Yea me be a supporter of the PLO. You are on crack. I don't feel like responding to the rest of your rant because of your inane 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences.
Justb ecause the original poster did not mention WWII Germany does not mean I cannot to help make a point:
Nobody messed with Hitler at first because he was not a big threat. When he conquered one country he said he would stop and people believed him. He broke another treaty, but then said he would stop, and the cycle perpetuated until Hitler became a real threat. He never left Euripe/Asia as it was a bit harder to threaten other continents, not connected by land routes, at that point in time (no ICBM's). The US got involved when they realized that this guy was going to take over all of Europe and most of Asia.
So when Saddam decided to conquer his neighbor, the US decided to not allow him to continue. Amongst other things, by letting him conquer he would gain more power/money/resources.
The Hitler/WWII answer is a valid argument and is a model that we use ever since WWII, because we do not want another such situation to occur.
Your right I presume a lot. Please tell me which of the presumptions you do not believe in? Do you not believe there are evil people out there trying to hurt us? Do you not believe we should stop them? Please help me out with this.
So far I have not felt that my liberties have been given up. My day to day life is all the same - and I am sure yours is also.
Do you belive that Terrorists live in our country, terrorists communicate with people in our country? - if so then the FBI needs to use a sniffing program to help them find these people. Don't worry I am pretty sure my porn collection is safe. And I am sure that the gov't could care less about me so I am sure I won't disappear in my lifetime by some spook.
Actually pretty dead right. I never said don't question your gov't, I never said ignore the bad things your gov't may do. What I said is - if you don't like it, fight within the system.
Go jump on someone elses case and write a valid post.
The constitution, btw, was built on the assumption that it can be changed to help better protect the rights of the individual. Again, with things like Carnivore, I never felt intruded upon. I never had someone knock on my door and haul me away; nor did I ever have the gov't question me in anyway.
so whats your point?
And where did i mention giving my rights away for tax-benefits? Stop putting words into my mouth.
oh your right, we should leave saddam and every other bad guy in power. Maybe attacking hitler was a bad thing to. What a mistake it was going to WWII. Man you got me there.
I am not arguing if we have too little or too much security. And trust me, our security is nothing compared to other countries (i.e. israel). In fact countries like Israel accept this increased intrusion and do not worry about it - because unless you are doing something wrong you don't need to worry about it. Most likely, nobody is even watching you because you are insignificant. It is when you decide to stand-out that people look at you - but again if you are not doing anything wrong - you have nothing to worry about.
What I disagree with you about is making yourself stand-out just so you distract our security organizations for a moment. While you think this is sending a message, I think it is just wasting resources. If you want to send a message - send one that is direct, not subversive. How is the FBI supposed to know you are just telling them they are wasting their time? If you want them to know that - write a letter to your politician of choice, or do something else that works within the system. Your present methods circumvent the system - and by purposely hindering the system you are honestly just comitting a crime (interfering with gov't sanctioned criminal investigations.)
Why the gov't doesn't want their security software- designed to sniff out criminals - as open source. Lets see. If it is open source then the criminals can get access to it. If the criminals have access to it they can try and figure a way around it. Yea that pretty much is a good enough reason why the gov't would want it to remain closed source/top secret.
So to other posters who say the FBI agents aren't the brightest - you would be surprised who works in the FBI and the level of intelligence/knowledge they hold. The tests to get in are not easy, the process is long, and if you check out some of the pay scales for FBI computer agents - its pretty damn good (especially in this day and age). Also, you just can't beat a gov't benefits program.
whats with this overrated mod? To be overrated, doesn't the post have to have other people rate it first? How can you overrate something that has not been rated?
If you trick their system into thinking you are suspect of something, you are creating a false lead. It's a waste of resources. If you want to complain then do so legitimately (i.e. write your senator a letter, write the newspaper, post on/., become a politician, etc.) By making extra work for an agent (or just tying up electrical/electronical resources) you are delaying a valuable process.
