of ordinary citizens. We would be dishonoring everything they stood for by giving up one of the freedoms they deemed most important. There is a reason that the Right to keep and bear firearms is the second amendment and that is because of how important the men who had just fought the English knew personal freedom to own firearms was. [p][p] As far as the general public electing President Bush for a second term, I have to say that the blame goes to the DNC. They ran a candiate that was so messed up he couldn't even beat such an unpopular President. Of course I must say we assign different meanings to warmonger. To me the President of Iran is a warmonger and saber rattler. The leader of North Korea is the same. Osama Bin Laden is a warmonger. For the two major conflicts Bush has been involved with, there is no doubt in my mind that he did what he had to for Afghanistan. I wish he had better post war plans in place for Afghanistan but after 9/11 we had to end the State sponsored terrorist training centers and brutal religous government. Iraq is a much less justified war. Anyone who says that Bush went in just for oil, doesn't even begin to understand the conflict. On the other hand anyone who says Bush went in to avenge his father not removing the Iraqi regime is also clueless. There was no one reason and adding them all up I do agree with his choice to invade. The whole Iraq situation also showed how powerless and ineffective the U.N. really was and continues to be based off of the handling of Iran.[p][p]
How would a new method of mass communication be controlled by an existing company or even corporate style?
It woudn't! The thing about the internet and the www is that it grew out of research and academic use first. The corporations didn't even pay attention to the existence of a new media until years after it had been invented. I remember having discussions about the commericalization of the web in the 95/96 time frame. And this was what 5 or so years after the html had been devoloped and 20 or 30 years after the internet had been started.
The question that should have been proposed is what would have happened if media companies had an idea of the potentional of something like the Internet and web site, how would they have influced early desgings?
My school uses WebCT and it is ok. The real problem is the number of teachers I've had who have no clue how to use it. I'm taking an online Geography class this semester and the teacher hadn't cleared out posts from last a year ago! This confused some of the other students who missed the 2004 on the post dates. Another problem is my current teacher couldn't figure out how to remove a link in one of her assignments, so we had a good link to a html document and a bad link to a word doc.
I've never had a problem with WebCT crashing and the one time I accidently closed my browser during a test, I logged back in and continued the test.
I've seen a lot of Microsoft bashing here and even more Republican bashing, but this has to take the cake. The Senate needs to look at issues that apply to the Constitution.
Does she respect the 2nd Amendment
If yes then she is a very good nominee for the Supreme Court.
Does she respect Wade vs. Roe?
If no then I would have a problem with her being appointed.
Since she wasn't a judge, I'd like to know how much she used precedence in arguing her cases.
If she is very traditional in her use of precedence then that is a very good sign regardless if you are Conservative or Liberal
Did she ever argue any Civil Rights cases?
This is the most complex question I have. Without knowing how she argued these sorts of cases and the details of the cases I can't even begin to say what would be good or bad
So I urge/.'ers to pull the rope down from the tree and give her a fair chance to be evaluated before you hang her for having been a lawyer on a Microsoft case.
The judicial branch is there to uphold the constitution which is the highest letter of the law in the U.S. I think you must be referring to how the current administration uses the Constitution as toilet paper so it'd be easy to get that hierarchy misunderstood.
You make it sound like Bush is the first administration to abuse the Constitution. Sadly this isn't the case. Take a look at Clinton, he allowed the Assault Weapon Ban to be enacted as law. Can you get it any more clearly spelling out then "shall not be infringed."?
The Supreme Court needs to uphold the very foundation of our country, yet they have taken the cowards way out of many important issues. Ruling on technicalities instead of the merits of the case. Take the Pledge for example, instead of ruling on it, they said it wasn't a valid case.
Actually until you applied for the Card, Walmart had no idea that you even existed. Once you filled out the credit card application, they contacted one of the 3 main Credit Reporting Agencies. The CRA's are the ones who store your information but they only store what is reported to them by creditors. So quite likely you had a blank or nearly blank report with only address, name, aliases.
Anytime someone speaks in absolutes it is a bad sign and amazes me that mods will mark up a post so high. Many on here bash Bush for being so black and white, yet they are just as polarized themselves.
Space weapons have a lot to do with both security and revenue for the military/industrial complex.
