Natural variability allowed excessive dust from Africa and the el niño effect to kill the ability of hurricanes to grow this year. Both the dust and the el niño effect were likely caused by global warming. What about the 2005 hurricane season? It was also global warming that caused that.
Hmmm... Let me see if I have this straight. If there is an above average number of hurricanes it's caused by Global Warming. And if there is a below average number of hurricanes it's caused by Global Warming. So by your logic all weather, good or bad, is caused by Global Warming. So I'm guessing if I fart, since that causes a temporary localized weather change, that too is caused by Global Warming. You can't make this shit up... Wait... Hmmm... I guess you can.
If you'd like to recreated a lot of the stuff from the movie, using real data as inputs and getting similar results as what Gore gets, the EdGCM project has wrapped a NASA global climate model (GCM) in a GUI (OS X and Win).
You're a moron if you think a realistic model of the earth's climate can run on your Windows desktop. There does not exists a realistic model of the earth's climate anywhere that can run on any computer. A computer model of anything represents what was programed and in no way represents reality. Anyone who takes computer models seriously needs to study gaming theory. Human science doesn't even come close to understanding all the variables involved in planetary climatology. If you don't know or understand the variables how can you write a program that represents them. A computer model represents the information and relationships programed by the programmer. It has no magical ability to represent information not understood or included by the programmer.
I keep seeing statements that just because you can't predict the weather accurately a week in the future doesn't mean you can't predict global scale changes. It's not a mater of not being able to accurately predict the weather a week in the future. It's a problem of having no clue whether a week from now it's going to be 70 and sunny or 40 and raining. If you can't make a model that even comes close with that limited number of variables how the hell can you make an accurate model that involves orders of magnitude more variables.
I'm not saying that there aren't trends. But claiming to know all the causes of the trends and thus the ability to develop accurate models is complete BS.
No. No matter what society you live in, laws are interpreted, and that does not mean "arbitrarily enforcing... beliefs on you". Hell, for all that says, laws are arbitrarily forcing beliefs on you just as much as that judge was.
When the interpretation consciously alters the clear statement of the law yes it does. When did judges gain the ability to read minds? They can't rule on intent. They have to rule on the law as written. If the way it's written is not what the writers intended the writers need to follow the processes and protocols to correct it. It's not up to the judge to correct it. If the judge rules based on what they believe was the intent then yes it does mean they are arbitrarily enforcing their beliefs judicially and are starting the slide down that slippery slope.
Laws are enacted differently. Under the US constitution they are enacted by the Legislature not the Judiciary. There is a long and complex process for enacting a law and it doesn't include a few judges banging there gavels and declaring it so.
You see a great deal of consternation from the left these days about the right usurping the legal rule of the US. I think the far scarier and much bigger threat to the US government is the increasing creep the Judiciary into legislating the law rather than interpreting it. The current patient fiasco is a perfect example of it. Patient law hasn't been change by the legislature it's been completely perverted by the judiciary to benefit of no one but the fellow lawyers of the judges who have changed it.
I would side with the judge and say this law should include IM's and any electronic communication, VoIP, blogs (MySpace), etc. However, this does leave open the attack for a different case, where it's not as obvious or the crime is not as heinous, to be exploited in the same regards... think RIAA.
This is a scary wrong statement on so many levels. First the Judicial branch is not supposed to legislate. That's why it's called the Judicial branch and not the Legislative branch. Basically what your advocating is that every judge can arbitrarily determine what is legal without regards to the law. When judges start basing decisions on the word "should" the system starts crumbling. You're advocating the elimination of rule of law. A judge who can make rulings based on whether something "should" be illegal has the power to arbitrarily circumvent the law based on the judges individually beliefs. If they don't like green they can rule that wearing green is illegal.
