The publisher is cooperating because.. get this.. they, and the author, have been interested in cooperating the whole time with the goal of not releasing any sensitive information.
The. Whole. Time.
None of them wanted to put out anything that could endanger anyone's life or compromise any useful surveillance operations going on in the first place, they just weren't positive exactly what would encompass sensitive information. They asked the military to look it over and point out anything that would be too sensitive to release, which was done, but later when other people took another look they saw stuff that the first group didn't realize was sensitive.
Whose fucking first amendment right is being infringed when the author doesn't want to put out sensitive info in the first place? Is the author protesting this? No? From where I sit, the author didn't want to say any of these things that are being redacted in the first place, but just wasn't sure what the things he didn't want to say were.
jesus christ you're stupid, that's not even close to what this book is about. it's pretty clear you've not read the fucking article and have no clue what the book's topic is nor why the military would want to keep details included in that book under wraps for a while yet.
protip: ongoing military actions.
they kinda don't like letting the bad guys know how and where they're conducting secret surveillance and that sort of shit.
GItmo's NOT a concentration camp. You throw that word around, I think, without thinking about what it means. Concentration camps were where they sent the Jews TO DIE.
You're thinking of, maybe, and internment camp? Very different thing, that. Less death.
Functionally, Gitmo is just a POW camp. I'm not suggesting the waterboarding was cool, and I'm not saying they're ALL guilty, but it's a POW camp. Unfortunately, the guys who are wrongfully picked up.. can't exactly go home all the time. Because if the great satan took them in and then turned them back out, well, they must be in cahoots with the great satan. yeah. funderful. But so far as "basic rights".. they really don't have any, they're foreign combatants, and they barely if at all even fall under anything in the Geneva convention. They certainly don't have the legal rights of a US citizen, although that's what everyone's clamoring for.
No. No, not at all. No, that is absolutely unequivocally incorrect.
your "ie" should read "if you disobey a direct fucking order from God he gets pissed and will slay you"
He wasn't pissed that Onan came on the ground. he was pissed because he told him to get his brother's widow pregnant -- this was a common practice at the time, if a man married a woman and died before bearing children his brother would fill in, sire a son, and that son would be considered the deceased's son. Onan thought he would be clever and get around this, because hey! If his brother has no offspring, that means HE gets to keep the family's wealth, right? Right!
You've twisted and misunderstood that as badly as Chicago twists and misunderstands the second amendment.
Why is it that you must immediately jump to damning my character and choices based on nothing but assumptions while simultaneously missing and proving my point?
I don't drink and drive. I rarely drink these days, in fact.
I *am* a better driver than most, and that's not just baseless boasting.. but this is completely beside the point, because I wasn't talking about myself.
The point is that BAC laws are on the books because it lets cops write tickets without ever having to make an honest assessment of anyone's driving. The fucking point, the point you missed, was that 0.05 BAC has little correlation to driving ability.
Person A at 0.05 BAC might be completely capable of driving friggin circles around Person B who's stone cold sober but so retarded they never use their mirrors and think the rear view mirror is for makeup application or nose picking.
Person A gets in trouble. Big trouble. Person B? They NEVER get called out for their poor driving. They think they're a great driver.
Why? Because tickets and charges and fees for the drunk driving charge are HUGE -- that's red tape vacuuming wealth -- and because it can be done with a shrug and a sorry because no one person has to take charge and say it was their call. Just following orders, sorry. Person B only would get straightened out if someone made a judgement call, if someone was able to make a stand and say "Woah, dude, you are a shitty driver. Do you know that? You just ran over a fucking poodle doing 80.. 10 miles back. That's why your car is running funny, he's still in your grill".. but that never happens. It's a small fine, reckless driving, the red tape can't make a lot of money from it, and like I said the biggest reason is because they can't just point a machine at the problem and have it spit an answer out so nobody has to think and reason and decide and so nobody can have their judgment questioned.
If all media were required to be presented in all manner of forms so that anybody with any disability or who speaks any language could make use of it, everything would be extremely costly to create. that would be economic destruction, plain and simple.
even if it would employ thousands of otherwise unemployed translators, it would be a huge expense for little benefit.
should government websites be disabled-accessable? sure. public services? obviously.
news websites? questionable.
viral videos? christ, sometimes i wish i was disables so I COULDN'T be exposed to them...
Oh but you see, it's a lot easier to set up a DUI checkpoint and arrest 50 people for being NOT AT ALL DRUNK at 0.05 BAC because they may have a 5% (or some shit) reduction in their ability to drive -- even if that still leaves them far above the driving abilities of a typical driver -- because there's no judgment call to being made. The law's the law!