One of the axioms of war is high ground has the advantage, there is no higher ground then space. Once in space it becomes very cheap to just drop a rock on some country.
Until the world learns to work together and not distrust each other I would much rather have my country be at the leading edge of military technology then some other country be the leader.
You may not have seen $65/hour but the article clearly states wages and benefits. For a full time regular employee it costs most companies between 2 and 3 times the base salar. A large part of your health insurance was paid for by the company. Did you get perks like catered lunches or fridge full of soda, those all add to make that $65.
What is so difficult about the notion that while you enjoy a TV show, most of the world didn't want to watch it? Can't you people just accept that there weren't enough people out there who share your taste, instead of imagining some Illuminati conspiracy to keep profitable shows off the air for no logical reason?
Did you watch the show and then watch the DVD's? Personally I thought the show sucked big time when it was on TV. A friend loaned me the Firfly DVD's and wow it was a great series.
Fox did manage the series very badly and killed it. Normally I'd say it was a conspiracy theory but the proof is in the picture!
Try a game that has a stronger AI in it. For instance paly Galatic Civ in a gigantic map. The graphics are not a factor at all, yet it can take my 2.8Ghz P4 over a minute to do a computer turn!
At best the US needs to be on the moon by itself. At worst we need to share it with other countries that can handle setting up a moon base.
Never forget that high ground has the advantage. In this case the moon is the highest ground around. Sending a few tens of tons of rock from the moon to Wahsington DC would make 9/11 look small. So even though exploration and science are good enough reasons to visit the moon defense is the icing on the cake.
Look at the bright side, sell it as a defense need to those idiots who say they are Conservative Republicans and the moon base will happen.
As I'm heavily involved in SOX complaince at Big Blue I'm posting AC.
I see nothing wrong with asking companies to prove that they aren't ripping off stakeholders. I do see a huge problem when the solution is worse then the problem. We used to have 3 or 4 corporate, customer, Price Waterhouse audits a year. At this point I've been involved in about 10 audits for this year. I have one person dedicated full time to audit a large part of which is SOX related.
I fully expect to start seeing filing with the SEC that state a decrease in profit due to SOX compliance. I know it cost us and our customers millions last year and this year is looking to be more expensive.
Sarcasm aside, I DO read stories with alarming frequency of kids finding guns and accidentally shooting themselves, suicides, and even the occasional nutjob shooting up his office or school. Would any of these (other than suicide, sadly) happen without guns being freely and readily available?
This is the media that is distorting your view. There are thousands of documented cases a year where a firearm saves lives and prevents crime. I take it you support the V chip and the goverenment telling us what children can watch? I ask this because any time a child gets ahold of a gun it is is a parenting failure.
We're talking an item that has NO other reason to exist than to kill people. Where do we get this screwed up notion that we should be "defending ourselves" instead of the police force that we as society have tasked with that (and they do a damn fine job, I might add)? No other reason to exist then to kill people? Are you really this clueless? There is competive shooting events, just because it isn't your hobby doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of people who enjoy target shooting.
I'd like to know where you got this screwed up notion that police are here to defend us? The job of the police has always been to solve crime, ask just about any police office and they will tell you that there is very little they can do to prevent crime.
If you can work your job from home there is a very good chance that someone from another country can do your job. I'm thinking about working from home but only for one day a week.
"In a quiet room, in a meeting, this phone's gonna go off-- what are they going to hear?" This attitude really bugs me. If you aren't turning your phone to vibrate/silent only in a meeting, in a movie theater, at a family dinner then you are just flat out rude.
Of course I've got a new one to add to rude cell phone use. In a movie theater if you have a bright screen on your phone, cover it with your hand so it doesn't distract other people.
Though on the good side technology is getting to the point where it can effectively block cell phone signals so since it is obvious people won't police themselves it is only a matter of time before more and more public places like movie theaters block it for them.
To those who marked the parent "Funny" you have just shown your ignorance. The parent poster was dead serious. The so called Assault Weapon Ban did not ban true Assault Weapons. It banned hunting and target rifles that were designed to look lik Assault Weapons. The parent really should have been Interesting or Insightful.
Always amazes me how many people and organizations will defend the 1st Amendment but tear down the 2nd Amendment. We lose one Amendment and we are well on our way to losing them all. Take away the 1st Amendment and it becomes hard to get the truth out there. Take away the 2nd Amendment and you take the People's defense away.