Rulings like this are scary in that they do appear to be attempts at legislating by judges. One would hope the wrong interpretation is through a lack of understanding rather than an active attempt at judicial legislation but the statement by the judge hints that it's more the later. Any judge that bases their decisions on how "heinous" something is rather than on interpretation of the law should be impeached and disbarred. To a strict christian or muslim judge using their gods name in vain "should" be illegal. You want judges who can have you thrown in jail because you said dinner was good enough for jehovah?
he right thing to ask is how much open and public domain source made it to Windows? Was not Linux preemptive multitasking before Windows, POP3, SMTP/sendmail, DNS/BIND, Kerberos, telnet, ftp, http, ssl, TCP/IP itself, and probably more. At least in concept everything in Windows even windows itself is borrowed from other peoples works. Windows itself is an extrapolation of other people's prior works at best.
I don't think that's the question either. None of that matters in todays climate of software patents. I wouldn't be at all surprised given the rubber stamp approval of patents these days if Microsoft had several patents that covered tcp/ip networking or any of other things listed. I mean, for FSM's sake, NTP has 7 patents for sending email to little computers. Microsoft applies for a ridicules number of patents regularly covering some of the most idiotic and trivial things. It could turn very bloody. It's the nuclear option and Microsoft is as psychotic as Kim Jong-il with nukes. It's guaranteed if they feel threatened the nukes will fly. They've already tried the proxy war thing with SCO and failed.
Absolutely. Probably the best in the industry. You can still run Visicalc on any Windows machine.
I'd put my money on Sun being better and in a more complex space also. There stuff is used extensively in places like telecom. I could just imagine running any kind of phone switch on Windows.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying one way is the end all better way, I'm just saying that as long as the corporate world is run by people who just 'want it to work' (which will be forever) software that requires the user to do the programmers job will not fly. All my servers are Linux servers, but that's only because myself and the other techs here are skilled at making them work. I wouldn't DREAM of putting Linux on our desktops. Are you crazy?! Will YOU then be the one who baby sit every soccer mom who comes to work for us and teach them how to use it for free?
Microsoft is the greatest marketing company that every existed. Microsoft products DON"T just work. I'm so tired hearing that BS. I waste so much time (and I know I'm not the only one) trying to resolve endless problems were they don't just work. Not only that but sometimes they mysteriously just stop working for no apparent reason after they were working. Add to that the problem that it is nearly impossible to trouble shoot problems since little or no information is provided to the user. With Unix/Linux if there is an NFS or ssh issue I just turn up the logging level. With Windows it's reboot while sacrificing a chicken. I have 2 Linux servers sitting here right now that I set up and have worked flawlessly, one for over 3 years with only maybe a dozen reboots over that period. I support Unix servers that haven't been rebooted in years.
As to Linux on the desktop I would rather have some training expense up front then spend forever fighting viruses, anti-virus software, malware, anti-malware software and the just plan mysterious Windows problems that occur on Windows desktops.
Windows updates and upgrades not breaking things is crap also. The list of applications that were broke by WinXP SP2 was long and prestigious and included several of Microsoft's more prominent applications. And although they have gotten better I still tremble when Windows updates occur from past experiences of complete system failures on reboot after an update.
I have 20 years experience in this industry on both Windows and Unix/Linux. I've written device drivers and developed realtime embedded systems along with gui apps in probable a dozen languages. I've hack around with kernel modules on occasion. If someone with my level of experience can't diagnose problems that occur in Windows claiming that it just works is complete BS. Only a couple times have I encountered problems in Unix/Linux that I couldn't find a root cause for and in those cases it was more of a problem with time and money rather then a lack of information to find a root cause. With Windows you contact their support and the first step in resolution is reboot. If that fixes the problem there is no way to continue to a root cause.
I need interoperability, and simplicity, neither of which are strong points of Linux right now.
Every time I see a statement like this it pisses me off. Linux is very inter operable with every mainstream OS except Windows. And you know what, Windows isn't inter operable with any other OS that exists. Not only that but the Linux community goes to outrageous efforts to make it inter operable with other OS's (reverse engineering) while Microsoft goes to extreme efforts to ensure no OS can inter operate with Windows.
Also why is it I find Linux far simpler than Windows. You set it up and it works forever. On rare occasions that there are problems you can find a definitive solution unlike Windows where you just reboot and pray because no one including Microsoft knows what's happening with most problems.
The solution is clear - forbid any unknown code from loading into the kernel.