Nevermind the people who just *can't drive* and don't like stopping at stop signs and insist on tailgating and change lanes without signaling and pay more attention to their phone than their driving (yes, driving while on the phone itself is not dangerous, it is allowing your concentration on driving to waiver in favor of concentration on your conversation that is the problem), those people are fine. Because those are small fines. Because recklessly driving requires cops to actually pay attention and witness unsafe driving, and get into an argument with some self-righteous asshole over why or why not their unsafe driving practices are unsafe.
Such a load of bullshit. All of it. from every angle.
That's because "interactive movies" are neither interactive nor movies. They are, at best, a puzzle game -- but the only puzzle is "ok which button do i press here to get to the next part of the story".
League of Legends is F2P / microtransaction, and by all accounts they're doing pretty well for themselves. Not an MMO, but MMOs.. at least, today's typical MMOs.. they're friggin weird beasts that I consider garbage, they're all PvE grinds and timesinks. Some people like that, but few people are going to shell out cash for $LEWT just to grind more. Unless it's WoW and they're spending the money for a super special mount... but WoW is a bit of an aberration. It's got some crazy obsessed fan(boy)s.
Small time shit? Maybe. The cartels? Not a fucking chance. They have M16s (which aren't the domestic firearm that you see typical American citizens buying; M16s are fully automatic, and would run you or I several thousand dollars and some big-time licenses from the ATF). They have AK47s. They have fucking grenade launchers.
This crime, down in Mexico? It's not a few gangs running around scrounging up supplies. It's large paramilitary organizations. They have no interest in Pappy's scattergun. They want military arms.
Gun legislation from democrats makes about as much sense as internet legislation from elderly senators -- that is, none, because they have absolutely no knowledge about what they're babbling. It only makes sense to other people who are equally clueless.
I still remember all the hyperbole going on in the news leading up to the Brady Bill about semi-automatic weapons being the ones where you pull the trigger and they go "BANGBANGBANGBANG". I can't remember the exact news outlets, unfortunately, but I heard it several times. Just goes to show you, when you have an agenda to push, who needs a fucking dictionary? When you're just trying to rally people to a cause they know nothing about, facts are really irrelevant.
that's an optical illusion that appears to move, but doesn't actually move. it's one still image. there's no actual motion.
3D movies are just another optical illusion. They're not actually 3D. It's just a chintzy effect that adds nothing concrete -- it doesn't actually make the movies 3D, it only accentuates things that are already there. We know this-thing is in the foreground and that-thing is in the background. There's nothing new being added by 3D effects.
3D does not add any information whatsoever to any shot of any movie, ever.
Color did, and does. Sound did, and does -- both sound itself, and stereo sound, and surround sound. Each step made more information available and expressible.
3D effects do not add any information available to either be expressed by the director or received by the audience. It's not really 3D. It's just a visual illusion. It's just like those images that, when you look at them, appear to be moving though they're not -- that isn't a motion picture, though the picture appears to be undergoing motion. It's a visual illusion. That is 3D.
That's why 3D is a gimmick.
I'm not denigrating your work, and it's a gimmick that can work out moderately neat, but it is still just a gimmick and not a paradigm change in filmmaking. Don't hang your hat on it. It's not going to be around to stay -- not in its current form. It'll disappear again, soon, and probably come back again, later. It won't stick around until we can actually project a 3 dimensional image, a visual holodeck sort of affair. *That* would actually be adding information to the film; it would be closer to watching a play than a movie. Objects would shift relative to each other as you moved your head, or as they moved, just as real 3D objects in the real world do. that's what 3D movies are lacking. It's still just a 2D image.
You didn't mention south america! or, well.. mexico. once you go south of texas, driving safety goes out the window. i've heard spain is about as fun as italy. i couldn't possibly imagine how bad it is in africa...
yeah, it's actually really funny/scary. americans have more good sense than most people in the world in MANY things. not the most, not all the time, but so far as "realizing when shit is unsafe and may harm others and *giving a fuck*" we get high marks.
i've heard stories from people who've traveled through africa and asia about the firearm safety exhibited there... that is, none. now, do realize that african hunting guides and game wardens have a pretty strong european-ish history (especially the guides; the ones that aren't white tend to have learned under white guides, meaning european, meaning they're probably english or dutch and so are really good with their guns), but the common people not so much. read an account of afghanis who didn't even understand why the writer was uncomfortable; they were standing around wantonly pointing their guns at eachother, fingers resting on the trigger. they didn't even realize how unsafe that is.
And none of those trucks are monster trucks. That was complete hyperbole. We all know what Monster Trucks are -- that is a specific name of a specific thing. Monster truck rally, this sunday sunday sunday.