How can you say that superuser isn't required to diagnose problems?
What if the problem is caused by bogosity in a config file that only root can read?
What if the logs produced by the application are only readable by root (or by adm)?
What if the process is running with root privileges and you need to trace/truss it to perform the diagnose it?
All of these can be handled with a proper sudo configuration. sudo rights to cat the log files and config files, you vendor does know which files he needs to read right? I supervise a team that supports over 1000 servers mostly running AIX, Red Hat and Solaris and some of the sudo config files are close to 1000 lines. Why because no one but the SA's have sudo su -, everyone else must supply the commands they will need to run as root ahead of time. Granted sudo isn't the full answer but it is part of it after you have a secure but limited method for vendors to connect. Now giving write access is a bit harder because you don't want to allow things like vi since you can escape out to a root shell. On one of my accounts rvi is deployed which doesn't allow shell commands to be run from vi, reducing the risk.
You have no idea of how the US system works. First off if I had the power this post would be removed and archived for the Secert Service. The US Government takes threats against the President very seriously. Even suggesting such an action shows your utter lack of understanding of what the US stands for.
Senator Kerry's actions has shown that he has confience in the election results. It would be sheer folly to think that there wasn't fraud for both major canidates, but not enough to effect the final vote.
I urge all Moderators with any common sense to moderate the parent down. This sort of illegal and plain stupid response doesn't deserve any visiblity.
Bush won the election and this time he won both the Electoral and Popular votes.
In the last four years my life has continued to improve in most areas. My biggest hope is now that Ashcroft is gone that Bush will replace him with a moderate.
I really hope meta-moderation shows some of the people who added to the parent so I can mark them down as bad moderators.
Please cite a source of the International Law that you think the US violated. Don't give something general like the UN or Geneva Convetion, give enough details that everyone can look up this law.
Please look up what unilateral means. The invasion of Iraq was not undertaken soley by the United States of America. Great Britian and many other nations have agreed with the actions the US took.
I'm not going to say that two wrongs make a right, but just how many UN resolutions did Iraq have to ignore before the UN would have taken action? Without looking it up I want to say it was around 12 resolutions in about 12 years. If the UN refuses to back up it resolutions then the UN is a complete failure.
I really hope it is proven that the prisoner abuses are limited in scope but I fear that the orders came from high up in the military chain of command. Each indivdual that can be proven to have abused or ordered the abuse of prisoners must be punished to the fullest extent.
Odd if Fox was behind consistently why was it that when I went to bed around 1AM MST Fox had Bush with 269 Electoral votes and the other networks had much lower numbers? 242 is the highest I can remember for him. I was flipping between Fox and CNN and Fox was defintely more up to date and more accurate then CNN.
Of course I know part of the reason is that Fox is slightly biased to the Right whereas CNN is heavily biased to the Left. So of course Fox would be more "accurate" because the models they picked would show the results they were hoping for.
