If nations like N. Korea, China, and Iran, don't sign up, its pointless. And frankly, it is not likely that will happen as these nations see weaponing of space as the great equalizer. That was, after all, the entire point China flexed their muscle and did their anti-satellite attack creating so much debris in space. They understand full well, if you can destroy the US' force multipliers, you may actually stand to fight beyond a 30-60 day window against the US.
Most outside aggression the US faces today stems from past administrations' behaviour toward other nations.
Or lack thereof. If Clinton had done the right thing when he had the chance, it is very unlikely 911 would have ever happened. And of course that means it is very unlikely Bush would have received a second term and even more unlikely we would be in three wars right now; as opposed to one.
Its crazy how one bad decision can be a catalyst and change the direction of an entire nation so many years later.
Look people, these types are complaints are silly. They develop a cost model which is based on the assumption reasonable users will use a reasonable amount of bandwidth. For these users it essentially is unlimited. When you have 1% of their customers using as much bandwidth as say 25% of the rest of their customers, this means they are losing money on the 1% of high use users. In fact, that means 99% of their customers are subsidizing the 1%.
If by forcing their 1% to higher fees, this allows them to properly account for and attempt to cover the expense of the 1% users. At the same time it means their profit models actually begin to make sense. Rather than having 74% of their customers profitable, they can actually make a profit on 100% of their customers.
In other words, you pay for what you use rather than free load - oh wait...that's what these users are likely doing with all that bandwidth anyways.
Not really because now they have the added revenue to cover the bandwidth used by these customers. This means they are paying for their share of bandwidth allocation; as opposed to the typical user who was otherwise subsidizing these would-be cap users.
Uh no. UAC's purpose is to make it possible (in practice) not to use administrator accounts. Pretty much the complete opposite.
So how is one to use an administrator account without using an administrator account. You've completely missed the boat here. The gp is correct and you are wrong. The point is to allow secure access to administrator accounts without having to actually, explicitly log in as a desktop user as an administrator. So in that sense, you are right, but it does not change the fact the entire point, as the gp stated, it so allowed secure access to administrator accounts.
Rock chips at best will be good for poking but not cutting. So man made stone tools are actually quite different then a naturally occurring tool
It really depends on the type of rock. Some rock, after being chipped become sharper than most modern day knives and are absolutely used for cutting. In fact, a rock smaller than the size of three of your fingers can be used to butcher an animal the size of a mammoth in about a day's time.
The wikipedia article incorrectly refers to it as "flint knapping", whereas, it should simply be called, "knapping". The article does correctly point out it can be done on other types of rock including, "flint, chert, obsidian or other stone". Its just that the first three types of stone are what is commonly used to create knives.
Because unlike the rest of the world, the US' population is far more spread out making the cost per person far higher.
I do agree, in large cities such as New York, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, so on and so on, and surrounding suburban areas, there is no excuse for not having the fastest links in the world - and symmetrical at that.
I agree with you. Steam is just that; a steaming pile of...
Anything which empowers a company who through action or inaction prevents you legal access to your legal rights is a steaming pile of... And in this fashion, steam is no different than any other DRM scheme. Their sole purpose is to make life difficult for legal license holders and screw them over if the mood strikes; requiring no legal justification what so ever.
Surely some kind of crime has been committed here. Or at the very least cause to establish a class action suit. Doesn't his satisfy, "malicious interference", of license holders?
Its not like this just accidentally happened. This happened by design and they failed to prevent it. It's not like they didn't have plenty of time to fix it. It is by design because they explicitly set the expiration date when the certificate was created. If they didn't want this to happen, it would have been set 100 years from the creation date. Did they do that? No! They specifically set in motion an event which they knew would screw over their customers well within a window in which those customers are likely to still be active. If that's not malicious, what is?
He's right. Lie detectors do not detect lies. They detect stress levels while making a statement which, when measured and compared against a previously established baseline, allows on to *estimate* truthfulness.
The problem is, if you believe what you are saying is true, you can unknowingly tell a lie and pass.
The problem is, if you feel no remorse or guilt when lying, you can tell a lie and pass.