So there's a lie.
Next lie?
It's not an intentional rebate for all businesses to buy trucks instead of cars. That's a loophole. You're passing it off as if it's intentional, as if they're really trying to move everyone into SUVs and trucks instead of cars.
The fucking article mentions that the rebate for trucks was intended for farmers.
Say what you will about kickbacks for american farmers, but that's all this was supposed to be. Our lawmakers are just incompetent and couldn't word it sufficiently tightly to prevent everyone from using it.
Oh, and the actual tax write-off isn't all tied up in this one single law, it's a combination of this and other accounting tricks.
Hyperbole for the sake of attacking a dude 2 years now out of office is completely pointless. Even were he in office, the amount of truth-stretching you have engaged in is nothing more than baiting for a fight.
Fucked up law? Certainly. It's also very clearly not being applied in the way it was intended. You are assuming malice when stupidity is a more adequate (and correct) explanation.
Yeah... no. You're not going to sell your electric car a few years later for anywhere NEAR a fair price, because *batteries wear out*. It's several thousand dollars to replace the batteries in an electric car. Several thousand more than an internal combustion car of the same model year costs, more than likely -- unless you're selling it 2-3 years later, in which case it's probably not, but that just means that in a very few years' time the new owner will have to plop down about as much as they paid for the car to get new batteries.
You're not going to get an electric car and run it for 150,000 - 250,000 miles with minimal upkeep costs. Fact is the batteries slowly die, just like your laptop's batteries, and BOY are they pricey. You think a new transmission is expensive? Fixing a cracked head? OOooooohh that's nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
The publisher is cooperating because.. get this.. they, and the author, have been interested in cooperating the whole time with the goal of not releasing any sensitive information.
The. Whole. Time.
None of them wanted to put out anything that could endanger anyone's life or compromise any useful surveillance operations going on in the first place, they just weren't positive exactly what would encompass sensitive information. They asked the military to look it over and point out anything that would be too sensitive to release, which was done, but later when other people took another look they saw stuff that the first group didn't realize was sensitive.
Whose fucking first amendment right is being infringed when the author doesn't want to put out sensitive info in the first place? Is the author protesting this? No? From where I sit, the author didn't want to say any of these things that are being redacted in the first place, but just wasn't sure what the things he didn't want to say were.
jesus christ you're stupid, that's not even close to what this book is about. it's pretty clear you've not read the fucking article and have no clue what the book's topic is nor why the military would want to keep details included in that book under wraps for a while yet.
protip: ongoing military actions.
they kinda don't like letting the bad guys know how and where they're conducting secret surveillance and that sort of shit.
GItmo's NOT a concentration camp. You throw that word around, I think, without thinking about what it means. Concentration camps were where they sent the Jews TO DIE.
You're thinking of, maybe, and internment camp? Very different thing, that. Less death.
Functionally, Gitmo is just a POW camp. I'm not suggesting the waterboarding was cool, and I'm not saying they're ALL guilty, but it's a POW camp. Unfortunately, the guys who are wrongfully picked up.. can't exactly go home all the time. Because if the great satan took them in and then turned them back out, well, they must be in cahoots with the great satan. yeah. funderful. But so far as "basic rights".. they really don't have any, they're foreign combatants, and they barely if at all even fall under anything in the Geneva convention. They certainly don't have the legal rights of a US citizen, although that's what everyone's clamoring for.
It seems the marketing department had mod points in spades today.
Don't forget earthquakes. Those tend to mess up the lay of the land pretty hard too. I hear they've had a few big ones in Asia lately.
SPIDERS raining from the sky? .. farewell outside, it was nice knowing you while it lasted but I'm afraid our relationship is at an end.
No. No, not at all. No, that is absolutely unequivocally incorrect.
your "ie" should read "if you disobey a direct fucking order from God he gets pissed and will slay you"
He wasn't pissed that Onan came on the ground. he was pissed because he told him to get his brother's widow pregnant -- this was a common practice at the time, if a man married a woman and died before bearing children his brother would fill in, sire a son, and that son would be considered the deceased's son. Onan thought he would be clever and get around this, because hey! If his brother has no offspring, that means HE gets to keep the family's wealth, right? Right!
You've twisted and misunderstood that as badly as Chicago twists and misunderstands the second amendment.
Let's say I'm having a conversation with someone. Let's say I'm standing next to them, and leaning up against their desk.
Now let's say I see slashdot open. Oh, ok, he was making comments on slashdot earlier.
Change that to porn.
Suddenly I'm wishing I wasn't leaning up against his desk, and greatly regretting the handshake earlier.