I presume that you believe there are threats out there (i.e. Osama), and if so, I presume that you want such threats stamped-out (i.e. Saddam). If so, our law enforcement agencies would do better if they didn't have to deal with "noise".
I also presume that you realize the world is not black and white and that it has many shades of grey (i.e. terrorists who pose as your neighbors) - which means we do need secrets: "Yes Osama, we are going to look for you at these coordinates next week please don't move because we are being honest with you." Or would you prefer this model "Just in, we caught Osama because we were able to surprise him." Now we haven't caught Osama, but nothing is full-proof. Imagine what would have happend if Saddam knew we were going to look for him in the area he got caught? He would have probably moved to a new hole in the ground.
It would be better to work within the system instead of trying to hinder the process.
Great, so you like tying up the governments resources (read: waste our money) by giving them false leads.
So while a government agent is checking you out, because you like to try and be suspicious, they cannot check out potential real criminals.
The gov't needs its secrets to help protect its people - because guess what - the bad guy has secrets and they are out there. If you think the system is so corrupt and that no politicians can be trusted - maybe you should become one and start setting things straight WITHIN the system.
Try working within the system to fix it, instead of hindering it. Your wannabe anarchist philosphy sucks.
People, everyone one of us, is self-serving by our very nature. So are all living beings, the only difference is we are smarter and it is possible for us, to an extent, to suppress this nature.
Nothing wrong with wanting to get ahead, richer, etc. Just some people do not know when to stop or when enough is enough. If you are on a roll, you keep on going. Though some people do take it to extremes.
Here's a better idea. People could stop voting for candidates who's agenda starts and stops with business interests. They could start voting for people who are actually interested in representing the, well, people.
Please, do tell, who are these mystical saints you are speaking about?
I agree that human bias can be detrimental. That should not restrict us from research. Obviously, this does not mean that women cannot be great in math/science, it just means on the average men have a slight genetic advantage. Maybe a man has to work a little less harder to understand some analystical concepts. At no point did someone say that women should not practice math/science.
What we are looking at is averages and if possible max/mins. So using your strength example. The strongest person in the world is a man, and on average men are stronger then women. So that pretty much tells me that men have some genetic advantage when it comes to strength. Does that mean some women can't be stronger then some men? No...what it means is on the average and on the max women are not as strong.
It is a fact. I like facts. I like to know whats up; and then let me decide how to use the information. I think I am a pretty fair person and won't abuse that information.
It was an example - and many women in the past were barred from showing their works which shows the lack of great women artists. Those that did create wonderful works of art usually worked under pseudonames.
And as stated before, nobody said that because one gender has an advantage over another gender that the gender with the "disadvantage" cannot do great works.
I agree that a lot needs to be done in research, especially when it comes to mental process. THere are differences, however, in the way males and females think. To not try and find these differences, and then if they exist, acknowledge them is silly and "sillier". If we find out conclusively that one gender is better at something then another I am not proposing to ban the gender who is not dominant from the field - but it is still valuable to know. For example - are women more capable of raising children then men? The current mindset of our society believes so - but is this true? (Other then breast feeding, which can only be done by the mother).
I don't think you are riding my case. I am not the only person who believes (Darwin) that life is supposed to be inequal. Again, this is how nature set it up. Equality and fairness is a mindset. I am pretty sure the lion in the safarri doesn't care to much about equality - only to fill it's stomach and satisfy it's sexual urges. I do not think this shoes a lack of a scientific eye, but that is opinion:)
Oh thats right, because someone who has a biological advantage is going to slack and while someone who has the disadvantage is going to bust-their ass. Is that a proof you just gave me? Maybe its a law..the Law of Inane statements.
But again, you failed to read what has been posted over and over - "Given all else equal". Meaning that both people busted their humps.
