and didn't play anything like a decisive part in the war.
You were correct until that last part. WW1 was an ugly war where the side with the most bodies to spare won. The US added a signifigant number of bodies during the final push. Even if they were ill-trained and ill-equipped, they gave the allies the numbers needed to attack at a time when attacking meant killing your own troops off.
As I recall, there are more ways to "lift a finger" than actually comitting troops. The US involvement in the far east, in terms of punative diplomatic measures against the Japaneese (including a refusal to sell them oil unless they pull out of China), is what led up to Pearl Harbor. The Japaneese knew they wouldn't be able to expand further without risking US involvement, so they decided to take the advantage while they still had it and attack first. If the US was truly as "isolationist" as you imply, there would have been no reason to attack Pearl Harbor. None.
And I don't call essentially writing a blank check for Britain's war machine a failure to "lift a finger".
Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason. Yup. Nothing to do with the fact that all the arms came from those countries willing to sell them, which were NOT the US. What was in Sadaam's air force (back when he had one)? Mig's. What tanks were there? T-72 derivatives. The US never sold arms to Iraq, nor did it even offer to, so at no time was there a decision made by Iraqis over whether to but AK-47s or M-16's. They only had one option.
VOR beacons are transmitters that transmit a signal that encodes the direction from the station that continuously changes as you rotate around the compass points. Thus the receiving unit can tell what direction it is from the VOR based on the content of the signal. Using two VOR's together you can triangulate your position if you know where the VOR transmitters are on a map. "I'm on compass heading 110 from Milwaukee, and 68 from Chicago, which means I'm right over the edge of Lake Michigan, right here." The simplest VOR display in a cockpit doesn't show anything more than the directions and the pilot has to have a map to do the triangulation himself. The complex instruments used in airliners feed this data into a computer which gives you your position on a map display. But in either case, NO, a VOR is not accurate enough to land your plane to the nearest meter. It's no better than GPS. For landings, a different system is used that is much more accurate but only covers a limited zone. You use the VOR for macro-navigation from point A to point B, but use the ILS (instrument landing system) for the more accurate beacon while making your landing approach.
I do too. But it's not an accurate description of the situation. The trick is to interpose yourself between the criminal and his goal, and make it quite clear that he's only going to get to his goal through your dead body. As long as you are very careful about not being the one to actually commit the first violent act, this works. You are in a position then where either the criminal has to back down from his intended goal, or he has to commit bodily harm on you. There are no other options. Once you put things into that situation, then you *can* shoot in self defence if he tries anything. This is exactly what police officers are trained to do. If a man is robbing a store, don't shoot him. Instead point your gun at him and politely ask him to surrender, as you approach closer and closer. If he turns his gun toward you, you can legitimately fire on him. If he keeps his gun out, but doesn't gesture threateningly, keep inching toward him. Eventually it reaches a point where he has either surrendered, or tried to flee, or taken enough time that you are in close-touch range, or done the really stupid thing and tried to engage you in violence while you had him covered (which gives you the legal right to fire.)
The interesting thing is that in theory, the police are normal civilians who have no more legal powers than an ordinary citizen with regards to shooting people. They are not legally recognized as a military organization. So they have to put themselves in harms way to turn situations like this into self-defence situations so they can justify it if they have to shoot. Now, that's the theory. In practice the courts will be more lenient with a cop who shot someone in the line of duty when he didn't need to than they would with an ordinary citizen who did so. In *theory*, however, they have to abide by the same laws.
The fact that you found a single exception doesn't harm my case. I didn't say all attacks happen without witnesses. I said they normally do.
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Surprise, I agree with you. Spam is only a bad thing when done anonymously for the purpose of avoiding customer backlash. The difference between me and you, perhaps, is that for me the vast majority of the spam I receive is that type, so I just assumed it as part of the definition of spam. If the company really is being honest about who they are, I don't consider it spam.
Police are trained to never fire their gun unless it's a situation where death would be acceptable. They don't do things like aim for the leg. The fear is that if police are allowed to shoot guns "non-leathally" to stop crime, then there will most certainly end up being several cases where a well-intentioned maiming shot is misaimed and becomes a lethal shot. Since the chance is pretty good of a pistol shot going astray, they are told, in no uncertain terms, that the only time it is legitimate to fire the gun is when death is allowed. As such, they are usually trained only in how to fire toward the center of mass of the torso, that being the easiest place to score a hit. Any situation where you shouldn't kill the perpitrator, and you have to chase o foot and tackle the person. There is no in-between shoot-to-maim allowed. Why mention this? Because it might be a good policy for home gun owners as well. Since there's a good chance of death, don't fire on someone if you think it's a situation where if he died you'd be in a *LOT* of trouble. If you ended up killing the thief with your TV instead of just maiming him, you could be tried as a murderer.