Unfortunately that's not the solution Microsoft chose. What they did is make a kernel that will only load code that has been approved by and paid a toll to Microsoft the amount of which is determined by Microsoft. That's vastly different than what you presented as the solution. On my Linux box unknown code is not permitted to load in the kernel but I'm the one who determines what is loaded into the kernel not Microsoft and there is no required payoff to allow code to load into the kernel.
If anything, Universities (and libraries) should at least be the ONE place on earth where the Internet should never be censored under any, any any any circumstances!!
This has been going on since the birth of the internet. See The joke that made RHF infamous
. All it takes is one idiot who thinks he has a god given right not be offended by anyone.
A story of censorship from my college days in the mid 1980's. A class called "The Arms Race" taught by some extreme left wing idiot (but widely published). He 'taught' his political views backed by extremist left wing propaganda publications. I'm talking immediate unilateral disarmament type stuff at the peak of the cold war. I'm a history fanatic. I attempted to temper his political BS with a little more balanced perspective. I supported my arguments with information from respected writers and historians. He eventually quit letting me talk. I requested a class period to allow me to refute some his more egregious claims. He refused. He gave me a C even though I knew as much as he did (if not more) about the subject matter because I refused to buy into his political views.
Hamdi, Hamdan(noncitizen), Padilla. This administration tried to hold them solely on the administration's say-so for the duration of the war on terror, in other words forever.
And failed. The system worked. As it appears to be in the current case. It appears some power made moron overstepped his bounds and it's being widely discussed and reported and groups are looking at taking action to slap them down.
Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus (for which he sought Congressional approval) and the concentration camps for Japanese-Americans (which were given a Supreme Court review, though one shamefully decided) happened during times when the fear, though not the actions, were justified. Lincoln acted when the country was already torn in two with the South shooting at the North. Roosevelt faced heavily armed enemies that had conquered entire nations. Neither would have pulled things like that in response to occasional atrocities committed by a few thousand fanatics in caves.
Do you even recall the worst attack on US soil since the US Civil War. Yeah it was worse than anything even during the 2 world encompassing wars. The scary part is those "fanatics in caves" were working on using modern technology (nuclear, biological and chemical) to perpetrate far worse and potentially far more outreaching attacks (religious fanatics likely would believe that God would save them from that biological plague they released). But they were no threat beyond "occasional atrocities" in caves somewhere. Wait, before we attacked them they weren't in caves. They had a large network of training camps where they trained people to commit "occasional atrocities" and were trying to develop advance weapons for worse "occasional atrocities".
I'm not sure what world you live in but the world I live in has limits. There is no magic. You expect the government to find and stop all attacks like 911 (or even worse) but they should do it while adhering to some idealized concept of absolute freedom that has never really existed anywhere and most assuredly not in the US (learn a little history). They are expected to do it by magic. They impose some restrictions that cost you a half hour every time you fly and some minor inconveniences on how you can take stuff and this is compared to the Nazis (I just Godwined). No you can't give them unlimited powers but so far the system seems to be working fairly well. The government oversteps their bounds and it is slapped back. If it oversteps enough it will really be slapped back next election.
Asymmetric warfare has always been a difficult conundrum for those tasked with defeating someone using it. In the past the level of damage one was able to accomplish using asymmetric warfare was pretty restricted by the technologies available. As technology has advanced it has exponentially advanced the effectiveness of asymmetric warfare. Five guys with swords just aren't going to have much effect They take out maybe 20 people. Five guys with barrels of gun powder are a little more scary. They take out a couple hundred with careful planning and do some minor infrastructure damage. 5 guys with a 737 are down right dangerous. They take out a few thousand and do some significant infrastructure damage. 5 guys with a Russian tactical nuc scare the shit out of me. They take out a million and do major infrastructure damage, probably enough to have a significant effect the global economy. 5 guys with a version of Ebola that has a 4 week incubation period and can infect through the air could destroy the human race. Asymmetric warfare isn't a few "fanatics in caves" committing "occasional atrocities" any more. That increase in threat means methodologies for defeating asymmetric warfare have to be developed. It's a delicate balance act doing that while still maintaining a level of privacy and freedom that's acceptable. Let's just hope they manage do it before London or New York disappear in a mushroom cloud.
