The problem is that Pakistan isn't run by anyone, or rather there are two parallel governments and much of the country's chaos stems from the friction and competition between the official civil government and the army on one side and the vast labrythine security services on the other.
I'm sorry. We cannot allow general acceptance of any scientific theory that violates political and ideological tenets of conservatism and libertarianism. AGW requires solutions that violate Conservativr notions of free market principles, and therefore the theory is false. Even if the theory were true, it still violates libertarian free market notions, and thus nothing should be done to mitigate it, as government involvement in solutions is absolute tyranny.
None of this applies, of course, to fossil fuel extraction, where government cooperation. Is absolutely essential.
Providing you do your key exchange in a secure manner, that shouldn't be a problem. While I usually use OpenVPN for infrastructure VPN, I've used SSH tunneling for quick and dirty connections at airports and hotels and the like.
We have some small branch offices (2-3 employees each), and when I built the custom routers, I bought fanless Mini-ITX boards and 64gb SSDs and slapped a minimal Debian install, enough for routing, firewall and VPN. The main reason is a minimum of moving parts.
So why doesn't Facebook just remove any German presence and if Germans want to be on Facebook, they can just use the US version, or perhaps an internationalized version on US servers.
This is the bloody Internet after all. If German courts don't like real name requirements then fuck them and host it elsewhere.
But here we hit another interesting issue. How many criminals actually go on wild killing sprees in elementary schools, college campuses, temples or theaters? Sure, they shoot each other up with wild abandon, and civilians sadly get caught in the crossfire, or may be the targets of robbery. But when we talk about gang violence and that sort of thing, we're not talking about maniacs who will plan out the execution of a bunch of small children.
In other words, you're equating two types of users of guns for illegal purposes and acting as if they're the same. I hate armed robbers, outlaw biker gangs and the Mafia, to be sure, but none of these group, however evil and violent they may be, are going to target a movie theater filled with people that have nothing to do with their illicit activities. Even the likes of John Gotti or Al Capone, men who did not hesitate to kill or order killings, went around shooting up college campuses or Sikh temples.
And what strategy would that have been? Burn their own fields before the Yankees had a chance?
The fact is that the North had superior numbers, superior industrial capacity and, probably as critical as anything, had waged a highly successful foreign relations battle that deprived the Confederacy of any important international ally. The only thing that might have saved the Confederacy in the end is if they could have kept fighting long enough for people in the North to simply tire of the war, and force the government to withdraw and find a peaceful solution.
The Confederate war planners were counting on several lightning victories early on and gaining the British Empire as at least a tacit ally followed by acquiescence of the United States to the breakup of the Union. I don't think there was a Confederate general who believed the Confederacy could hope to beat the North in the kind of war that the Civil War ended up becoming. They lacked the resources or manpower to pull it off.
Indeed. The Second Amendment only made sense when a theoretical revolutionary force could field armies at something resembling parity with the Tyrant (whether that be George III or the Government Gone Bad). But the United States possesses the most technically advanced military in the entire history of the human race. Any would-be revolutionary movement could not hope to field an army that would survive a day under the kind of bombardment a couple of bombers or a submarine or an artillery unit could deliver.
Those pathetic idiots living in the mountains of Oregon are living a fantasy that is only possible because the US government is for the most part relatively benign. Even if some revolutionary movement were to get some fantastical number of men; say a hundred thousand just for fun, while they could certainly cause no lack of chaos, the weaponry and the intel that the US military would squash such an army. It would be cut off from food, long distance communications would be trashed, any large encampments would be bombed into oblivion.
Even the Continental Army was heavily reliant on France for supplies, support and military expertise. It's extremely unlikely that any major foreign power would ever back such an army. The Russians and Chinese sure wouldn't. The last thing they want is a destabilized US.
If, in 1861-1865, the Confederate States, with at least some capability of fielding forces capable of taking on Northern troops, could not ultimately secede, then there is absolutely no hope for any group trying it now.
The fact is that technology has superseded the Second Amendment. Ask the Chechens, who were pretty well armed, how taking on even a crippled Russia has worked out.