If your normal rest state is one of extreme stress, the difference between your baseline and "lie state" may not indicate you are lying when you are.
Many types of drugs interfere with lie detectors.
Lie detectors are not very reliable. There are good reasons lie detectors are not admissible in court. They still make for good investigative tools. Many police detectives do not understand how flawed and easily fooled lie detectors truly are. They are a good tool, that's it.
If it happened that long ago it may very well be true. Many people don't realize, not so many years ago, the IRS had more power than the CIA or FBI and that changed only after significant IRS reform. IIRC, that changed under the Clinton Administration.
Literally, not many years ago, if the IRS randomly decided you owed money, they would come in, seize all your accounts and assets. You would literal come home from work to find your crying family on the curb and your house boarded up. On arrival, your car would then be seized. You would then be expected to defend your self in rigged IRS court, where YOU had to prove the IRS was wrong, having no money, no house, no cars, and likely, no job. It was not uncommon for people arriving at IRS court to have left from living under a bridge or from other homeless outreach efforts. Employers and friends of these families were common threatened with like-action.
Additionally, if they did discover an honest mistake, they could wait an indeterminate number of years to tell you about it and demand interest and penalties. So what may have been an honest thousand dollar mistake will now cost you your home and retirement account, and maybe even jail time. And did I mention IRS agents would get bonuses for collecting additional fees and properties so it was in their own interest for fuck you over?
So while that specific situation may or may not have happened, rest assured the IRS has done significantly more to many more people who have done nothing but pay their taxes and done the right thing. And that's for a fact. It is far more likely the story is true than not. And if the story is not true, it is likely based on a composite of multiple true stories.
If you don't want to believe this story, fine. But I urge you to search old news stories from the 70s - 90s for such stories. You'll readily find, the horror stories of the IRS are far, far worse.
Are you sure about that? It is my understanding all Aspirin commonly purchased is actually synthetically manufactured Aspirin. I'm not sure you can still get "real" Aspirin. Real Aspirin comes from the bark of a white willow tree where use of the bark dates at least as far back as the Romans.
Note that none, not one, of the higher ups who ordered the torture has been brought to trail. It has all been on enlisted men and maybe 1 or 2 low ranking officers.
Exactly. People are seemingly calling for blood from people who likely didn't have much of a choice. In essence, people are demanding harsher punishments of US Soldiers than most Nazis/soldiers received following WWII.
They could and should have refused to execute their orders.
How do you know they didn't? Very possible such a refusal would have resulted in one of the following scenarios; jail, very dangerous front line assignment, or placement beside the prisoner.
Refusal to execute an order in the military is a life altering decision in the best of places. During wartime, it can be a life ending decision.
Just ask the Vietnamese. They succeeded in stymieing one of the largest and well-equipped military forces on the planet. They rarely used suicide bombers because the tactic was counter-productive.
That's really not true in the least. I wish people would stop saying that. The US Government stymied their own military allowing the Vietnamese almost every strategic military advantage. We lost the war because we were never allowed to win by our own country.
They won because people got tired of sending their sons to war to fight a war they were prohibited, literally, from winning. The Vietnamese needed only to continue fighting to win.
You can't take 100:1 losses. You need to change the game so that you don't take those losses. Suicide bombing will work regardless of whether you, Joe Spectator, thinks the side using it is 'stupid' until we have some way to neutralize that tactic.
Not really. suicide bombing has been losing it's appeal. It's far harder for them to find people dumb enough to do it. The local populations are tired of it too.
From a military perspective, it was never a terribly effective tactic. It was rapidly neutralized by our military. As a result, the enemy was forced to attack civilians. It only took something like a year for the local population to figure out they were supporting the murder of their own people and forcing additional casualties because of changed tactics by the Americans. Support quickly dried up, not only for suicide bombings, but for support of the largely foreign invading "freedom fighters." This is why calling them "terrorists" is an appropriate description.