Oh and in reality, I could care less who "busted" their humps. While the person with the disadvantage gets an "A" for effort, and the person with an advantage gets an "A" for slacking. I would rather have the person who is more KNOWLEDGABLE performing brain surgeury on me. I would hope you do, and the only reason you are continuing this argument with attempts at insult is to save face.
But this argument goes nowhere as you conveniently ignore my points and throw things that are out of scope. You lost the debate because you failed to argue the criteria.
They don't? If you have a biological advantage in math and science (something that strongly affects neursurgery) you don't think this will affect two particular surgeons skills?
So my example (i never said experiment since I wasn't running one) is fairly meaningful.
So if the chance of error in the study is +/-5% and it shows that only 2% of the male population is smarter in math and science then women - yes you would be correct. Scientists would also not base their assumptions on this data. So, without getting actual numbers, I would say that the degree of error is smaller then the population this effects.
Accepted, published works usually go through a rigourous process before being published.
Exactly, in my fantasy land. Where I try to remove as many obstacles out of the way to get to as pure an answer as possible. I think they try that in science experiements. But meanwhile back on earth you are not offering anything useful - especially an answer to a valid question: given all else equal, would you rather have the smarter person on a given subject matter or the "dumber" person.
If it lets me stay home, raise the kids, and ensures that the girl pays for my movies, dinner, clothes, jewelry then I will accept my lowly level in this society and live with the terrible burdeon that someone else can take charge.
As for better at cooking? Chef is typically a male associated word and one of prestige for a person who cooks...whats the term for women? Sides, of all the girls I have dated I am a better cook then all of them.
Though "feminazi" does kind of imply "angry" something or other; and you have to admit there are plenty of women out there who go a bit extreme on their own right. There are also a lot of women who whine and complain how society is always oppressing them when in reality they have had it pretty damn well.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea me be a supporter of the PLO. You are on crack. I don't feel like responding to the rest of your rant because of your inane 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences.
Not really a staw man argument.
Justb ecause the original poster did not mention WWII Germany does not mean I cannot to help make a point:
Nobody messed with Hitler at first because he was not a big threat. When he conquered one country he said he would stop and people believed him. He broke another treaty, but then said he would stop, and the cycle perpetuated until Hitler became a real threat. He never left Euripe/Asia as it was a bit harder to threaten other continents, not connected by land routes, at that point in time (no ICBM's). The US got involved when they realized that this guy was going to take over all of Europe and most of Asia.
So when Saddam decided to conquer his neighbor, the US decided to not allow him to continue. Amongst other things, by letting him conquer he would gain more power/money/resources.
The Hitler/WWII answer is a valid argument and is a model that we use ever since WWII, because we do not want another such situation to occur.
Your right I presume a lot. Please tell me which of the presumptions you do not believe in? Do you not believe there are evil people out there trying to hurt us? Do you not believe we should stop them? Please help me out with this.
So far I have not felt that my liberties have been given up. My day to day life is all the same - and I am sure yours is also.
Do you belive that Terrorists live in our country, terrorists communicate with people in our country? - if so then the FBI needs to use a sniffing program to help them find these people. Don't worry I am pretty sure my porn collection is safe. And I am sure that the gov't could care less about me so I am sure I won't disappear in my lifetime by some spook.
Actually pretty dead right. I never said don't question your gov't, I never said ignore the bad things your gov't may do. What I said is - if you don't like it, fight within the system.
Go jump on someone elses case and write a valid post.
The constitution, btw, was built on the assumption that it can be changed to help better protect the rights of the individual. Again, with things like Carnivore, I never felt intruded upon. I never had someone knock on my door and haul me away; nor did I ever have the gov't question me in anyway.
so whats your point?
And where did i mention giving my rights away for tax-benefits? Stop putting words into my mouth.
oh your right, we should leave saddam and every other bad guy in power. Maybe attacking hitler was a bad thing to. What a mistake it was going to WWII. Man you got me there.
