"If this individual wasn't so anonymous people would be able protest and debate him forcing him to modify his behavior to take a more moderate stand."
That's not necessarily true, and I wouldn't consider it a good thing if it were. Lack of privacy making it easier to destroy an opponent simply by being the majority is a good argument FOR privacy.
Yeah. 1. Chase off, incapacitate, or kill the person that's attacking. 2. Report the incident.
If someone attacked you or your house, would you actually flip out your phone and try to call the police before dealing with them? Think you could complete the call in time? If you're dead, you're dead, whether the guy gets caught or not.
Japan has a very small modern quasi-military called the Jieitai (their constitution forbids them to keep official standing forces). They rely almost completely on the US for defense at present.
Except that the KSM met with a backlash even from the US Government, while China's response to Tiananmen was "So? What are the little fuckers gonna do about it?"
The very fact that people in the US can talk about how horrible the KSM was shows a difference between the two countries.
You could also say "that mentality" brought America into World War II when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Without "that mentality", the world would've been in for a lot of hurt.
"Let's try this logic elsewhere: (1) dope dealers are "evil" because they bribe some police officers to make their business easier; and (2) the solution is to dismantle the police force."
His other viewpoints taken into consideration, step 2 would be more like: Dismantle the police force and replace it with local militia.
And, you know, if the police force became corrupt enough or unable to protect the populace, I might feel that way. Most of my experience with law enforcement has been positive, though (once during a visit to a hole-in-the-road in Arizona I got hassled by local cops).
The question in both situations is whether or not the corruption is bad enough to justify dismantling what's currently in place. In a democratic republic, this can range in severity from kicking out the groups currently in power (preferred) to completely replacing the government from scratch (romantic to many, but has pain-in-the-ass consequences).
I'm not a lawyer, but I think that text messages would be the "intellectual property" of the writer unless the receiver had a written agreement with them that said otherwise. Ownership is technically given upon creation in the US, though a court usually asks for some sort of proof (ie, poor man's mail-in copyright).
No, but you could complain about things that Photoshop (or whatever you used before) was able to do that were impossible or very hard to do in GIMP, and the developers could take notice and start working on them. I couldn't list specific examples since I've never used Photoshop and have only used GIMP once or twice, but I'm sure there are some.
"You would think that with technology this advanced (the Taiwanese one, not McGregor), yet we can't put a feasible breathalyzer in the car and determine if a driver is under the influence or speeding."
I don't think technology is really the issue there... It's a combination of lack of resources and fear of an indignant public. I wouldn't want to drive a car with a device like that in it (excluding rentals, the protection of which could be a legitimate use of the device).
"We try to be its policeman and end up with egg on our faces for the last 40+ years."
So South Korea and Kuwait could've won their freedom from oppressors on their own, and all the nations under Soviet control in eastern Europe (whose elected leaders all mysteriously died at the same time) were nice and happy? Taiwan and China could come to a peaceable understanding?
I agree with a lot of your criticisms about modern America, but I think your absolutist view of its involvement in the past half-century is a bit short-sighted. Its reputation isn't squeaky clean (ie, Lumumba in Congo), but there have been some genuine righteous triumphs as well.
I'd never listen to songs in foreign (non-English) languages if I couldn't search for the English lyrics. I've heard a couple that had a good sound, but lyrics that I wouldn't want to be singing along to, especially around someone who understood them.
Really? Do you screen each doctor to make sure? If you actually have a wife and kids that require medical care on occasion, you probably already have and just don't know it, as they don't really look or act differently than other doctors.
If you were caught in a situation where there was an emergency and only a known YEC doctor was present, I think you'd fold.
You missed the point. They only listed a single device capable of causing the problems they listed, when there are many more that would be more likely to. He wasn't saying that the employees were the only factor.
To use your analogy, it would be like someone writing an article on why a pocket knife could be dangerous in a criminal's hands.
Slashdot Mirror
I fail to see how doing that to someone because they're black is worse than doing it to them for pleasure.
"If this individual wasn't so anonymous people would be able protest and debate him forcing him to modify his behavior to take a more moderate stand." That's not necessarily true, and I wouldn't consider it a good thing if it were. Lack of privacy making it easier to destroy an opponent simply by being the majority is a good argument FOR privacy.
Yeah. 1. Chase off, incapacitate, or kill the person that's attacking. 2. Report the incident.
If someone attacked you or your house, would you actually flip out your phone and try to call the police before dealing with them? Think you could complete the call in time? If you're dead, you're dead, whether the guy gets caught or not.