Re:stun guns are not that effective
on
Shocking Clothing
·
· Score: 1
You see, if everyone has a gun on them, then even if you are attacked, there is someone else who can cover you,
Not to comment on your main point, but just this statement: If you're talking about a sexual predator, don't those sorts of attacks normally happen in places where the woman is NOT going to be noticed by others? What kind of an incompetent idiot is going to try to attack a woman with other witnesses around?
Well, realisticly, the smaller the person, the less effective fighting back would be, and thus the more demand for this sort of thing there would be. Who's an easier target for assult? A petite weak woman or a large strong woman?
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
People need to accepted the reality of email advertising and get on with their lives. It's as simple as that.
This is true. But that wasn't your claim. Your claim I was refuting was that when a spammer puts mail in my inbox that this ME using a service I paid for. No. It's the spammer using a service I paid for. If you disagree, then kindly publish your e-mail address and I'll see to it that you use the remainder of your inbox. (No, I don't really plan to do that.)
The claim that spam is here to stay and getting rid of it is unenforcable I agree with. The claim that nothing wrong is occurring I do not agree with. Just because a wrongdoing isn't practically punishable doesn't change whether or not it's wrong.
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Attempt at humor? 'cause that's not the same thing at all.
What's so different about it? You pay for your own mailbox. You pay for your own hard drive space which stores your INBOX. Your mailbox can be filled to capacity making it impossible to put other mail in it. So too with your INBOX. While there are legitimate ways to get a message into your mailbox, I could also dress up like a mailman, and drop mail into your mailbox and your mailbox wouldn't know I was "fake'. Just like anyone can forge an e-mail to your INBOX without the proper information to back-trace it to the source.
I'm not confusing them. One agency became the other. Just like Germany today and Germany circa 1935 are the same country, even though the government went through a number of changes and renames in between.
Do they get delivered in the same truck or by the same employee? Then they do subsidize each other. (It costs just as much to pay an employee to walk to your box with two pieces of mail as with one, and it costs just as much fuel to drive the cute little jeep if it's giving you one envelope or two.)
Re:Dang it, there goes my stomach lining...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, but that's just the cost of using the service. Sorry, but I'm not the one using the service - the spammer is. He's using MY service for HIS needs and I'm not getting compensation. If you think this isn't the case, then can I please know where you live so I can park my car in your driveway.
Re:Not quite...
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Is your time worth money? Is space in your physical mailbox limited? Do you ever send first-class mail? Then you *do* pay for bulk snail-mail.
Re:are you kidding?
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
ALso, the USPS is a government sponsored monopoly but it doesn't receive any tax payer dollars. It is self funding.
Not only that, but it's even older than the government. The post office was concieved under the Articles of Confederation, before the current government under the Constitution. And not only did it pay for itself, but it was once the primary source of revenue to fund the government.
You are right that they don't have to yet. But UNTIL they do you can't just assume out of hand that they have such evidence. You don't side with the plantiff by default.
I'm no expert on who supported the installation of the Taliban or to what degree. I understand that to a significant degree they were supported directly or inderictly by the west (the good guys?). - Note I made no direct accusations!
Given the context, you had no reason to bring it up other than to throw that unstated accusation out there.
The Taliban didn't really even exist when the US was still giving money and arms to Afghanis to fight the Soviets. The Taliban was a new militia. But since the coutry was flooded with US small-arms weapons in the hands of the rebels the US funded, much of that found it's way into Taliban hands once it was formed up *AFTER* the Soviets left and the US stopped the funding. Also, many of the rebel fighters became part of the new Taliban as well. Spin-generating shysters have tried to paint this as, "The US supported the Taliban" - which is about as true as saying "The British supported the American Revolution - after all look at how many of the rebels were british colonists with British training, using british-made guns."
MS used BSD code, not GPLed code. The biggest difference between the BSD license and the GPL is that BSDL allows you to copy the open code and hide the open code inside a non-open product, while GPL insists the the code cannot be redistributed in a form less open than you got it. Ragardless of whether you think that the way BSDL does it is good, it is what they chose to do, and so it is perfectly legal for BSD code to be found inside Windows. The purpose of the Gibson study wasn't to show Microsoft had done something illegal, but to show that they copied their TCP/IP code directly from unix, and thus should shut the fsck up about how crappy they think it is.
But why look at the actual evidence and reality of the issue.
Because SCO refuses to publicise what it is, which makes their calim instantly suspect. If there's offending code in linux somewhere then POINT IT OUT! It's all in the open for anyone to see. Give filenames and line numbers. Where is the alleged violating code?
The Afghanis. The Mujahadeen that the US funded was not the Taliban. The Taliban was ONE SUBSET of the Mujahadeen. Care to throw any more revisionist history our way?
