Second, the unibomber was a citizen. Most neo-nazi, skinhead, kkk, and other violent organizations are also made up of citizens. And what shared trait exists between your examples and islamist extremist? They want to change the US to their world view and are willing to kill people to do it. Because these people are citizens and in the US, we have recourse. The kkk has been sued nearly into oblivion. The unibomber is rotting in jail.
Isn't it reasonable to listen in on someone from a foreign country in the US communicating with known terrorists in the Middle East? How much of that conversation are you willing to miss? If it is your duty to protect US citizens (their lives and privacy), does that change your answers?
It didn't say 100 Americans. It said 100 people living in this country. They are most probably not citizens and they are not entitled to the same rights as citizens.
Generally, I find fellow citizens are less likely to try to kill us. Cut me off in traffic, sure, destroy the local water plant, no.
I am not for killing everyone who disagrees with me. Everyone should prefer living over dying. However, those who believe in radical Islam, don't. They will take innocent lives for cartoons they find offensive. They will murder members of their own family because of who they date.
If they hate us because we allow homosexuals to live as themselves, women to dress the way they like, and Baptists and atheists to believe what they want, they hate freedom. I for one will not trade mine, nor yours, to appease them.
Somebody even said to me that more people were killed putting their socks on in the United Kingdom than by terrorists last-year. It's probably true.
When you say killed, didn't you mean "died"? Because dying and being killed are two different things. If not, we are underestimating the power of footwear.
Your way of live is under threat. According to the article linked, 1 in 4 Muslims are sympathetic to the motives of the terrorists.
Microsoft doesn't care about Linux as long as Microsoft dominates the business community. People buy for their personal needs based on what they know and they get paid to know Windows/Vista and MS Office.
Besides, most users are too uninformed to run a Linux distro, much less correct a problem.
There will be defections, but as a percentage, it won't be significant to Microsoft. In a few years, I don't think they will be significant to Linux's installed base. The real threat to Microsoft is the Mac, b/c you don't need to know squat to get it work.
I am sorry you believe 9/11 was an inside job. I don't believe what you believe. It has been thoroughly reviewed (9/11 Report and Popular Mechanics book on the subject) and what you believe is really, well, denial. Denying that you have a influence in this world. Denying the thousands of good people required for a conspiracy of this size to work. Denying Bin Laden while he is bragging about taking down the towers.
I have read a few of your other posts and you are obviously intelligent. Please stop repeating this madness. There is no reality there.
I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. Mencken is brilliant writer, but this isn't true. Liberty and Freedom existed before government. Government is the result of having to live with others. If you were alone in the world, you wouldn't create the United State of You. Government's purpose is the protection of our lives, property and liberty.
If government did its job, it can make attacks like 9/11 less likely. The idea that a determined enemy is unstoppable is imperfect. If our determination is of equal or greater force, can we not affect the level of their success? Or simple luck as in the case of the 2000 terrorist attack that was foiled by an alert customs agent? It doesn't mean that government will get it right on the first try or the 100th, it means that the problem is dynamic and has to be addressed dynamically.
You are the one using a black vs. white analogy. Scaremonger vs. those who want to remove the police-state behavior. There is a middle ground, a reasonable process that protects citizens from terrorists and still protects a reasonable amount of the civilians privacy. We are going to find it only through discourse and trial-and-error. I know saying "...a reasonable amount of...privacy" is going to draw criticism, but the definition of privacy, like freedom and liberty, has changed for each generation. Thankfully, each generation in the US has lived in better times than each generation it replaced.
If it's a Republican president, he can purposely ignore all threats and cancel current anti-terror operations beforehand, Al Franken is not a credible source for content. You wouldn't accept a quote from Rush Limbaugh. The 911 Commission's Report is a better source and it was critical of both administrations.
when the attack starts, he can ignore that it's happening in order to continue a PR event Bush has rightly been criticized by people on both sides for his first reaction during the attack. I wish he would have politely excused himself and left.
as long as he... well, does nothing, really.
