In fact we get less security, since so much effort is spent on wasteful misleading security theater. Not only are resources wasted by botyh the TSA and by travelers, but the real security problems take a back seat to the theater.
The actual quote is Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. But according to wikipedia, he didn't write it.
At any rate, the Coward has his interpretation all wrong. It is not trading all security for all freedom, it is trading essential liberty for temporary security. Only morons don't understand that. Only morons go out of their way to interpret it as backwards as possible.
Thanks. I wonder if one of the ways for a new player to get a new botnet off the ground would be to hijack an existing botnet. It makes me think of the Mafia and other gangs, where one of the ways of showing what a tough guy you are is to take over a rival gang. In fact, that may be the only way, i both cases, since the existing gangs and botnets have skimmed the cream along with a lot of the milk. But unlike a gang, where new gangsters can start at the bottom and work their way up by proving their mettle, botnet capos don't need to hire lots of junior apprentices, and without those kind of entry level jobs, wannabe botnet players would have to hone their skills on their own botnets, no doubt helped by observing existing botnets, and then jump in and try to take over existing botnets.
Sure is a curious business. I wonder if someday botnet gangster movies and other cultural references will be as common as the mafia and prohibition gangsters were for so long.
How much of this is just botnets fighting over the same zombies -- how many existing old botnet zombies get taken over by the new botnet?
Heck, how many actual botnet masters are there? Is this just the same people but with new malware? Is this malware just version n + 1 of the old malware? Or do the same botnet masters have several botnets?
I sure don't know much about these in this kind of sense.
So you are saying that, what, version 3.0 of whatever huge buyout they try will actually be useful? That they will screw up Yahoo and make it useless and laughable, that the next buyout will show promise after a while, and that the buyout after that will actually be useful.
Huh. I don't think they can afford two more of these $44B buyouts.
The bigger difference is that Microsoft's competitor was glacially slow, far behind Microsoft in terms of up to date tech, and didn't have a clue how to catch up even if they had the means.
Whereas Google's competitor is glacially slow, far behind Google in terms of up to date tech, and doesn't have a clue how to catch up even if they had the means.
The first case is objective reality, the second is a subjective deal between humans - the church might be slightly more qualified then scientists at the later.
I'd like to see an even slightly cogent expansion on this silliness. The idea that imposing straitjackets on others' thinking has any kind of moral authority, let alone more than objective scientists who do not tell others how to think, is just begging for a reality check.
So Hitler and the Nazis did not kill Jews, nor did Stalin and his communists kill peasants, not did Mao and his communist system kill anybody. No, it was all those damned secularists!
Damn you Secularism! Damn you to Hell and back! Stop killing so many people!
I hope I haven't ruined your very well thought-out counter argument to foil all those Christian fiends that haunt you.
Not even close. You'd have to actually counter any argument in the first place, then you'd have to apply it to my argument specifically, and then you'd have to find Christian fiends (not hard) who foil me (as if!) and find me applying your argument against them (!).
Sure, but a weeks worth of uncertainty might be enough.
A lot of Christians didn't consider a baby as human until it had survived long enough to be baptized, and only then would they name it. Many so-called birthdays are baptism days. There is (was? didn't the pope just change it?) that concept of limbo where unbaptized babies go -- guess they aren't human after all.
There's more evidence for you that Christians don't consider life to have begun before birth, or even after it for that matter. That's ignoring the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" as it doesn't apply to soldiers or executioners. I guess many decades of uncertainty is just as good.
Galileo didn't draw theological conclusions. That's like saying Galileo burgled his neighbor because his neighbor claimed to own Galileo's house. The Church claimed scientific conclusions as being the domain of the church and only the church, thus any scientific claim was, by church definition only, theological.
Ancient people knew very well how long pregnancy lasted. They may not have been able to know the fuckday down to less than a week, but you know darn well that if a baby was born 8 months after the wedding, tongues wagged.
Ahhh... ask Christians why they celebrate birthdays and not fuckdays. They have no ready answer other than to change the subject and call you a potty mouth.
... they just won't admit that life begins at birth. There's a reason Christians celebrate birthdays and not fuckdays. All other posturing is just... posturing... in defiance of thousands of years of tradition.
The current pope also said Galileo got a fair trial. I'd say his long career is in believing nonsense, whether consistent or not, which would happily return to the dark ages of yee olde fashioned Big Brother in the pointed hat or brown robe.
We listen to engineers and scientists when they have demonstrated some expertise in their fields of expertise.
Considering how much scandal comes out of the religious leadership field, I'd say religious leaders are no more moral than ordinary people and have no better grasp of ethics than ordinary people.
Not sure what market he is in, now, possibly philanthropy, but it seems more likely to me that he is upset that he can't control it and wants everybody else to obey some new rule he's made up so he can get back to doing what he knows how to do -- lie cheat and steal his way to absolute control.
Slashdot Mirror
Ask them if they'd be happy getting bills on postcards. Why do they like envelopes if they have nothing to hide?
In fact we get less security, since so much effort is spent on wasteful misleading security theater. Not only are resources wasted by botyh the TSA and by travelers, but the real security problems take a back seat to the theater.
The actual quote is Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. But according to wikipedia, he didn't write it.
At any rate, the Coward has his interpretation all wrong. It is not trading all security for all freedom, it is trading essential liberty for temporary security. Only morons don't understand that. Only morons go out of their way to interpret it as backwards as possible.