Slashdot Mirror
and didn't play anything like a decisive part in the
war.
You were correct until that last part. WW1 was an ugly war where the side with the most bodies to spare won. The US added a signifigant number of bodies during the final push. Even if they were ill-trained and ill-equipped, they gave the allies the numbers needed to attack at a time when attacking meant killing your own troops off.
As I recall, there are more ways to "lift a finger" than actually comitting troops. The US involvement in the far east, in terms of punative diplomatic measures against the Japaneese (including a refusal to sell them oil unless they pull out of China), is what led up to Pearl Harbor. The Japaneese knew they wouldn't be able to expand further without risking US involvement, so they decided to take the advantage while they still had it and attack first. If the US was truly as "isolationist" as you imply, there would have been no reason to attack Pearl Harbor. None.
And I don't call essentially writing a blank check for Britain's war machine a failure to "lift a finger".
Since when did he claim to be Christian?
Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason. Yup. Nothing to do with the fact that all the arms came from those countries willing to sell them, which were NOT the US. What was in Sadaam's air force (back when he had one)? Mig's. What tanks were there? T-72 derivatives. The US never sold arms to Iraq, nor did it even offer to, so at no time was there a decision made by Iraqis over whether to but AK-47s or M-16's. They only had one option.
VOR beacons are transmitters that transmit a signal that encodes the direction from the station that continuously changes as you rotate around the compass points. Thus the receiving unit can tell what direction it is from the VOR based on the content of the signal. Using two VOR's together you can triangulate your position if you know where the VOR transmitters are on a map. "I'm on compass heading 110 from Milwaukee, and 68 from Chicago, which means I'm right over the edge of Lake Michigan, right here." The simplest VOR display in a cockpit doesn't show anything more than the directions and the pilot has to have a map to do the triangulation himself. The complex instruments used in airliners feed this data into a computer which gives you your position on a map display. But in either case, NO, a VOR is not accurate enough to land your plane to the nearest meter. It's no better than GPS. For landings, a different system is used that is much more accurate but only covers a limited zone. You use the VOR for macro-navigation from point A to point B, but use the ILS (instrument landing system) for the more accurate beacon while making your landing approach.
I find that to be unacceptable.
I do too. But it's not an accurate description of the situation. The trick is to interpose yourself between the criminal and his goal, and make it quite clear that he's only going to get to his goal through your dead body. As long as you are very careful about not being the one to actually commit the first violent act, this works. You are in a position then where either the criminal has to back down from his intended goal, or he has to commit bodily harm on you. There are no other options. Once you put things into that situation, then you *can* shoot in self defence if he tries anything. This is exactly what police officers are trained to do. If a man is robbing a store, don't shoot him. Instead point your gun at him and politely ask him to surrender, as you approach closer and closer. If he turns his gun toward you, you can legitimately fire on him. If he keeps his gun out, but doesn't gesture threateningly, keep inching toward him. Eventually it reaches a point where he has either surrendered, or tried to flee, or taken enough time that you are in close-touch range, or done the really stupid thing and tried to engage you in violence while you had him covered (which gives you the legal right to fire.)
The interesting thing is that in theory, the police are normal civilians who have no more legal powers than an ordinary citizen with regards to shooting people. They are not legally recognized as a military organization. So they have to put themselves in harms way to turn situations like this into self-defence situations so they can justify it if they have to shoot. Now, that's the theory. In practice the courts will be more lenient with a cop who shot someone in the line of duty when he didn't need to than they would with an ordinary citizen who did so. In *theory*, however, they have to abide by the same laws.
The fact that you found a single exception doesn't harm my case. I didn't say all attacks happen without witnesses. I said they normally do.
Surprise, I agree with you. Spam is only a bad thing when done anonymously for the purpose of avoiding customer backlash. The difference between me and you, perhaps, is that for me the vast majority of the spam I receive is that type, so I just assumed it as part of the definition of spam. If the company really is being honest about who they are, I don't consider it spam.
Police are trained to never fire their gun unless it's a situation where death would be acceptable. They don't do things like aim for the leg. The fear is that if police are allowed to shoot guns "non-leathally" to stop crime, then there will most
certainly end up being several cases where a well-intentioned maiming shot is misaimed and becomes a lethal shot. Since the chance is pretty good of a pistol shot going astray, they are told, in no uncertain terms, that the only time it is legitimate to fire the gun is when death is allowed. As such, they are usually trained only in how to fire toward the center of mass of the torso, that being the easiest place to score a hit. Any situation where you shouldn't kill the perpitrator, and you have to chase o foot and tackle the person. There is no in-between shoot-to-maim allowed. Why mention this? Because it might be a good policy for home gun owners as well. Since there's a good chance of death, don't fire on someone if you think it's a situation where if he died you'd be in a *LOT* of trouble. If you ended up killing the thief with your TV instead of just maiming him, you could be tried as a murderer.