You missed out the excessive force part. You are perfectly free to defend yourself with 'reasonable force.' This means force proportional to the threat. If someone threatens to punch you and you shoot them then this is not reasonable force, and you will be prosecuted. Self defence continues to be a valid defence in the UK, but self defence ends as a defence after you have neutralised the threat.
Did you know someone can beat you to death with their fists? This has to be the most idiotic legal concept I've ever seen. How do you define excessive force? How often is the person threatening you going to define exactly what level of force he is going to use so you can calmly calculate a counter level that's not excessive?
Aggressor: Let's see here. I'm going to strike you using just my fist with just enough force to give you a black eye or a fat lip but not enough to damage your eye or knock any teeth loose.
Yeah, it happens like that all the time in the real world. Active prior knowledge of what is excessive force requires the ability to some how have complete knowledge of the intentions of the person attacking you. Then after miraculously gaining that knowledge, under conditions where you feel severely threatened, you have to calmly calculate what would be enough force to subdue your attacker but wouldn't be construed as excessive. You're a complete moron if you think there is any way that's possible. Your in your house. You have a gun handy and are attacked by someone who appears unarmed. They hit you upside the head. You hit them back upside the head. They pull out a gun and shoot you. Your dead because you were constrained by the limits of excessive force but of coarse someone intent on breaking the law isn't going to be limited by those constraints. You have the choice of complete capitulation and leaving yourself at the mercy of someone who's intentions you have no way of knowing or of breaking the law by using "excessive force" to ensure that aggressor is subdued.
And don't even get me started on the idiotic idea that someone who feels their life is threatened should be able to calmly calculate various force levels and make a rational decision as to what an uninvolved third person might determine as being excessive force.
I'd be surprised if you replaced Muslim with "Baptist" in the US, and Islamic with "Christian", you wouldn't come up with the same result.
I wouldn't be surprised if your survey found that percentage of Baptist already thought the US is a Christian state. You need to define what a Christian state is . Ant semblance of hasn't existed for at least one and more like 2 centuries. Does a Christian state mean women stay home and cook and clean and aren't allowed to have jobs? Women aren't allowed to vote? If you described a Christian state in such terms I doubt you would find for than a few fringe lunatics who supported it. Yet even the most liberal Muslim states are far more repressive and they currently exists and are well defined. The logic of your analogy kind of falls apart when looked at a little more closely.
You are aware that people are allowed to live lifes with different beliefs to you, aren't you?
And they are perfectly welcome to. The problem is the rules they want me to live under force me to abide by their archaic repressive religious laws. Yes they are required to conform some of those rules to live in my society. But for the most part the rules in my society are designed to protected to society as a whole rather then any one set of beliefs in the society. As an example I really don't think a woman who is about to be stoned to death for the abhorrent crime of adultery would have much interest in living under Sharia law. Although I could be wrong but my society protects the individuals rights in such cases.
With that name they'll get the religious left on their side. As a Pastafarian I can state that by definition our religion will have to fully support the Pirate Party.
For things like windows, it will be hard to convince people that they need to pay monthly to use their PCs after they have already paid up front for the hardware and OS.
They're already starting this. Now they sell you the OS but you have to pay $50 a year to get security for the OS you've paid up front for. Their new security service is the first step in changing people's mind set.
So by your theory this list is kinda pointless since that means every invention ever made is Islamic. Unless you include bananas and under arm scratching as inventions.
This case clearly shows they are running a protection racket. Either they are using illegal means to access peoples computers, stealing information and using that information to extort money or the are lying to the people and telling them the above and trying to extort money. As the article states it's illegal for a company to knowingly lie to someone in an attempt to get money from them. Either way it's illegal and they're doing it to 10 of thousands of people thus RICO applies. It's completely irrelevant if your guilty of sharing copywrited material or not. What the record industry is doing is a blatantly illegal protection racket.
South Africa. Didn't their president declare that HIV and AIDS aren't related? Yeah, that's who you want in charge of the most complex thing every created by man.