Japan has a very small modern quasi-military called the Jieitai (their constitution forbids them to keep official standing forces). They rely almost completely on the US for defense at present.
Yes, of course, but do you think it would have been better if the US hadn't gotten involved?
Pacifism might work against a somewhat just enemy, but against one who actually IS willing to create millions of graves it doesn't do much good.
Except that the KSM met with a backlash even from the US Government, while China's response to Tiananmen was "So? What are the little fuckers gonna do about it?"
The very fact that people in the US can talk about how horrible the KSM was shows a difference between the two countries.
The ones who launched the attack, hippie. If someone tries to break into my house, you can be damn sure I'll retaliate if possible, and report it.
You could also say "that mentality" brought America into World War II when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Without "that mentality", the world would've been in for a lot of hurt.
There are a few isolated spots in the world where they're in use; I talked to someone from rural Australia not long ago who was using one.
I also "see" them a lot on older computers here, technically...But I'm guessing you meant see them being used.
"Let's try this logic elsewhere: (1) dope dealers are "evil" because they bribe some police officers to make their business easier; and (2) the solution is to dismantle the police force."
His other viewpoints taken into consideration, step 2 would be more like: Dismantle the police force and replace it with local militia.
And, you know, if the police force became corrupt enough or unable to protect the populace, I might feel that way. Most of my experience with law enforcement has been positive, though (once during a visit to a hole-in-the-road in Arizona I got hassled by local cops).
The question in both situations is whether or not the corruption is bad enough to justify dismantling what's currently in place. In a democratic republic, this can range in severity from kicking out the groups currently in power (preferred) to completely replacing the government from scratch (romantic to many, but has pain-in-the-ass consequences).
I'm not a lawyer, but I think that text messages would be the "intellectual property" of the writer unless the receiver had a written agreement with them that said otherwise. Ownership is technically given upon creation in the US, though a court usually asks for some sort of proof (ie, poor man's mail-in copyright).
Just save/copy/print it before it goes away. Take a picture of the screen if you really need it for proof of something.
Hey, dude. You've been pre-empted.
No, but you could complain about things that Photoshop (or whatever you used before) was able to do that were impossible or very hard to do in GIMP, and the developers could take notice and start working on them. I couldn't list specific examples since I've never used Photoshop and have only used GIMP once or twice, but I'm sure there are some.
Not as bad as IBM's.
It was exaggerative, but I still liked it.
They did an interesting job of covering their ass on the avoiding-slander issue by working Bill's name into a minor dialogue in the movie:
"Doesn't Bill Gates have one of those?"
"Bill who?"
"You would think that with technology this advanced (the Taiwanese one, not McGregor), yet we can't put a feasible breathalyzer in the car and determine if a driver is under the influence or speeding."
I don't think technology is really the issue there... It's a combination of lack of resources and fear of an indignant public. I wouldn't want to drive a car with a device like that in it (excluding rentals, the protection of which could be a legitimate use of the device).
You're thinking of trademarks. IIRC, patents and copyrights don't have to be constantly enforced to stay valid.
"We try to be its policeman and end up with egg on our faces for the last 40+ years."
So South Korea and Kuwait could've won their freedom from oppressors on their own, and all the nations under Soviet control in eastern Europe (whose elected leaders all mysteriously died at the same time) were nice and happy? Taiwan and China could come to a peaceable understanding?
I agree with a lot of your criticisms about modern America, but I think your absolutist view of its involvement in the past half-century is a bit short-sighted. Its reputation isn't squeaky clean (ie, Lumumba in Congo), but there have been some genuine righteous triumphs as well.
_Is_ that actually illegal if he doesn't distribute them? Last I checked, you could make private backups of printed material under fair use.
I'd never listen to songs in foreign (non-English) languages if I couldn't search for the English lyrics. I've heard a couple that had a good sound, but lyrics that I wouldn't want to be singing along to, especially around someone who understood them.
Another victim, it would seem. Nice sig, though.
Really? Do you screen each doctor to make sure? If you actually have a wife and kids that require medical care on occasion, you probably already have and just don't know it, as they don't really look or act differently than other doctors. If you were caught in a situation where there was an emergency and only a known YEC doctor was present, I think you'd fold.
"The thing is, it's terribly hard to transmit subtle irony in writing."
No, it isn't! Are you being sarcastic?
=D
You missed the point. They only listed a single device capable of causing the problems they listed, when there are many more that would be more likely to. He wasn't saying that the employees were the only factor.
To use your analogy, it would be like someone writing an article on why a pocket knife could be dangerous in a criminal's hands.