Why is it that you must immediately jump to damning my character and choices based on nothing but assumptions while simultaneously missing and proving my point?
I don't drink and drive. I rarely drink these days, in fact.
I *am* a better driver than most, and that's not just baseless boasting.. but this is completely beside the point, because I wasn't talking about myself.
The point is that BAC laws are on the books because it lets cops write tickets without ever having to make an honest assessment of anyone's driving. The fucking point, the point you missed, was that 0.05 BAC has little correlation to driving ability.
Person A at 0.05 BAC might be completely capable of driving friggin circles around Person B who's stone cold sober but so retarded they never use their mirrors and think the rear view mirror is for makeup application or nose picking.
Person A gets in trouble. Big trouble. Person B? They NEVER get called out for their poor driving. They think they're a great driver.
Why? Because tickets and charges and fees for the drunk driving charge are HUGE -- that's red tape vacuuming wealth -- and because it can be done with a shrug and a sorry because no one person has to take charge and say it was their call. Just following orders, sorry. Person B only would get straightened out if someone made a judgement call, if someone was able to make a stand and say "Woah, dude, you are a shitty driver. Do you know that? You just ran over a fucking poodle doing 80.. 10 miles back. That's why your car is running funny, he's still in your grill".. but that never happens. It's a small fine, reckless driving, the red tape can't make a lot of money from it, and like I said the biggest reason is because they can't just point a machine at the problem and have it spit an answer out so nobody has to think and reason and decide and so nobody can have their judgment questioned.
If all media were required to be presented in all manner of forms so that anybody with any disability or who speaks any language could make use of it, everything would be extremely costly to create. that would be economic destruction, plain and simple.
even if it would employ thousands of otherwise unemployed translators, it would be a huge expense for little benefit.
should government websites be disabled-accessable? sure. public services? obviously.
news websites? questionable.
viral videos? christ, sometimes i wish i was disables so I COULDN'T be exposed to them...
Oh but you see, it's a lot easier to set up a DUI checkpoint and arrest 50 people for being NOT AT ALL DRUNK at 0.05 BAC because they may have a 5% (or some shit) reduction in their ability to drive -- even if that still leaves them far above the driving abilities of a typical driver -- because there's no judgment call to being made. The law's the law!
Nevermind the people who just *can't drive* and don't like stopping at stop signs and insist on tailgating and change lanes without signaling and pay more attention to their phone than their driving (yes, driving while on the phone itself is not dangerous, it is allowing your concentration on driving to waiver in favor of concentration on your conversation that is the problem), those people are fine. Because those are small fines. Because recklessly driving requires cops to actually pay attention and witness unsafe driving, and get into an argument with some self-righteous asshole over why or why not their unsafe driving practices are unsafe.
Such a load of bullshit. All of it. from every angle.
That's because "interactive movies" are neither interactive nor movies. They are, at best, a puzzle game -- but the only puzzle is "ok which button do i press here to get to the next part of the story".
See also: Why Final Fantasy games suck.
League of Legends is F2P / microtransaction, and by all accounts they're doing pretty well for themselves. Not an MMO, but MMOs.. at least, today's typical MMOs.. they're friggin weird beasts that I consider garbage, they're all PvE grinds and timesinks. Some people like that, but few people are going to shell out cash for $LEWT just to grind more. Unless it's WoW and they're spending the money for a super special mount... but WoW is a bit of an aberration. It's got some crazy obsessed fan(boy)s.
They're not coming from the US, that's for sure.
Small time shit? Maybe. The cartels? Not a fucking chance. They have M16s (which aren't the domestic firearm that you see typical American citizens buying; M16s are fully automatic, and would run you or I several thousand dollars and some big-time licenses from the ATF). They have AK47s. They have fucking grenade launchers.
This crime, down in Mexico? It's not a few gangs running around scrounging up supplies. It's large paramilitary organizations. They have no interest in Pappy's scattergun. They want military arms.
Gun legislation from democrats makes about as much sense as internet legislation from elderly senators -- that is, none, because they have absolutely no knowledge about what they're babbling. It only makes sense to other people who are equally clueless.
I still remember all the hyperbole going on in the news leading up to the Brady Bill about semi-automatic weapons being the ones where you pull the trigger and they go "BANGBANGBANGBANG". I can't remember the exact news outlets, unfortunately, but I heard it several times. Just goes to show you, when you have an agenda to push, who needs a fucking dictionary? When you're just trying to rally people to a cause they know nothing about, facts are really irrelevant.
You must not know any democrats, then.
And was that before or after Sosa started using steroids?
Yes, because nothing is so important as the color of our skin or the genitalia between our legs.