Slashdot Mirror
[i]You don't have to be anti-gun control to be anti-police state. To wit - if there was a sufficient amount of gun control then the state would not need to carry lethal weapons - they could get away with stun guns or even less. In such a case the police have *less* power.[/i][p][p] I've read some very scary statements on slashdot over the years but this rates as one of the most bizzare and outlandish statements I've seen. If only the State has guns then we are in an even worse situation then we are currently. Bush has done a lot to undermine the personal freedoms we have, but if you take away the 2nd Amendment then the Government has no final check and balance.[p][p] [i]The only people who would need access to high-powwered armaments should be the military. And since the military should be forbidden to intervene in domestic matters, it should prevent the creation of a police state.[/i][p][p]History has shown the exact opposite. Once the State is the only organization with weapons the people have no choice. Take a look at Germany and one of the contributing factors was the exterme gun control that was enacted in 1919 before Hitler's rise to power. There was no means for the people to resist him even if they had wanted to. I'd also like to know just how you forbid the military to intervene in domestic matters, ask nicely? Looks at what rules and asking nicely have gotten with this latest NSA domestic spy program![p][p] [i]Personal freedoms shouldn't have to be won by the barrel of a gun. They should be able to be given freely. Then again - I am a dreamer. Perhaps if the general populace would stop electing warmongers to lead nations we wouldn't have so much of a problem.[/i][p][p] I personally consider being able to own high powered firearms a personal freedom. Without this personal freedom I fear for the future of the US. Personal freedom in this country was won by the barrel of guns in the hands of ordinary citizens. We would be dishonoring everything they stood for by giving up one of the freedoms they deemed most important. There is a reason that the Right to keep and bear firearms is the second amendment and that is because of how important the men who had just fought the English knew personal freedom to own firearms was. [p][p] As far as the general public electing President Bush for a second term, I have to say that the blame goes to the DNC. They ran a candiate that was so messed up he couldn't even beat such an unpopular President. Of course I must say we assign different meanings to warmonger. To me the President of Iran is a warmonger and saber rattler. The leader of North Korea is the same. Osama Bin Laden is a warmonger. For the two major conflicts Bush has been involved with, there is no doubt in my mind that he did what he had to for Afghanistan. I wish he had better post war plans in place for Afghanistan but after 9/11 we had to end the State sponsored terrorist training centers and brutal religous government. Iraq is a much less justified war. Anyone who says that Bush went in just for oil, doesn't even begin to understand the conflict. On the other hand anyone who says Bush went in to avenge his father not removing the Iraqi regime is also clueless. There was no one reason and adding them all up I do agree with his choice to invade. The whole Iraq situation also showed how powerless and ineffective the U.N. really was and continues to be based off of the handling of Iran.[p][p]
It woudn't! The thing about the internet and the www is that it grew out of research and academic use first. The corporations didn't even pay attention to the existence of a new media until years after it had been invented. I remember having discussions about the commericalization of the web in the 95/96 time frame. And this was what 5 or so years after the html had been devoloped and 20 or 30 years after the internet had been started.
The question that should have been proposed is what would have happened if media companies had an idea of the potentional of something like the Internet and web site, how would they have influced early desgings?
I've never had a problem with WebCT crashing and the one time I accidently closed my browser during a test, I logged back in and continued the test.
Does she respect the 2nd Amendment
If yes then she is a very good nominee for the Supreme Court.
Does she respect Wade vs. Roe?
If no then I would have a problem with her being appointed.
Since she wasn't a judge, I'd like to know how much she used precedence in arguing her cases.
If she is very traditional in her use of precedence then that is a very good sign regardless if you are Conservative or Liberal
Did she ever argue any Civil Rights cases?
This is the most complex question I have. Without knowing how she argued these sorts of cases and the details of the cases I can't even begin to say what would be good or bad
So I urge /.'ers to pull the rope down from the tree and give her a fair chance to be evaluated before you hang her for having been a lawyer on a Microsoft case.
You make it sound like Bush is the first administration to abuse the Constitution. Sadly this isn't the case. Take a look at Clinton, he allowed the Assault Weapon Ban to be enacted as law. Can you get it any more clearly spelling out then "shall not be infringed."?
The Supreme Court needs to uphold the very foundation of our country, yet they have taken the cowards way out of many important issues. Ruling on technicalities instead of the merits of the case. Take the Pledge for example, instead of ruling on it, they said it wasn't a valid case.
Space weapons have a lot to do with both security and revenue for the military/industrial complex.
One of the axioms of war is high ground has the advantage, there is no higher ground then space. Once in space it becomes very cheap to just drop a rock on some country.
Until the world learns to work together and not distrust each other I would much rather have my country be at the leading edge of military technology then some other country be the leader.
You may not have seen $65/hour but the article clearly states wages and benefits. For a full time regular employee it costs most companies between 2 and 3 times the base salar. A large part of your health insurance was paid for by the company. Did you get perks like catered lunches or fridge full of soda, those all add to make that $65.
Did you watch the show and then watch the DVD's? Personally I thought the show sucked big time when it was on TV. A friend loaned me the Firfly DVD's and wow it was a great series.
Fox did manage the series very badly and killed it. Normally I'd say it was a conspiracy theory but the proof is in the picture!
Never forget that high ground has the advantage. In this case the moon is the highest ground around. Sending a few tens of tons of rock from the moon to Wahsington DC would make 9/11 look small. So even though exploration and science are good enough reasons to visit the moon defense is the icing on the cake.