Criminy mods are crazy here. I made a joke about zygotes dividing because God inserted an extra soul and got modded informative.
Thanks. I wonder if one of the ways for a new player to get a new botnet off the ground would be to hijack an existing botnet. It makes me think of the Mafia and other gangs, where one of the ways of showing what a tough guy you are is to take over a rival gang. In fact, that may be the only way, i both cases, since the existing gangs and botnets have skimmed the cream along with a lot of the milk. But unlike a gang, where new gangsters can start at the bottom and work their way up by proving their mettle, botnet capos don't need to hire lots of junior apprentices, and without those kind of entry level jobs, wannabe botnet players would have to hone their skills on their own botnets, no doubt helped by observing existing botnets, and then jump in and try to take over existing botnets.
Sure is a curious business. I wonder if someday botnet gangster movies and other cultural references will be as common as the mafia and prohibition gangsters were for so long.
How much of this is just botnets fighting over the same zombies -- how many existing old botnet zombies get taken over by the new botnet?
Heck, how many actual botnet masters are there? Is this just the same people but with new malware? Is this malware just version n + 1 of the old malware? Or do the same botnet masters have several botnets?
I sure don't know much about these in this kind of sense.
So you are saying that, what, version 3.0 of whatever huge buyout they try will actually be useful? That they will screw up Yahoo and make it useless and laughable, that the next buyout will show promise after a while, and that the buyout after that will actually be useful.
Huh. I don't think they can afford two more of these $44B buyouts.
The bigger difference is that Microsoft's competitor was glacially slow, far behind Microsoft in terms of up to date tech, and didn't have a clue how to catch up even if they had the means.
Whereas Google's competitor is glacially slow, far behind Google in terms of up to date tech, and doesn't have a clue how to catch up even if they had the means.
Despite what you may read on slashdot, all other evidence suggests that this simply isn't true.
Despite what you may post without evidence on slashdot, much other evidence suggests that this has more truth than falseness.
The first case is objective reality, the second is a subjective deal between humans - the church might be slightly more qualified then scientists at the later.
I'd like to see an even slightly cogent expansion on this silliness. The idea that imposing straitjackets on others' thinking has any kind of moral authority, let alone more than objective scientists who do not tell others how to think, is just begging for a reality check.
Please provide some kind of logic here.
So Hitler and the Nazis did not kill Jews, nor did Stalin and his communists kill peasants, not did Mao and his communist system kill anybody. No, it was all those damned secularists!
Damn you Secularism! Damn you to Hell and back! Stop killing so many people!
The ability to be a co-worker with God in His work of creation is a great gift
So fertility doctors, whores, adulterers, rapists -- they are all working with God.
Makes sense. I wonder what this says about free will.
I suppose a related step is suiciders and murderers are working with God to help their victims enter Heaven.
God(sic) I love religion!
The zygote divides because God injected a second soul.
Sheesh.
The pope made a simple statement. Why in the world are you getting all defensive about this?
MightyMartian made a simple statement. Why in the world are you getting all defensive about this?
I hope I haven't ruined your very well thought-out counter argument to foil all those Christian fiends that haunt you.
Not even close. You'd have to actually counter any argument in the first place, then you'd have to apply it to my argument specifically, and then you'd have to find Christian fiends (not hard) who foil me (as if!) and find me applying your argument against them (!).
But keep on trying, it keeps you off the streets.
Sure, but a weeks worth of uncertainty might be enough.
A lot of Christians didn't consider a baby as human until it had survived long enough to be baptized, and only then would they name it. Many so-called birthdays are baptism days. There is (was? didn't the pope just change it?) that concept of limbo where unbaptized babies go -- guess they aren't human after all.
There's more evidence for you that Christians don't consider life to have begun before birth, or even after it for that matter. That's ignoring the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" as it doesn't apply to soldiers or executioners. I guess many decades of uncertainty is just as good.
Galileo didn't draw theological conclusions. That's like saying Galileo burgled his neighbor because his neighbor claimed to own Galileo's house. The Church claimed scientific conclusions as being the domain of the church and only the church, thus any scientific claim was, by church definition only, theological.
Ancient people knew very well how long pregnancy lasted. They may not have been able to know the fuckday down to less than a week, but you know darn well that if a baby was born 8 months after the wedding, tongues wagged.
Ahhh ... ask Christians why they celebrate birthdays and not fuckdays. They have no ready answer other than to change the subject and call you a potty mouth.
... they just won't admit that life begins at birth. There's a reason Christians celebrate birthdays and not fuckdays. All other posturing is just ... posturing ... in defiance of thousands of years of tradition.
The current pope also said Galileo got a fair trial. I'd say his long career is in believing nonsense, whether consistent or not, which would happily return to the dark ages of yee olde fashioned Big Brother in the pointed hat or brown robe.
Better to keep quiet and be thought inconsistent than open your mouth and prove it.
We listen to engineers and scientists when they have demonstrated some expertise in their fields of expertise.
Considering how much scandal comes out of the religious leadership field, I'd say religious leaders are no more moral than ordinary people and have no better grasp of ethics than ordinary people.
Sounds like Hitler crying that Britain and France were entirely to blame for the war that started after they invaded Poland.
Not sure what market he is in, now, possibly philanthropy, but it seems more likely to me that he is upset that he can't control it and wants everybody else to obey some new rule he's made up so he can get back to doing what he knows how to do -- lie cheat and steal his way to absolute control.