In some parts of Iraq, the ratio of foreigners to natives is something like 40:1. Meaning, Iraq has become an anti-American battleground for neighbouring countries like Syria and Iran. The Iraqies are tired of it and have slowly realized supporting these people only means additional destruction of their country and death, by in large, at the hands of the same people they've been supporting - meaning, not Americans. They slowly figured out, supporting the people that think nothing of murdering their families really doesn't make a lot of sense. Slowly, public opinion in favour of America has grown. Sure, they want us out, but they know we can't leave yet until their own army is ready to replace us.
In short, suicide bombers in Iraq has actually helped fuel a pro-American, or at least a more tolerant attitude. They finally realized, the sooner they help us help them, the sooner we're out of there and the less their country is going to be torn up.
but the effect it will have on the morale of the invaders and their homeland as a whole.
Actually, the intended effect is not to demoralize the invading country, rather, it is to daemonize/terrorize their own people so as to prevent support of the invading power. No support from the native people helps ensures a continuing conflict. A continuing conflict, in turn, helps demoralize, or in the case of Democracies, errode the support for the invading power.
You should watch the documentary A Death in Gaza. It doesn't argue in favor of suicide bombing, but it will help you understand why desperate people in a desperate situation do things that seem otherwise irrational.
And much of that desperation directly stems from their broken culture. Made worse, the worst of their culture broke their religion. In turn you have a culture based on a broken religion which in turn breaks their culture. A broken culture only helps feed their broken religion. It rapidly becomes a closed loop. Both their culture and religion prevent critical examination of either, thusly ensuring social stagnation, ignorance, and social puppetry. In other words, you will confirm to the role required of you by your society or religion; or die. This in turn creates a society which has nothing but contempt for human life.
They can not fix their culture until they fix their religion. Their only other option is to stop basing their culture and concept of identity on their religion.
Japan suffered much of these same flaws and suffered much of the same fate; war and destruction from both inside and out. They were able to break away from it because they stopped basing their culture and their concept of self on their religion(s). They removed power from their Emperor. This in turn allowed for a new sense of self which is not molded by the state or their religion. It allows critical thinking and examination of social standards. It allows opinions and cultures from outside to be integrated into their own. In turn, this allows for harmony with others from outside their own society and cultural experiences.
Vista's first impression was that it generally was slower
And for the record, it has consistently been benchmarked to be slower than XP and Linux - at least when it first came out. People have the "impression" it is slower because it really is/was slower. In some cases, by a wide margin.
You have child porn on your computer which you deny is yours. You failed to remove it. You failed to notify police. At what point do you think reasonable doubt will come to save the day?
Face it, you're going to jail and your life is forever ruined.
When I first read your reply, I was very surprised as I was told this by an attorney. After seeing you post the gritty details, I understand he is right. What is said is a pretty accurate layman's depiction of the law.
Affirmative Defense.-- It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (4) of subsection (a) that the defendant-- (1) possessed less than three matters containing any visual depiction proscribed by that paragraph; and (2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any visual depiction or copy thereof-- (A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or (B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.
** THATS ** the law..
In other words, exactly as I said. Plant three pictures and inform the police. Done. You're in jail. Since someone anonymously turned you in, by definition, you can not satisfy clauses 2a *OR* 2b. Since you didn't know about it, you can not satisfy clause 2. Since clause 1 is tied to clauses 2, 2a, and 2b, and three pictures are present, no matter what, you can't satisfy clause 1. You have no defence. You fail to meet even one clause required for a legal defence. You are now in jail and your life forever ruined. This is pretty much a recap of what I said in the first place.
Blow myself up - No that's just stupid as that limits the number of enemy i can kill. My objective is not to die for my country/planet but to make the other bastard die for his.
Agreed. You can only blow your self up once. It is the weapon of terror and cowards. It is a weapon of the weak.
I'm sure I'll be lambasted for this, but even the French, with all they had to experience in both world wars, were never that weak and cowardly. They could have, easily. They had religion. They could have corrupted it, but they didn't. After all, they didn't desire to cause terror and murder innocent people, they simply wanted their country back. If anything, the French have an important lesson to teach here - in bravery, intelligence, and freedom fighting.
gun at my head to sign - I'd sign, after all it's self presevation, and no I wouldn't be responsible (in my mind) as they forced me to sign, so they were going to do it anyway.