Papua New Guinea will be happy as long as you don't outlaw penis gourds.
I was in a local bar. There were 2 girls claiming to be from RJ Reynolds. They had handheld computers. They would give you a lighter if you let them take a digital photo of your drivers license, scan the magnetic strip and sign a digital signature capture on the handheld screen. I saw at over 20 people do this and that was just in the half of the bar I was in and I only started watching after I figured out what they were doing.
Most open source software in my experience is backed far better then anything from Microsoft. Just look at outstanding patches for known vulnerabilities for Linux and Windows. Neither is legally or contractually backed. Both are supported by differently methodologies. It's arguable which is supported better. Microsoft is the one touting the fact that they back their software while customers get no such guarantee from open source. While the truth is you get no more of a guarantee from Microsoft then you do from open source. Cassic BS FUD.
The problem isn't that they are, in this aspect, like every other software provider including open source. The problem is they claim the fact that they do back up their software as an advantage over open source when their software is not legally supported any better then any other software.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok. I dare you to stand under one. Come on I dare you.
Hmmm... Let me see if I have this straight. If there is an above average number of hurricanes it's caused by Global Warming. And if there is a below average number of hurricanes it's caused by Global Warming. So by your logic all weather, good or bad, is caused by Global Warming. So I'm guessing if I fart, since that causes a temporary localized weather change, that too is caused by Global Warming. You can't make this shit up... Wait... Hmmm... I guess you can.
You're a moron if you think a realistic model of the earth's climate can run on your Windows desktop. There does not exists a realistic model of the earth's climate anywhere that can run on any computer. A computer model of anything represents what was programed and in no way represents reality. Anyone who takes computer models seriously needs to study gaming theory. Human science doesn't even come close to understanding all the variables involved in planetary climatology. If you don't know or understand the variables how can you write a program that represents them. A computer model represents the information and relationships programed by the programmer. It has no magical ability to represent information not understood or included by the programmer.
I keep seeing statements that just because you can't predict the weather accurately a week in the future doesn't mean you can't predict global scale changes. It's not a mater of not being able to accurately predict the weather a week in the future. It's a problem of having no clue whether a week from now it's going to be 70 and sunny or 40 and raining. If you can't make a model that even comes close with that limited number of variables how the hell can you make an accurate model that involves orders of magnitude more variables.
I'm not saying that there aren't trends. But claiming to know all the causes of the trends and thus the ability to develop accurate models is complete BS.
When the interpretation consciously alters the clear statement of the law yes it does. When did judges gain the ability to read minds? They can't rule on intent. They have to rule on the law as written. If the way it's written is not what the writers intended the writers need to follow the processes and protocols to correct it. It's not up to the judge to correct it. If the judge rules based on what they believe was the intent then yes it does mean they are arbitrarily enforcing their beliefs judicially and are starting the slide down that slippery slope.
Laws are enacted differently. Under the US constitution they are enacted by the Legislature not the Judiciary. There is a long and complex process for enacting a law and it doesn't include a few judges banging there gavels and declaring it so.
You see a great deal of consternation from the left these days about the right usurping the legal rule of the US. I think the far scarier and much bigger threat to the US government is the increasing creep the Judiciary into legislating the law rather than interpreting it. The current patient fiasco is a perfect example of it. Patient law hasn't been change by the legislature it's been completely perverted by the judiciary to benefit of no one but the fellow lawyers of the judges who have changed it.
This is a scary wrong statement on so many levels. First the Judicial branch is not supposed to legislate. That's why it's called the Judicial branch and not the Legislative branch. Basically what your advocating is that every judge can arbitrarily determine what is legal without regards to the law. When judges start basing decisions on the word "should" the system starts crumbling. You're advocating the elimination of rule of law. A judge who can make rulings based on whether something "should" be illegal has the power to arbitrarily circumvent the law based on the judges individually beliefs. If they don't like green they can rule that wearing green is illegal.