Have to work for more then 40 years? Unless I was uber rich I might choose for the shorter life span.
I am not arguing if we have too little or too much security. And trust me, our security is nothing compared to other countries (i.e. israel). In fact countries like Israel accept this increased intrusion and do not worry about it - because unless you are doing something wrong you don't need to worry about it. Most likely, nobody is even watching you because you are insignificant. It is when you decide to stand-out that people look at you - but again if you are not doing anything wrong - you have nothing to worry about.
What I disagree with you about is making yourself stand-out just so you distract our security organizations for a moment. While you think this is sending a message, I think it is just wasting resources. If you want to send a message - send one that is direct, not subversive. How is the FBI supposed to know you are just telling them they are wasting their time? If you want them to know that - write a letter to your politician of choice, or do something else that works within the system. Your present methods circumvent the system - and by purposely hindering the system you are honestly just comitting a crime (interfering with gov't sanctioned criminal investigations.)
Why the gov't doesn't want their security software- designed to sniff out criminals - as open source. Lets see. If it is open source then the criminals can get access to it. If the criminals have access to it they can try and figure a way around it. Yea that pretty much is a good enough reason why the gov't would want it to remain closed source/top secret.
So to other posters who say the FBI agents aren't the brightest - you would be surprised who works in the FBI and the level of intelligence/knowledge they hold. The tests to get in are not easy, the process is long, and if you check out some of the pay scales for FBI computer agents - its pretty damn good (especially in this day and age). Also, you just can't beat a gov't benefits program.
whats with this overrated mod? To be overrated, doesn't the post have to have other people rate it first? How can you overrate something that has not been rated?
If you trick their system into thinking you are suspect of something, you are creating a false lead. It's a waste of resources. If you want to complain then do so legitimately (i.e. write your senator a letter, write the newspaper, post on /., become a politician, etc.) By making extra work for an agent (or just tying up electrical/electronical resources) you are delaying a valuable process.
I presume that you believe there are threats out there (i.e. Osama), and if so, I presume that you want such threats stamped-out (i.e. Saddam). If so, our law enforcement agencies would do better if they didn't have to deal with "noise".
I also presume that you realize the world is not black and white and that it has many shades of grey (i.e. terrorists who pose as your neighbors) - which means we do need secrets: "Yes Osama, we are going to look for you at these coordinates next week please don't move because we are being honest with you." Or would you prefer this model "Just in, we caught Osama because we were able to surprise him." Now we haven't caught Osama, but nothing is full-proof. Imagine what would have happend if Saddam knew we were going to look for him in the area he got caught? He would have probably moved to a new hole in the ground.
It would be better to work within the system instead of trying to hinder the process.
Great, so you like tying up the governments resources (read: waste our money) by giving them false leads.
So while a government agent is checking you out, because you like to try and be suspicious, they cannot check out potential real criminals.
The gov't needs its secrets to help protect its people - because guess what - the bad guy has secrets and they are out there. If you think the system is so corrupt and that no politicians can be trusted - maybe you should become one and start setting things straight WITHIN the system.
Try working within the system to fix it, instead of hindering it. Your wannabe anarchist philosphy sucks.
People, everyone one of us, is self-serving by our very nature. So are all living beings, the only difference is we are smarter and it is possible for us, to an extent, to suppress this nature.
Nothing wrong with wanting to get ahead, richer, etc. Just some people do not know when to stop or when enough is enough. If you are on a roll, you keep on going. Though some people do take it to extremes.
Why is Al Gore's name not on the list? Didn't he invent the internet?
How about a law that imprisons the manager of a bank when their office gets held up in a robbery.
Here's a better idea. People could stop voting for candidates who's agenda starts and stops with business interests. They could start voting for people who are actually interested in representing the, well, people.
Please, do tell, who are these mystical saints you are speaking about?
People, by their very nature, are self-serving.