Exactly, if you don't sign, they'll just keep killing people until they find someone that will sign. It's meaningless. Signing doesn't make one responsible. Signing is only acknowledgement of reaching or exceeding a physical or mental breaking point. Nothing more. Nothing less. Responsibility has nothing to do with it.
Funny in what way? Al Jazeera is a normal, reputable news source in the Middle East. It's no more (and no less) a propaganda or terrorism hub than USA Today, Fox News or the New York Times. Just because it's in the Middle East doesn't make it "evil".
I claim bullshit every time I read this stuff. They are very biased. Stations like FOX and MSNBC are constantly kicked for being biased, but the truth is, they are not. It is their editorial and opinion pieces which are biased. It is always easy to see when spin in motion.
Al Jazeera, on the other hand, is a smooth blend of the worst of the opinion pieces in America which is constantly kicked. It's almost impossible to tell what's fact, what's spin, what's bullshit, what's the latest trend. They often transmit entire terrorist demands, both popularizing them and unofficially endorsing them. They use phrases like "Americans murdered...", with, "Such-n-such killed...". In other words, Americans commit murder while Islam commits justifiable revenge; regardless of the context.
Al Jazeera is in no way shape or form non-biased or comparable to any US station of which I'm aware. Seriously, go read some of their translated crap or listen to a translated version of their broadcast. Subtle hate mongering and overshadowing bias is the order of the day - every day.
To be absolutely clear, Al Jazeera is accepted in much the same way toddlers get away with peeing in the pool. We all know what's coming. We all know they did it. They are "accepted" for no other reason than it's a portal to potential viewers in that part of the world. If you alienate AlJazeera, you alienate most of that part of the world. Only fools would do so. In the mean time, when we feel the water in the pool get warmer, we all just smile and say, "oh you..."
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo, we have a winner!
If nations like N. Korea, China, and Iran, don't sign up, its pointless. And frankly, it is not likely that will happen as these nations see weaponing of space as the great equalizer. That was, after all, the entire point China flexed their muscle and did their anti-satellite attack creating so much debris in space. They understand full well, if you can destroy the US' force multipliers, you may actually stand to fight beyond a 30-60 day window against the US.
And yes, those weapons did end the war.
Actually they didn't. They did end the war only slightly faster. And very likely it saved the world from nuclear nightmares down the road.
Most outside aggression the US faces today stems from past administrations' behaviour toward other nations.
Or lack thereof. If Clinton had done the right thing when he had the chance, it is very unlikely 911 would have ever happened. And of course that means it is very unlikely Bush would have received a second term and even more unlikely we would be in three wars right now; as opposed to one.
Its crazy how one bad decision can be a catalyst and change the direction of an entire nation so many years later.
Look people, these types are complaints are silly. They develop a cost model which is based on the assumption reasonable users will use a reasonable amount of bandwidth. For these users it essentially is unlimited. When you have 1% of their customers using as much bandwidth as say 25% of the rest of their customers, this means they are losing money on the 1% of high use users. In fact, that means 99% of their customers are subsidizing the 1%.
If by forcing their 1% to higher fees, this allows them to properly account for and attempt to cover the expense of the 1% users. At the same time it means their profit models actually begin to make sense. Rather than having 74% of their customers profitable, they can actually make a profit on 100% of their customers.
In other words, you pay for what you use rather than free load - oh wait...that's what these users are likely doing with all that bandwidth anyways.
This is counter to the purpose of caps, IMO.
Not really because now they have the added revenue to cover the bandwidth used by these customers. This means they are paying for their share of bandwidth allocation; as opposed to the typical user who was otherwise subsidizing these would-be cap users.
but almost no game worked correctly
This is usually caused by DRM and/or anti-cheat software used by the game.
Uh no. UAC's purpose is to make it possible (in practice) not to use administrator accounts. Pretty much the complete opposite.