Rulings like this are scary in that they do appear to be attempts at legislating by judges. One would hope the wrong interpretation is through a lack of understanding rather than an active attempt at judicial legislation but the statement by the judge hints that it's more the later. Any judge that bases their decisions on how "heinous" something is rather than on interpretation of the law should be impeached and disbarred. To a strict christian or muslim judge using their gods name in vain "should" be illegal. You want judges who can have you thrown in jail because you said dinner was good enough for jehovah?
The only reason Microsoft came out against it is because they didn't go with the Microsoft solution.
I don't think that's the question either. None of that matters in todays climate of software patents. I wouldn't be at all surprised given the rubber stamp approval of patents these days if Microsoft had several patents that covered tcp/ip networking or any of other things listed. I mean, for FSM's sake, NTP has 7 patents for sending email to little computers. Microsoft applies for a ridicules number of patents regularly covering some of the most idiotic and trivial things. It could turn very bloody. It's the nuclear option and Microsoft is as psychotic as Kim Jong-il with nukes. It's guaranteed if they feel threatened the nukes will fly. They've already tried the proxy war thing with SCO and failed.
I'd put my money on Sun being better and in a more complex space also. There stuff is used extensively in places like telecom. I could just imagine running any kind of phone switch on Windows.
Microsoft is the greatest marketing company that every existed. Microsoft products DON"T just work. I'm so tired hearing that BS. I waste so much time (and I know I'm not the only one) trying to resolve endless problems were they don't just work. Not only that but sometimes they mysteriously just stop working for no apparent reason after they were working. Add to that the problem that it is nearly impossible to trouble shoot problems since little or no information is provided to the user. With Unix/Linux if there is an NFS or ssh issue I just turn up the logging level. With Windows it's reboot while sacrificing a chicken. I have 2 Linux servers sitting here right now that I set up and have worked flawlessly, one for over 3 years with only maybe a dozen reboots over that period. I support Unix servers that haven't been rebooted in years.
As to Linux on the desktop I would rather have some training expense up front then spend forever fighting viruses, anti-virus software, malware, anti-malware software and the just plan mysterious Windows problems that occur on Windows desktops.
Windows updates and upgrades not breaking things is crap also. The list of applications that were broke by WinXP SP2 was long and prestigious and included several of Microsoft's more prominent applications. And although they have gotten better I still tremble when Windows updates occur from past experiences of complete system failures on reboot after an update.
I have 20 years experience in this industry on both Windows and Unix/Linux. I've written device drivers and developed realtime embedded systems along with gui apps in probable a dozen languages. I've hack around with kernel modules on occasion. If someone with my level of experience can't diagnose problems that occur in Windows claiming that it just works is complete BS. Only a couple times have I encountered problems in Unix/Linux that I couldn't find a root cause for and in those cases it was more of a problem with time and money rather then a lack of information to find a root cause. With Windows you contact their support and the first step in resolution is reboot. If that fixes the problem there is no way to continue to a root cause.
Every time I see a statement like this it pisses me off. Linux is very inter operable with every mainstream OS except Windows. And you know what, Windows isn't inter operable with any other OS that exists. Not only that but the Linux community goes to outrageous efforts to make it inter operable with other OS's (reverse engineering) while Microsoft goes to extreme efforts to ensure no OS can inter operate with Windows.
Also why is it I find Linux far simpler than Windows. You set it up and it works forever. On rare occasions that there are problems you can find a definitive solution unlike Windows where you just reboot and pray because no one including Microsoft knows what's happening with most problems.
Unfortunately that's not the solution Microsoft chose. What they did is make a kernel that will only load code that has been approved by and paid a toll to Microsoft the amount of which is determined by Microsoft. That's vastly different than what you presented as the solution. On my Linux box unknown code is not permitted to load in the kernel but I'm the one who determines what is loaded into the kernel not Microsoft and there is no required payoff to allow code to load into the kernel.
This has been going on since the birth of the internet. See The joke that made RHF infamous . All it takes is one idiot who thinks he has a god given right not be offended by anyone.