The Libyan rebels were given air support by NATO, for christ's sake. And Syrian rebels are being bankrolled and supplied by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and a number of Western countries, and I'm sure they're getting a good deal of intel from Western sources as well. The rebels in Libya may have been able to take down Gadhafi's regime without support, but without all the support given to the Syrian rebels, I suspect their revolution would have collapsed fairly quickly.
You go tell that to the parents. You go tell them "It was worth it that your children were killed because a bunch of Americans would try to take down the government if we try to make sure these sorts of things don't happen."
Or got into a serious firefight and killed even more. Bullets are indiscriminate, and even when you have people trained in combat firing at someone with a gun, the odds of innocent bystanders getting hit goes up. Get two groups of people just firing wildly at each other, and the result is not likely to be less death.
So you're suggestion is that elementary school teachers pack heat? Do you know what happens to panicked people, children or otherwise, who get in the middle of firefights?
That's not quite the case. While a maniac could do a helluva lot damage with a meat cleaver, guns, particularly semi-automatic and automatic weapons, allow for very large rampages. As well, one has at least some hope of survival standing up to someone with a knife. A guy packing an arsenal can pretty much kill most people who get in his way, unless they're packing as well, but in any kind of civilian setting, having two or more people firing at each other is going to lead to pretty substantial collateral damage.
Is it? Having 18 little fucking children gunned down by some fucking maniac, and you're going to sit here and say that making weapons harder for fucking lunatics to possess is somehow a disease that needs to be put up with.
Yes, I know. It's the absolute wrong time to talk about things like this, and it's not like gun control means fucking maniacs can't kill lots of kids (Norway comes to mind).
Still, there is a thing called unacceptable loss here.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that Pakistan isn't run by anyone, or rather there are two parallel governments and much of the country's chaos stems from the friction and competition between the official civil government and the army on one side and the vast labrythine security services on the other.
Like I said. You're a sociopath. We don't expect you to.
I once read it being referred to as "the country that should never have been."
The partition of the Subcontinent is a tragedy that is still happening.
In almost all cases national governments are in favor of these programs. What Pakistan should be doing is giving the workers armed escorts.
I'm sorry. We cannot allow general acceptance of any scientific theory that violates political and ideological tenets of conservatism and libertarianism. AGW requires solutions that violate Conservativr notions of free market principles, and therefore the theory is false. Even if the theory were true, it still violates libertarian free market notions, and thus nothing should be done to mitigate it, as government involvement in solutions is absolute tyranny.
None of this applies, of course, to fossil fuel extraction, where government cooperation. Is absolutely essential.
Drill, baby, drill!!!
I don't thinks a sociopath like yourself to care. We'll be happy if you don't develop a taste for human flesh.
So it's more like the awesomeness that was Windows 2.
One thing I can tell you for sure, when my organization does its updates first quarter next year, we will be requesting Windows 7 Pro.
Providing you do your key exchange in a secure manner, that shouldn't be a problem. While I usually use OpenVPN for infrastructure VPN, I've used SSH tunneling for quick and dirty connections at airports and hotels and the like.
It certainly sucks, and is bad for business, but slowing down or shutting down VPN links is one thing, decrypting them is another.
But honestly, I've heard of ISPs in the West using deep packet inspection to weed out encrypted traffic and shape it down into the mud.
Yeah, but everything is filmed shaky cam with lots of lens flair, you know, because that's kewl.
When you go to another planet you should always remember to bring your own towel.
Don't, but there was little price saving in smaller SSDs.
There's no dark side of Saturn. As a matter of fact it's all dark really.
We have some small branch offices (2-3 employees each), and when I built the custom routers, I bought fanless Mini-ITX boards and 64gb SSDs and slapped a minimal Debian install, enough for routing, firewall and VPN. The main reason is a minimum of moving parts.
So why doesn't Facebook just remove any German presence and if Germans want to be on Facebook, they can just use the US version, or perhaps an internationalized version on US servers.
This is the bloody Internet after all. If German courts don't like real name requirements then fuck them and host it elsewhere.
But here we hit another interesting issue. How many criminals actually go on wild killing sprees in elementary schools, college campuses, temples or theaters? Sure, they shoot each other up with wild abandon, and civilians sadly get caught in the crossfire, or may be the targets of robbery. But when we talk about gang violence and that sort of thing, we're not talking about maniacs who will plan out the execution of a bunch of small children.