You see, if everyone has a gun on them, then even if you are attacked, there is someone else who can cover you,
Not to comment on your main point, but just this statement: If you're talking about a sexual predator, don't those sorts of attacks normally happen in places where the woman is NOT going to be noticed by others? What kind of an incompetent idiot is going to try to attack a woman with other witnesses around?
Well, realisticly, the smaller the person, the less effective fighting back would be, and thus the more demand for this sort of thing there would be. Who's an easier target for assult? A petite weak woman or a large strong woman?
People need to accepted the reality of email advertising and get on with their lives. It's as simple as that.
This is true. But that wasn't your claim. Your claim I was refuting was that when a spammer puts mail in my inbox that this ME using a service I paid for. No. It's the spammer using a service I paid for. If you disagree, then kindly publish your e-mail address and I'll see to it that you use the remainder of your inbox. (No, I don't really plan to do that.)
The claim that spam is here to stay and getting rid of it is unenforcable I agree with. The claim that nothing wrong is occurring I do not agree with. Just because a wrongdoing isn't practically punishable doesn't change whether or not it's wrong.
Attempt at humor? 'cause that's not the same thing at all.
What's so different about it?
You pay for your own mailbox. You pay for your own hard drive space which stores your INBOX. Your mailbox can be filled to capacity making it impossible to put other mail in it. So too with your INBOX. While there are legitimate ways to get a message into your mailbox, I could also dress up like a mailman, and drop mail into your mailbox and your mailbox wouldn't know I was "fake'. Just like anyone can forge an e-mail to your INBOX without the proper information to back-trace it to the source.
Where exactly is the difference.
I'm not confusing them. One agency became the other. Just like Germany today and Germany circa 1935 are the same country, even though the government went through a number of changes and renames in between.
Do they get delivered in the same truck or by the same employee? Then they do subsidize each other. (It costs just as much to pay an employee to walk to your box with two pieces of mail as with one, and it costs just as much fuel to drive the cute little jeep if it's giving you one envelope or two.)
Sorry, but that's just the cost of using the service.
Sorry, but I'm not the one using the service - the spammer is. He's using MY service for HIS needs and I'm not getting compensation. If you think this isn't the case, then can I please know where you live so I can park my car in your driveway.
Is your time worth money? Is space in your physical mailbox limited? Do you ever send first-class mail? Then you *do* pay for bulk snail-mail.
ALso, the USPS is a government sponsored monopoly but it doesn't receive any tax payer dollars. It is self funding.
Not only that, but it's even older than the government. The post office was concieved under the Articles of Confederation, before the current government under the Constitution. And not only did it pay for itself, but it was once the primary source of revenue to fund the government.
You are right that they don't have to yet. But UNTIL they do you can't just assume out of hand that they have such evidence. You don't side with the plantiff by default.
I'm no expert on who supported the installation of the Taliban or to what degree. I understand that to a significant degree they were supported directly or inderictly by the west (the good guys?). - Note I made no direct accusations!
Given the context, you had no reason to bring it up other than to throw that unstated accusation out there.
The Taliban didn't really even exist when the US was still giving money and arms to Afghanis to fight the Soviets. The Taliban was a new militia. But since the coutry was flooded with US small-arms weapons in the hands of the rebels the US funded, much of that found it's way into Taliban hands once it was formed up *AFTER* the Soviets left and the US stopped the funding. Also, many of the rebel fighters became part of the new Taliban as well. Spin-generating shysters have tried to paint this as, "The US supported the Taliban" - which is about as true as saying "The British supported the American Revolution - after all look at how many of the rebels were british colonists with British training, using british-made guns."
A planet where some of us are smart enough to tell the difference between volume of discussion and fear.
What the subject says.
MS used BSD code, not GPLed code. The biggest difference between the BSD license and the GPL is that BSDL allows you to copy the open code and hide the open code inside a non-open product, while GPL insists the the code cannot be redistributed in a form less open than you got it. Ragardless of whether you think that the way BSDL does it is good, it is what they chose to do, and so it is perfectly legal for BSD code to be found inside Windows. The purpose of the Gibson study wasn't to show Microsoft had done something illegal, but to show that they copied their TCP/IP code directly from unix, and thus should shut the fsck up about how crappy they think it is.
But why look at the actual evidence and reality of the issue.
Because SCO refuses to publicise what it is, which makes their calim instantly suspect. If there's offending code in linux somewhere then POINT IT OUT! It's all in the open for anyone to see. Give filenames and line numbers. Where is the alleged violating code?
Er - who installed the Taliban?
The Afghanis. The Mujahadeen that the US funded was not the Taliban. The Taliban was ONE SUBSET of the Mujahadeen. Care to throw any more revisionist history our way?