A story of censorship from my college days in the mid 1980's. A class called "The Arms Race" taught by some extreme left wing idiot (but widely published). He 'taught' his political views backed by extremist left wing propaganda publications. I'm talking immediate unilateral disarmament type stuff at the peak of the cold war. I'm a history fanatic. I attempted to temper his political BS with a little more balanced perspective. I supported my arguments with information from respected writers and historians. He eventually quit letting me talk. I requested a class period to allow me to refute some his more egregious claims. He refused. He gave me a C even though I knew as much as he did (if not more) about the subject matter because I refused to buy into his political views.
Hamdi, Hamdan(noncitizen), Padilla. This administration tried to hold them solely on the administration's say-so for the duration of the war on terror, in other words forever.
And failed. The system worked. As it appears to be in the current case. It appears some power made moron overstepped his bounds and it's being widely discussed and reported and groups are looking at taking action to slap them down.
Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus (for which he sought Congressional approval) and the concentration camps for Japanese-Americans (which were given a Supreme Court review, though one shamefully decided) happened during times when the fear, though not the actions, were justified. Lincoln acted when the country was already torn in two with the South shooting at the North. Roosevelt faced heavily armed enemies that had conquered entire nations. Neither would have pulled things like that in response to occasional atrocities committed by a few thousand fanatics in caves.
Do you even recall the worst attack on US soil since the US Civil War. Yeah it was worse than anything even during the 2 world encompassing wars. The scary part is those "fanatics in caves" were working on using modern technology (nuclear, biological and chemical) to perpetrate far worse and potentially far more outreaching attacks (religious fanatics likely would believe that God would save them from that biological plague they released). But they were no threat beyond "occasional atrocities" in caves somewhere. Wait, before we attacked them they weren't in caves. They had a large network of training camps where they trained people to commit "occasional atrocities" and were trying to develop advance weapons for worse "occasional atrocities".
I'm not sure what world you live in but the world I live in has limits. There is no magic. You expect the government to find and stop all attacks like 911 (or even worse) but they should do it while adhering to some idealized concept of absolute freedom that has never really existed anywhere and most assuredly not in the US (learn a little history). They are expected to do it by magic. They impose some restrictions that cost you a half hour every time you fly and some minor inconveniences on how you can take stuff and this is compared to the Nazis (I just Godwined). No you can't give them unlimited powers but so far the system seems to be working fairly well. The government oversteps their bounds and it is slapped back. If it oversteps enough it will really be slapped back next election.
Asymmetric warfare has always been a difficult conundrum for those tasked with defeating someone using it. In the past the level of damage one was able to accomplish using asymmetric warfare was pretty restricted by the technologies available. As technology has advanced it has exponentially advanced the effectiveness of asymmetric warfare. Five guys with swords just aren't going to have much effect They take out maybe 20 people. Five guys with barrels of gun powder are a little more scary. They take out a couple hundred with careful planning and do some minor infrastructure damage. 5 guys with a 737 are down right dangerous. They take out a few thousand and do some significant infrastructure damage. 5 guys with a Russian tactical nuc scare the shit out of me. They take out a million and do major infrastructure damage, probably enough to have a significant effect the global economy. 5 guys with a version of Ebola that has a 4 week incubation period and can infect through the air could destroy the human race. Asymmetric warfare isn't a few "fanatics in caves" committing "occasional atrocities" any more. That increase in threat means methodologies for defeating asymmetric warfare have to be developed. It's a delicate balance act doing that while still maintaining a level of privacy and freedom that's acceptable. Let's just hope they manage do it before London or New York disappear in a mushroom cloud.
You missed out the excessive force part. You are perfectly free to defend yourself with 'reasonable force.' This means force proportional to the threat. If someone threatens to punch you and you shoot them then this is not reasonable force, and you will be prosecuted. Self defence continues to be a valid defence in the UK, but self defence ends as a defence after you have neutralised the threat.
Did you know someone can beat you to death with their fists? This has to be the most idiotic legal concept I've ever seen. How do you define excessive force? How often is the person threatening you going to define exactly what level of force he is going to use so you can calmly calculate a counter level that's not excessive?
Aggressor: Let's see here. I'm going to strike you using just my fist with just enough force to give you a black eye or a fat lip but not enough to damage your eye or knock any teeth loose.