In other words, you're equating two types of users of guns for illegal purposes and acting as if they're the same. I hate armed robbers, outlaw biker gangs and the Mafia, to be sure, but none of these group, however evil and violent they may be, are going to target a movie theater filled with people that have nothing to do with their illicit activities. Even the likes of John Gotti or Al Capone, men who did not hesitate to kill or order killings, went around shooting up college campuses or Sikh temples.
Four words: Shenandoah Valley Autumn 1864
And what strategy would that have been? Burn their own fields before the Yankees had a chance?
The fact is that the North had superior numbers, superior industrial capacity and, probably as critical as anything, had waged a highly successful foreign relations battle that deprived the Confederacy of any important international ally. The only thing that might have saved the Confederacy in the end is if they could have kept fighting long enough for people in the North to simply tire of the war, and force the government to withdraw and find a peaceful solution.
The Confederate war planners were counting on several lightning victories early on and gaining the British Empire as at least a tacit ally followed by acquiescence of the United States to the breakup of the Union. I don't think there was a Confederate general who believed the Confederacy could hope to beat the North in the kind of war that the Civil War ended up becoming. They lacked the resources or manpower to pull it off.
Indeed. The Second Amendment only made sense when a theoretical revolutionary force could field armies at something resembling parity with the Tyrant (whether that be George III or the Government Gone Bad). But the United States possesses the most technically advanced military in the entire history of the human race. Any would-be revolutionary movement could not hope to field an army that would survive a day under the kind of bombardment a couple of bombers or a submarine or an artillery unit could deliver.
Those pathetic idiots living in the mountains of Oregon are living a fantasy that is only possible because the US government is for the most part relatively benign. Even if some revolutionary movement were to get some fantastical number of men; say a hundred thousand just for fun, while they could certainly cause no lack of chaos, the weaponry and the intel that the US military would squash such an army. It would be cut off from food, long distance communications would be trashed, any large encampments would be bombed into oblivion.
Even the Continental Army was heavily reliant on France for supplies, support and military expertise. It's extremely unlikely that any major foreign power would ever back such an army. The Russians and Chinese sure wouldn't. The last thing they want is a destabilized US.
If, in 1861-1865, the Confederate States, with at least some capability of fielding forces capable of taking on Northern troops, could not ultimately secede, then there is absolutely no hope for any group trying it now.
The fact is that technology has superseded the Second Amendment. Ask the Chechens, who were pretty well armed, how taking on even a crippled Russia has worked out.
The Libyan rebels were given air support by NATO, for christ's sake. And Syrian rebels are being bankrolled and supplied by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and a number of Western countries, and I'm sure they're getting a good deal of intel from Western sources as well. The rebels in Libya may have been able to take down Gadhafi's regime without support, but without all the support given to the Syrian rebels, I suspect their revolution would have collapsed fairly quickly.
You go tell that to the parents. You go tell them "It was worth it that your children were killed because a bunch of Americans would try to take down the government if we try to make sure these sorts of things don't happen."
Or got into a serious firefight and killed even more. Bullets are indiscriminate, and even when you have people trained in combat firing at someone with a gun, the odds of innocent bystanders getting hit goes up. Get two groups of people just firing wildly at each other, and the result is not likely to be less death.
So you're suggestion is that elementary school teachers pack heat? Do you know what happens to panicked people, children or otherwise, who get in the middle of firefights?
That's not quite the case. While a maniac could do a helluva lot damage with a meat cleaver, guns, particularly semi-automatic and automatic weapons, allow for very large rampages. As well, one has at least some hope of survival standing up to someone with a knife. A guy packing an arsenal can pretty much kill most people who get in his way, unless they're packing as well, but in any kind of civilian setting, having two or more people firing at each other is going to lead to pretty substantial collateral damage.
Is it? Having 18 little fucking children gunned down by some fucking maniac, and you're going to sit here and say that making weapons harder for fucking lunatics to possess is somehow a disease that needs to be put up with.
Yes, I know. It's the absolute wrong time to talk about things like this, and it's not like gun control means fucking maniacs can't kill lots of kids (Norway comes to mind).
Still, there is a thing called unacceptable loss here.