So how is one to use an administrator account without using an administrator account. You've completely missed the boat here. The gp is correct and you are wrong. The point is to allow secure access to administrator accounts without having to actually, explicitly log in as a desktop user as an administrator. So in that sense, you are right, but it does not change the fact the entire point, as the gp stated, it so allowed secure access to administrator accounts.
Rock chips at best will be good for poking but not cutting. So man made stone tools are actually quite different then a naturally occurring tool
It really depends on the type of rock. Some rock, after being chipped become sharper than most modern day knives and are absolutely used for cutting. In fact, a rock smaller than the size of three of your fingers can be used to butcher an animal the size of a mammoth in about a day's time.
The wikipedia article incorrectly refers to it as "flint knapping", whereas, it should simply be called, "knapping". The article does correctly point out it can be done on other types of rock including, "flint, chert, obsidian or other stone". Its just that the first three types of stone are what is commonly used to create knives.
Because unlike the rest of the world, the US' population is far more spread out making the cost per person far higher.
I do agree, in large cities such as New York, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, so on and so on, and surrounding suburban areas, there is no excuse for not having the fastest links in the world - and symmetrical at that.
I agree with you. Steam is just that; a steaming pile of...
Anything which empowers a company who through action or inaction prevents you legal access to your legal rights is a steaming pile of... And in this fashion, steam is no different than any other DRM scheme. Their sole purpose is to make life difficult for legal license holders and screw them over if the mood strikes; requiring no legal justification what so ever.
Surely some kind of crime has been committed here. Or at the very least cause to establish a class action suit. Doesn't his satisfy, "malicious interference", of license holders?
Its not like this just accidentally happened. This happened by design and they failed to prevent it. It's not like they didn't have plenty of time to fix it. It is by design because they explicitly set the expiration date when the certificate was created. If they didn't want this to happen, it would have been set 100 years from the creation date. Did they do that? No! They specifically set in motion an event which they knew would screw over their customers well within a window in which those customers are likely to still be active. If that's not malicious, what is?
He's right. Lie detectors do not detect lies. They detect stress levels while making a statement which, when measured and compared against a previously established baseline, allows on to *estimate* truthfulness.
The problem is, if you believe what you are saying is true, you can unknowingly tell a lie and pass.
The problem is, if you feel no remorse or guilt when lying, you can tell a lie and pass.
If your normal rest state is one of extreme stress, the difference between your baseline and "lie state" may not indicate you are lying when you are.
Many types of drugs interfere with lie detectors.
Lie detectors are not very reliable. There are good reasons lie detectors are not admissible in court. They still make for good investigative tools. Many police detectives do not understand how flawed and easily fooled lie detectors truly are. They are a good tool, that's it.
If it happened that long ago it may very well be true. Many people don't realize, not so many years ago, the IRS had more power than the CIA or FBI and that changed only after significant IRS reform. IIRC, that changed under the Clinton Administration.
Literally, not many years ago, if the IRS randomly decided you owed money, they would come in, seize all your accounts and assets. You would literal come home from work to find your crying family on the curb and your house boarded up. On arrival, your car would then be seized. You would then be expected to defend your self in rigged IRS court, where YOU had to prove the IRS was wrong, having no money, no house, no cars, and likely, no job. It was not uncommon for people arriving at IRS court to have left from living under a bridge or from other homeless outreach efforts. Employers and friends of these families were common threatened with like-action.
Additionally, if they did discover an honest mistake, they could wait an indeterminate number of years to tell you about it and demand interest and penalties. So what may have been an honest thousand dollar mistake will now cost you your home and retirement account, and maybe even jail time. And did I mention IRS agents would get bonuses for collecting additional fees and properties so it was in their own interest for fuck you over?
So while that specific situation may or may not have happened, rest assured the IRS has done significantly more to many more people who have done nothing but pay their taxes and done the right thing. And that's for a fact. It is far more likely the story is true than not. And if the story is not true, it is likely based on a composite of multiple true stories.
If you don't want to believe this story, fine. But I urge you to search old news stories from the 70s - 90s for such stories. You'll readily find, the horror stories of the IRS are far, far worse.