Psssst, your overt prejudice is showing
Well, there was that whole Prohibition thing.
That sort of reduced personal rights. A tad. I think we're largely in agreement that it was a bad idea based on false beliefs.
So, I mean, there is that. It was done for the Greater Good, too, by the way.
... if you twist things around, then you could technically, maybe, be correct.
but really, you're not at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revolving_circles.svg
that's an optical illusion that appears to move, but doesn't actually move. it's one still image. there's no actual motion.
3D movies are just another optical illusion. They're not actually 3D. It's just a chintzy effect that adds nothing concrete -- it doesn't actually make the movies 3D, it only accentuates things that are already there. We know this-thing is in the foreground and that-thing is in the background. There's nothing new being added by 3D effects.
3D does not add any information whatsoever to any shot of any movie, ever.
Color did, and does. Sound did, and does -- both sound itself, and stereo sound, and surround sound. Each step made more information available and expressible.
3D effects do not add any information available to either be expressed by the director or received by the audience. It's not really 3D. It's just a visual illusion. It's just like those images that, when you look at them, appear to be moving though they're not -- that isn't a motion picture, though the picture appears to be undergoing motion. It's a visual illusion. That is 3D.
That's why 3D is a gimmick.
I'm not denigrating your work, and it's a gimmick that can work out moderately neat, but it is still just a gimmick and not a paradigm change in filmmaking. Don't hang your hat on it. It's not going to be around to stay -- not in its current form. It'll disappear again, soon, and probably come back again, later. It won't stick around until we can actually project a 3 dimensional image, a visual holodeck sort of affair. *That* would actually be adding information to the film; it would be closer to watching a play than a movie. Objects would shift relative to each other as you moved your head, or as they moved, just as real 3D objects in the real world do. that's what 3D movies are lacking. It's still just a 2D image.
You didn't mention south america! or, well.. mexico. once you go south of texas, driving safety goes out the window.
i've heard spain is about as fun as italy.
i couldn't possibly imagine how bad it is in africa...
yeah, it's actually really funny/scary. americans have more good sense than most people in the world in MANY things. not the most, not all the time, but so far as "realizing when shit is unsafe and may harm others and *giving a fuck*" we get high marks.
i've heard stories from people who've traveled through africa and asia about the firearm safety exhibited there... that is, none. now, do realize that african hunting guides and game wardens have a pretty strong european-ish history (especially the guides; the ones that aren't white tend to have learned under white guides, meaning european, meaning they're probably english or dutch and so are really good with their guns), but the common people not so much. read an account of afghanis who didn't even understand why the writer was uncomfortable; they were standing around wantonly pointing their guns at eachother, fingers resting on the trigger. they didn't even realize how unsafe that is.
And none of those trucks are monster trucks. That was complete hyperbole. We all know what Monster Trucks are -- that is a specific name of a specific thing. Monster truck rally, this sunday sunday sunday.
So there's a lie.
Next lie?
It's not an intentional rebate for all businesses to buy trucks instead of cars. That's a loophole. You're passing it off as if it's intentional, as if they're really trying to move everyone into SUVs and trucks instead of cars.
The fucking article mentions that the rebate for trucks was intended for farmers.
Say what you will about kickbacks for american farmers, but that's all this was supposed to be. Our lawmakers are just incompetent and couldn't word it sufficiently tightly to prevent everyone from using it.
Oh, and the actual tax write-off isn't all tied up in this one single law, it's a combination of this and other accounting tricks.
In the interest of helping a fucking idiot learn something new: THIS is a monster truck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_truck
Hyperbole for the sake of attacking a dude 2 years now out of office is completely pointless. Even were he in office, the amount of truth-stretching you have engaged in is nothing more than baiting for a fight.
Fucked up law? Certainly. It's also very clearly not being applied in the way it was intended. You are assuming malice when stupidity is a more adequate (and correct) explanation.
Way to lie, buddy, way to lie. Then again, if no one clicks your link and reads it, all they'll remember is your fucking falsehoods.
Yeah... no. You're not going to sell your electric car a few years later for anywhere NEAR a fair price, because *batteries wear out*. It's several thousand dollars to replace the batteries in an electric car. Several thousand more than an internal combustion car of the same model year costs, more than likely -- unless you're selling it 2-3 years later, in which case it's probably not, but that just means that in a very few years' time the new owner will have to plop down about as much as they paid for the car to get new batteries.
You're not going to get an electric car and run it for 150,000 - 250,000 miles with minimal upkeep costs. Fact is the batteries slowly die, just like your laptop's batteries, and BOY are they pricey. You think a new transmission is expensive? Fixing a cracked head? OOooooohh that's nothing.