Yeah, it happens like that all the time in the real world. Active prior knowledge of what is excessive force requires the ability to some how have complete knowledge of the intentions of the person attacking you. Then after miraculously gaining that knowledge, under conditions where you feel severely threatened, you have to calmly calculate what would be enough force to subdue your attacker but wouldn't be construed as excessive. You're a complete moron if you think there is any way that's possible. Your in your house. You have a gun handy and are attacked by someone who appears unarmed. They hit you upside the head. You hit them back upside the head. They pull out a gun and shoot you. Your dead because you were constrained by the limits of excessive force but of coarse someone intent on breaking the law isn't going to be limited by those constraints. You have the choice of complete capitulation and leaving yourself at the mercy of someone who's intentions you have no way of knowing or of breaking the law by using "excessive force" to ensure that aggressor is subdued.
And don't even get me started on the idiotic idea that someone who feels their life is threatened should be able to calmly calculate various force levels and make a rational decision as to what an uninvolved third person might determine as being excessive force.
And how exactly to you propose to objectively measure the "level of suckage"?
You abviously don't read alt.sysadmin.recovery. The unit of measure is well defined as the Lovelace.
I wouldn't be surprised if your survey found that percentage of Baptist already thought the US is a Christian state. You need to define what a Christian state is . Ant semblance of hasn't existed for at least one and more like 2 centuries. Does a Christian state mean women stay home and cook and clean and aren't allowed to have jobs? Women aren't allowed to vote? If you described a Christian state in such terms I doubt you would find for than a few fringe lunatics who supported it. Yet even the most liberal Muslim states are far more repressive and they currently exists and are well defined. The logic of your analogy kind of falls apart when looked at a little more closely.
And they are perfectly welcome to. The problem is the rules they want me to live under force me to abide by their archaic repressive religious laws. Yes they are required to conform some of those rules to live in my society. But for the most part the rules in my society are designed to protected to society as a whole rather then any one set of beliefs in the society. As an example I really don't think a woman who is about to be stoned to death for the abhorrent crime of adultery would have much interest in living under Sharia law. Although I could be wrong but my society protects the individuals rights in such cases.With that name they'll get the religious left on their side. As a Pastafarian I can state that by definition our religion will have to fully support the Pirate Party.
They're already starting this. Now they sell you the OS but you have to pay $50 a year to get security for the OS you've paid up front for. Their new security service is the first step in changing people's mind set.
Yeah, but there partners built the Charles de Gaulle The engine room crew come back glowing after every cruise.
So by your theory this list is kinda pointless since that means every invention ever made is Islamic. Unless you include bananas and under arm scratching as inventions.
This case clearly shows they are running a protection racket. Either they are using illegal means to access peoples computers, stealing information and using that information to extort money or the are lying to the people and telling them the above and trying to extort money. As the article states it's illegal for a company to knowingly lie to someone in an attempt to get money from them. Either way it's illegal and they're doing it to 10 of thousands of people thus RICO applies. It's completely irrelevant if your guilty of sharing copywrited material or not. What the record industry is doing is a blatantly illegal protection racket.
South Africa. Didn't their president declare that HIV and AIDS aren't related? Yeah, that's who you want in charge of the most complex thing every created by man. Papua New Guinea will be happy as long as you don't outlaw penis gourds.
I was in a local bar. There were 2 girls claiming to be from RJ Reynolds. They had handheld computers. They would give you a lighter if you let them take a digital photo of your drivers license, scan the magnetic strip and sign a digital signature capture on the handheld screen. I saw at over 20 people do this and that was just in the half of the bar I was in and I only started watching after I figured out what they were doing.
Most open source software in my experience is backed far better then anything from Microsoft. Just look at outstanding patches for known vulnerabilities for Linux and Windows. Neither is legally or contractually backed. Both are supported by differently methodologies. It's arguable which is supported better. Microsoft is the one touting the fact that they back their software while customers get no such guarantee from open source. While the truth is you get no more of a guarantee from Microsoft then you do from open source. Cassic BS FUD.
The problem isn't that they are, in this aspect, like every other software provider including open source. The problem is they claim the fact that they do back up their software as an advantage over open source when their software is not legally supported any better then any other software.