Only real Aspirin is disallowed during pregnancy
Are you sure about that? It is my understanding all Aspirin commonly purchased is actually synthetically manufactured Aspirin. I'm not sure you can still get "real" Aspirin. Real Aspirin comes from the bark of a white willow tree where use of the bark dates at least as far back as the Romans.
Note that none, not one, of the higher ups who ordered the torture has been brought to trail. It has all been on enlisted men and maybe 1 or 2 low ranking officers.
Exactly. People are seemingly calling for blood from people who likely didn't have much of a choice. In essence, people are demanding harsher punishments of US Soldiers than most Nazis/soldiers received following WWII.
They could and should have refused to execute their orders.
How do you know they didn't? Very possible such a refusal would have resulted in one of the following scenarios; jail, very dangerous front line assignment, or placement beside the prisoner.
Refusal to execute an order in the military is a life altering decision in the best of places. During wartime, it can be a life ending decision.
Just ask the Vietnamese. They succeeded in stymieing one of the largest and well-equipped military forces on the planet. They rarely used suicide bombers because the tactic was counter-productive.
That's really not true in the least. I wish people would stop saying that. The US Government stymied their own military allowing the Vietnamese almost every strategic military advantage. We lost the war because we were never allowed to win by our own country.
They won because people got tired of sending their sons to war to fight a war they were prohibited, literally, from winning. The Vietnamese needed only to continue fighting to win.
You can't take 100:1 losses. You need to change the game so that you don't take those losses. Suicide bombing will work regardless of whether you, Joe Spectator, thinks the side using it is 'stupid' until we have some way to neutralize that tactic.
Not really. suicide bombing has been losing it's appeal. It's far harder for them to find people dumb enough to do it. The local populations are tired of it too.
From a military perspective, it was never a terribly effective tactic. It was rapidly neutralized by our military. As a result, the enemy was forced to attack civilians. It only took something like a year for the local population to figure out they were supporting the murder of their own people and forcing additional casualties because of changed tactics by the Americans. Support quickly dried up, not only for suicide bombings, but for support of the largely foreign invading "freedom fighters." This is why calling them "terrorists" is an appropriate description.
In some parts of Iraq, the ratio of foreigners to natives is something like 40:1. Meaning, Iraq has become an anti-American battleground for neighbouring countries like Syria and Iran. The Iraqies are tired of it and have slowly realized supporting these people only means additional destruction of their country and death, by in large, at the hands of the same people they've been supporting - meaning, not Americans. They slowly figured out, supporting the people that think nothing of murdering their families really doesn't make a lot of sense. Slowly, public opinion in favour of America has grown. Sure, they want us out, but they know we can't leave yet until their own army is ready to replace us.
In short, suicide bombers in Iraq has actually helped fuel a pro-American, or at least a more tolerant attitude. They finally realized, the sooner they help us help them, the sooner we're out of there and the less their country is going to be torn up.
but the effect it will have on the morale of the invaders and their homeland as a whole.
Actually, the intended effect is not to demoralize the invading country, rather, it is to daemonize/terrorize their own people so as to prevent support of the invading power. No support from the native people helps ensures a continuing conflict. A continuing conflict, in turn, helps demoralize, or in the case of Democracies, errode the support for the invading power.
You should watch the documentary A Death in Gaza. It doesn't argue in favor of suicide bombing, but it will help you understand why desperate people in a desperate situation do things that seem otherwise irrational.
And much of that desperation directly stems from their broken culture. Made worse, the worst of their culture broke their religion. In turn you have a culture based on a broken religion which in turn breaks their culture. A broken culture only helps feed their broken religion. It rapidly becomes a closed loop. Both their culture and religion prevent critical examination of either, thusly ensuring social stagnation, ignorance, and social puppetry. In other words, you will confirm to the role required of you by your society or religion; or die. This in turn creates a society which has nothing but contempt for human life.
They can not fix their culture until they fix their religion. Their only other option is to stop basing their culture and concept of identity on their religion.