I agree that human bias can be detrimental. That should not restrict us from research. Obviously, this does not mean that women cannot be great in math/science, it just means on the average men have a slight genetic advantage. Maybe a man has to work a little less harder to understand some analystical concepts. At no point did someone say that women should not practice math/science.
What we are looking at is averages and if possible max/mins. So using your strength example. The strongest person in the world is a man, and on average men are stronger then women. So that pretty much tells me that men have some genetic advantage when it comes to strength. Does that mean some women can't be stronger then some men? No...what it means is on the average and on the max women are not as strong.
It is a fact. I like facts. I like to know whats up; and then let me decide how to use the information. I think I am a pretty fair person and won't abuse that information.
It was an example - and many women in the past were barred from showing their works which shows the lack of great women artists. Those that did create wonderful works of art usually worked under pseudonames.
And as stated before, nobody said that because one gender has an advantage over another gender that the gender with the "disadvantage" cannot do great works.
so whats your point?
I agree that a lot needs to be done in research, especially when it comes to mental process. THere are differences, however, in the way males and females think. To not try and find these differences, and then if they exist, acknowledge them is silly and "sillier". If we find out conclusively that one gender is better at something then another I am not proposing to ban the gender who is not dominant from the field - but it is still valuable to know. For example - are women more capable of raising children then men? The current mindset of our society believes so - but is this true? (Other then breast feeding, which can only be done by the mother).
I don't think you are riding my case. I am not the only person who believes (Darwin) that life is supposed to be inequal. Again, this is how nature set it up. Equality and fairness is a mindset. I am pretty sure the lion in the safarri doesn't care to much about equality - only to fill it's stomach and satisfy it's sexual urges. I do not think this shoes a lack of a scientific eye, but that is opinion :)
Oh thats right, because someone who has a biological advantage is going to slack and while someone who has the disadvantage is going to bust-their ass. Is that a proof you just gave me? Maybe its a law..the Law of Inane statements.
But again, you failed to read what has been posted over and over - "Given all else equal". Meaning that both people busted their humps.
Oh and in reality, I could care less who "busted" their humps. While the person with the disadvantage gets an "A" for effort, and the person with an advantage gets an "A" for slacking. I would rather have the person who is more KNOWLEDGABLE performing brain surgeury on me. I would hope you do, and the only reason you are continuing this argument with attempts at insult is to save face.
But this argument goes nowhere as you conveniently ignore my points and throw things that are out of scope. You lost the debate because you failed to argue the criteria.
They don't? If you have a biological advantage in math and science (something that strongly affects neursurgery) you don't think this will affect two particular surgeons skills?
So my example (i never said experiment since I wasn't running one) is fairly meaningful.
So if the chance of error in the study is +/-5% and it shows that only 2% of the male population is smarter in math and science then women - yes you would be correct. Scientists would also not base their assumptions on this data. So, without getting actual numbers, I would say that the degree of error is smaller then the population this effects.
Accepted, published works usually go through a rigourous process before being published.
Exactly, in my fantasy land. Where I try to remove as many obstacles out of the way to get to as pure an answer as possible. I think they try that in science experiements. But meanwhile back on earth you are not offering anything useful - especially an answer to a valid question: given all else equal, would you rather have the smarter person on a given subject matter or the "dumber" person.
If it lets me stay home, raise the kids, and ensures that the girl pays for my movies, dinner, clothes, jewelry then I will accept my lowly level in this society and live with the terrible burdeon that someone else can take charge.
As for better at cooking? Chef is typically a male associated word and one of prestige for a person who cooks...whats the term for women? Sides, of all the girls I have dated I am a better cook then all of them.
Though "feminazi" does kind of imply "angry" something or other; and you have to admit there are plenty of women out there who go a bit extreme on their own right. There are also a lot of women who whine and complain how society is always oppressing them when in reality they have had it pretty damn well.
This brings war driving to a whole other level.