You may disagree with a lot that Bush has done in office, but to say he has done nothing is wrong. Iraq has been mishandled at times, but the war in Afghanistan was fairly well done and the right decision. The reality is that radical Islam has been at war with the US at least since the first Trade Center bombing. The US government is finally dealing with it.
Not that I normally want to defend anonymous cowards, but when the next terrorist attack occurs the American public will blame the administration for not doing enough. We will blame the terrorist first, but we will also ask for 2 reactions from our government: do something to keep this from happening again and tell us why the government didn't stop it in the first place.
Moderator: You may completely disagree with Anonymous Coward's point, but labeling his comment as funny is an insult to real debate. He wasn't trying to be funny and what was said should not be taken lightly.
If you imagine the buyer as an individual, I get your point. Once an individual commits to a seller, as in someone, "God forbid", buys Vista that relationship cannot change the next day. But if you look at the buyer as the 300 million we have in this country, then Microsoft, Linux vendors and Apple must compete everyday for our attention and our money. Our ability to choose what we buy is democratic control.
As far as difference between the cruel private master and the benevolent municipal master, I recommend the words of C.S. Lewis: "...Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Thank you for your civility. It was not required, but it is appreciated.
The government nearly always performs at this level: substandard. Why?
1. Unlike the free market, they only answer to the people every couple of years. The sellers must respond to the buyer every single day.
2. When government screws up they spend your money to figure out what happened and to come up with a solution. In the free market, you can just change providers.
With 85% of the population voting in a run-off election, how can this fellow be considered divisive without his conservative label? It is political rhetoric. If a politician says government cannot repair every ill of its populace, divisive is the first three syllables of slander.
If they don't someone will. It isn't worth the upgrade (sorry MS) to re-learn what I have known for over a decade.
This is a classic mistake of bloated business management and mouse love. If I am typing a document, picking up and clicking through God-knows-what is not helping.
It is great that Craig's list sticks to what makes them popular, but we should act as if it is a "higher calling"?
They are a success b/c they provide a unique service mix and they know their customers. The same argument can be said for Yahoo, Google and "fill in your favorite publicly traded.com" here.
Consider the economic gain of investing $9000, the savings of paying the local utility, and the money not spent on maintenance in the S&P 500 for the same 20 year period. When a company finally cracks the code with an alternative energy source for the masses, you will be an owner.
Not to run down early adoption, we need people to try, but the average man or woman would be better off helping the overall process instead suffering the cuts of the bleeding edge.
Why do this article (again) now? The most rational reason is to benefit the Democratic party. This is being pushed, to a large degree, to keep Kenneth Blackwell out of the Senate. He is a conservative, who happens to be black, and with the exception this subject, a man with a pretty clean public record.
From a political perspective, this is huge for both parties, expect the dirt to be knee deep.
As an alternative, how about increasing the number of members of the electorial college to 1 for every 30 or 70 thousand (instead of the 700,000 they represent today)? It doesn't solve the winner takes all strategy in states, but it would more accurately represent the people in it. Then you would be more likely to vote b/c you might even know the person going.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't it reasonable to listen in on someone from a foreign country in the US communicating with known terrorists in the Middle East? How much of that conversation are you willing to miss? If it is your duty to protect US citizens (their lives and privacy), does that change your answers?
Generally, I find fellow citizens are less likely to try to kill us. Cut me off in traffic, sure, destroy the local water plant, no.
If they hate us because we allow homosexuals to live as themselves, women to dress the way they like, and Baptists and atheists to believe what they want, they hate freedom. I for one will not trade mine, nor yours, to appease them.
When you say killed, didn't you mean "died"? Because dying and being killed are two different things. If not, we are underestimating the power of footwear.
Your way of live is under threat. According to the article linked, 1 in 4 Muslims are sympathetic to the motives of the terrorists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2005/07/23/npoll23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/23/ ixnewstop.html
That sounds like a threat and a real danger to a peaceful society.