Look at the bright side, sell it as a defense need to those idiots who say they are Conservative Republicans and the moon base will happen.
I see nothing wrong with asking companies to prove that they aren't ripping off stakeholders. I do see a huge problem when the solution is worse then the problem. We used to have 3 or 4 corporate, customer, Price Waterhouse audits a year. At this point I've been involved in about 10 audits for this year. I have one person dedicated full time to audit a large part of which is SOX related.
I fully expect to start seeing filing with the SEC that state a decrease in profit due to SOX compliance. I know it cost us and our customers millions last year and this year is looking to be more expensive.
Actually they did https://secure.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/mousesmooth ing .
This is the media that is distorting your view. There are thousands of documented cases a year where a firearm saves lives and prevents crime. I take it you support the V chip and the goverenment telling us what children can watch? I ask this because any time a child gets ahold of a gun it is is a parenting failure.
We're talking an item that has NO other reason to exist than to kill people. Where do we get this screwed up notion that we should be "defending ourselves" instead of the police force that we as society have tasked with that (and they do a damn fine job, I might add)? No other reason to exist then to kill people? Are you really this clueless? There is competive shooting events, just because it isn't your hobby doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of people who enjoy target shooting.
I'd like to know where you got this screwed up notion that police are here to defend us? The job of the police has always been to solve crime, ask just about any police office and they will tell you that there is very little they can do to prevent crime.
If you can work your job from home there is a very good chance that someone from another country can do your job. I'm thinking about working from home but only for one day a week.
So for now I'll enjoy my heavily modified 405RWHP Z28 that gets about 10-12MPG.
Of course I've got a new one to add to rude cell phone use. In a movie theater if you have a bright screen on your phone, cover it with your hand so it doesn't distract other people.
Though on the good side technology is getting to the point where it can effectively block cell phone signals so since it is obvious people won't police themselves it is only a matter of time before more and more public places like movie theaters block it for them.
Always amazes me how many people and organizations will defend the 1st Amendment but tear down the 2nd Amendment. We lose one Amendment and we are well on our way to losing them all. Take away the 1st Amendment and it becomes hard to get the truth out there. Take away the 2nd Amendment and you take the People's defense away.
What if the problem is caused by bogosity in a config file that only root can read?
What if the logs produced by the application are only readable by root (or by adm)?
What if the process is running with root privileges and you need to trace/truss it to perform the diagnose it?
All of these can be handled with a proper sudo configuration. sudo rights to cat the log files and config files, you vendor does know which files he needs to read right? I supervise a team that supports over 1000 servers mostly running AIX, Red Hat and Solaris and some of the sudo config files are close to 1000 lines. Why because no one but the SA's have sudo su -, everyone else must supply the commands they will need to run as root ahead of time. Granted sudo isn't the full answer but it is part of it after you have a secure but limited method for vendors to connect. Now giving write access is a bit harder because you don't want to allow things like vi since you can escape out to a root shell. On one of my accounts rvi is deployed which doesn't allow shell commands to be run from vi, reducing the risk.
Senator Kerry's actions has shown that he has confience in the election results. It would be sheer folly to think that there wasn't fraud for both major canidates, but not enough to effect the final vote.
I urge all Moderators with any common sense to moderate the parent down. This sort of illegal and plain stupid response doesn't deserve any visiblity.
Bush won the election and this time he won both the Electoral and Popular votes.
In the last four years my life has continued to improve in most areas. My biggest hope is now that Ashcroft is gone that Bush will replace him with a moderate.
I really hope meta-moderation shows some of the people who added to the parent so I can mark them down as bad moderators.
I'm not going to say that two wrongs make a right, but just how many UN resolutions did Iraq have to ignore before the UN would have taken action? Without looking it up I want to say it was around 12 resolutions in about 12 years. If the UN refuses to back up it resolutions then the UN is a complete failure.
I really hope it is proven that the prisoner abuses are limited in scope but I fear that the orders came from high up in the military chain of command. Each indivdual that can be proven to have abused or ordered the abuse of prisoners must be punished to the fullest extent.
Of course I know part of the reason is that Fox is slightly biased to the Right whereas CNN is heavily biased to the Left. So of course Fox would be more "accurate" because the models they picked would show the results they were hoping for.