Japan suffered much of these same flaws and suffered much of the same fate; war and destruction from both inside and out. They were able to break away from it because they stopped basing their culture and their concept of self on their religion(s). They removed power from their Emperor. This in turn allowed for a new sense of self which is not molded by the state or their religion. It allows critical thinking and examination of social standards. It allows opinions and cultures from outside to be integrated into their own. In turn, this allows for harmony with others from outside their own society and cultural experiences.
Vista's first impression was that it generally was slower
And for the record, it has consistently been benchmarked to be slower than XP and Linux - at least when it first came out. People have the "impression" it is slower because it really is/was slower. In some cases, by a wide margin.
You have child porn on your computer which you deny is yours. You failed to remove it. You failed to notify police. At what point do you think reasonable doubt will come to save the day?
Face it, you're going to jail and your life is forever ruined.
When I first read your reply, I was very surprised as I was told this by an attorney. After seeing you post the gritty details, I understand he is right. What is said is a pretty accurate layman's depiction of the law.
Affirmative Defense.-- It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (4) of subsection (a) that the defendant--
(1) possessed less than three matters containing any visual depiction proscribed by that paragraph; and
(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any visual depiction or copy thereof--
(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or
(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.
** THATS ** the law..
In other words, exactly as I said. Plant three pictures and inform the police. Done. You're in jail. Since someone anonymously turned you in, by definition, you can not satisfy clauses 2a *OR* 2b. Since you didn't know about it, you can not satisfy clause 2. Since clause 1 is tied to clauses 2, 2a, and 2b, and three pictures are present, no matter what, you can't satisfy clause 1. You have no defence. You fail to meet even one clause required for a legal defence. You are now in jail and your life forever ruined. This is pretty much a recap of what I said in the first place.
Blow myself up - No that's just stupid as that limits the number of enemy i can kill. My objective is not to die for my country/planet but to make the other bastard die for his.
Agreed. You can only blow your self up once. It is the weapon of terror and cowards. It is a weapon of the weak.
I'm sure I'll be lambasted for this, but even the French, with all they had to experience in both world wars, were never that weak and cowardly. They could have, easily. They had religion. They could have corrupted it, but they didn't. After all, they didn't desire to cause terror and murder innocent people, they simply wanted their country back. If anything, the French have an important lesson to teach here - in bravery, intelligence, and freedom fighting.
gun at my head to sign - I'd sign, after all it's self presevation, and no I wouldn't be responsible (in my mind) as they forced me to sign, so they were going to do it anyway.
Exactly, if you don't sign, they'll just keep killing people until they find someone that will sign. It's meaningless. Signing doesn't make one responsible. Signing is only acknowledgement of reaching or exceeding a physical or mental breaking point. Nothing more. Nothing less. Responsibility has nothing to do with it.
Funny in what way? Al Jazeera is a normal, reputable news source in the Middle East. It's no more (and no less) a propaganda or terrorism hub than USA Today, Fox News or the New York Times. Just because it's in the Middle East doesn't make it "evil".
I claim bullshit every time I read this stuff. They are very biased. Stations like FOX and MSNBC are constantly kicked for being biased, but the truth is, they are not. It is their editorial and opinion pieces which are biased. It is always easy to see when spin in motion.
Al Jazeera, on the other hand, is a smooth blend of the worst of the opinion pieces in America which is constantly kicked. It's almost impossible to tell what's fact, what's spin, what's bullshit, what's the latest trend. They often transmit entire terrorist demands, both popularizing them and unofficially endorsing them. They use phrases like "Americans murdered...", with, "Such-n-such killed...". In other words, Americans commit murder while Islam commits justifiable revenge; regardless of the context.
Al Jazeera is in no way shape or form non-biased or comparable to any US station of which I'm aware. Seriously, go read some of their translated crap or listen to a translated version of their broadcast. Subtle hate mongering and overshadowing bias is the order of the day - every day.
To be absolutely clear, Al Jazeera is accepted in much the same way toddlers get away with peeing in the pool. We all know what's coming. We all know they did it. They are "accepted" for no other reason than it's a portal to potential viewers in that part of the world. If you alienate AlJazeera, you alienate most of that part of the world. Only fools would do so. In the mean time, when we feel the water in the pool get warmer, we all just smile and say, "oh you..."