Besides, most users are too uninformed to run a Linux distro, much less correct a problem.
There will be defections, but as a percentage, it won't be significant to Microsoft. In a few years, I don't think they will be significant to Linux's installed base. The real threat to Microsoft is the Mac, b/c you don't need to know squat to get it work.
-Living the Win/Tel dream since 1992.
I have read a few of your other posts and you are obviously intelligent. Please stop repeating this madness. There is no reality there.
If government did its job, it can make attacks like 9/11 less likely. The idea that a determined enemy is unstoppable is imperfect. If our determination is of equal or greater force, can we not affect the level of their success? Or simple luck as in the case of the 2000 terrorist attack that was foiled by an alert customs agent? It doesn't mean that government will get it right on the first try or the 100th, it means that the problem is dynamic and has to be addressed dynamically.
You are the one using a black vs. white analogy. Scaremonger vs. those who want to remove the police-state behavior. There is a middle ground, a reasonable process that protects citizens from terrorists and still protects a reasonable amount of the civilians privacy. We are going to find it only through discourse and trial-and-error. I know saying "...a reasonable amount of ...privacy" is going to draw criticism, but the definition of privacy, like freedom and liberty, has changed for each generation. Thankfully, each generation in the US has lived in better times than each generation it replaced.
You may disagree with a lot that Bush has done in office, but to say he has done nothing is wrong. Iraq has been mishandled at times, but the war in Afghanistan was fairly well done and the right decision. The reality is that radical Islam has been at war with the US at least since the first Trade Center bombing. The US government is finally dealing with it.
Moderator: You may completely disagree with Anonymous Coward's point, but labeling his comment as funny is an insult to real debate. He wasn't trying to be funny and what was said should not be taken lightly.
As far as difference between the cruel private master and the benevolent municipal master, I recommend the words of C.S. Lewis: "...Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Thank you for your civility. It was not required, but it is appreciated.
1. Unlike the free market, they only answer to the people every couple of years. The sellers must respond to the buyer every single day.
2. When government screws up they spend your money to figure out what happened and to come up with a solution. In the free market, you can just change providers.
With 85% of the population voting in a run-off election, how can this fellow be considered divisive without his conservative label? It is political rhetoric. If a politician says government cannot repair every ill of its populace, divisive is the first three syllables of slander.
The idea is that if you know people are armed, you will be less likely to start shooting. It is the same reason you don't see shootings at gun shows.
Now, I am biased. I was expecting something valuable for the user in Vista. I have been disappointed based on what I have seen and read.
For better try: http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3118_7-6695272-1.html ?tag=cnetfd.mt/
Or for gamers: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2096940 ,00.asp/
They at least don't sound like they just dropped the M$ pom-poms to type their articles.
Isn't the IPCC Final Report (just released) actually only a summary of the unfinished report that is coming out in May? Is that normal?
If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters. ~Alan Simpson
This is a classic mistake of bloated business management and mouse love. If I am typing a document, picking up and clicking through God-knows-what is not helping.
Welcome to hell.
They are a success b/c they provide a unique service mix and they know their customers. The same argument can be said for Yahoo, Google and "fill in your favorite publicly traded .com" here.
Not to run down early adoption, we need people to try, but the average man or woman would be better off helping the overall process instead suffering the cuts of the bleeding edge.
You can only count on people to act in their own self-interest.
From a political perspective, this is huge for both parties, expect the dirt to be knee deep.
It would make more since and faster, more accurate typing. The Caps Lock key can be annoying, but really, QWERTY is a bigger problem.
What? Unconstitutional? If all we hate is unconstitutional and all we like is constitutional then we are governed by man and not law.
These laws are wastes of taxpayer's money and of the court's time. It doesn't mean it is unconstitutional.
As an alternative, how about increasing the number of members of the electorial college to 1 for every 30 or 70 thousand (instead of the 700,000 they represent today)? It doesn't solve the winner takes all strategy in states, but it would more accurately represent the people in it. Then you would be more likely to vote b/c you might even know the person going.