True enough. But on their own they are weak and marginalized and little threat.
When they do manage to provoke an invasion, that strengthens their hand immensely. The death and destruction and poverty inflicted gives them a generation of recruits and donors they would not otherwise have. And now we have jihadi armies, from Libya to Syria and on over to Afghanistan, created by US foreign policy and interventions.
Yeah, look. Pat yourself on the back for being 'up-to-date' all you want but you are missing the point. You cannot have privacy and an ecmascript based substitute for the web, they are mutually exclusive. No matter what else you tighten up on the browser end, if your browser is required to trust the server it will be compromised in short order. This is not a matter of old vs new it's a matter of fundamental logic.
Again, about 80% of the disagreement is simply because you keep repeating 'facts' that are anything but. Read the trial transcripts and forget all the junk you learned from reading fact-free tabloid 'journalism' and then you might be capable making a point.
"In normal countries neighbourhood watch doesn't mean going round looking for trouble with a gun."
Poisoning the well/true but irrelevant.
"It means keeping an eye out for anything suspicious and phoning the professionals (the police) to deal with it and why do you think that is? Precisely to avoid shit like this."
Bullshit. That is straight up bullshit. You cannot, in any country, simply call the police when you see anything the slightest bit suspicious and then run the other way and trust them to deal with it. That's ridiculous.
As a neighborwood watcher you are always, of course, happy to call the cops and let them deal with someone just as soon as the situation allows. But the cops dont just run around at the beck and call of the citizens you know. If you want them to come you have to wait until you have something they consider a good reason. And you will still have to wait for them to show up as well.
You try to avoid confrontation, and you also try to be prepared for it, and you have to accept that it's a risk in what you are doing. You are trying to deter criminals, and criminals are unlikely to be happy about being deterred.
"Wrong, it found that there wasn't enough evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was guilty which is not the same thing."
No, actually, you are wrong. His guilt was admitted from the start, there was no question that he killed Mr Martin, so the jury didnt even consider the question! What the jury found was that the action was justified, since Mr Martin was at that very time actively and credibly attempting to murder Mr Zimmerman, or that at least any reasonable person in Mr Zimmermans position would have believed that to be the case.
In other words this isnt the standard 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' verdict as you seem to think, but an affirmative defense which was shown by the evidence to be true. This and so many other details you would know if you read the trail transcripts instead of learning all you think you know from yellow journalism.
"Effectively the whole case has created a precedent where you can go out armed, provoke someone until they attack you, shoot them, and get away with it."
It has done nothing of the sort. This case set no precedents, it affirmed a chain of precedents back through centuries of Common Law.
If you decide to walk through my neighborhood, I can walk along and follow you and if your face isnt known to me I will do just that. As long as you dont start breaking into houses or something you really have no reason to care. And the only way you will ever find out that I have a pistol is if you actually decide to attack me. In which case it's very likely to be the last thing you learn.
If you are worried about me using this as a loophole to arrange your death, please re-read it a couple times. You have to attack me for it to work. Dont attack me, dont worry. Is that really too difficult for you?
You might note that Syria has not signed nor ratified it, so they have no obligations to follow it. Nor have they ever pretended to follow it. It's no secret they have the weapons.
Gases are ugly but as 'weapons of mass destruction' they are fairly overblown. Nothing like the wimpy little A-bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is why the major powers will agree to chemical weapons treaties for moral high ground while at the same time loudly proclaiming that they hold the option 'on the table' to launch nuclear attacks without even being attacked first.
And it just does not seem likely at all the Syrans used them here. With the inspectors right there, no military or strategic value being served, they just decided to randomly open up some cans of gas and hit civilians with them? It might make some sense if the war was lost and he was huddled in his bunker going out with a bang, but the regime is set to win this one.
It makes much more sense that one of the jihadis who are facing the grim possibility of defeat, sacrificed some innocents in order to trigger Mr Obamas 'red line' and the promised intervention to save Al Qaida^W^Nusra from the harsh fate Assad has in mind for them.
At the very least, it would make sense to let the inspectors gather evidence before you start killing even more innocents no?
And as long as we are talking about international law, the UN charter, which everyone concerned has assented to, requires Security Council authorization before a strike. And the only obstacle to an SC resolution appears to be the desire of some members to wait for the inspectors and the evidence.
It's not an easy day to be proud to be an American.
"'By sparing the lives of Syrian troops and nearby civilians, an opening cyber operation against Syria could demonstrate exactly how such capabilities can be compliant with international humanitarian law,' writes Healey."
Yes, indeed. Let us demonstrate our moral rightness by launching an illegal war, to enforce international law. Oh, wait, they know that is nonsense so they are saying 'international norm' instead.
Even if it were an actual violation of international law, responding with an assault that itself violates international law would still be hypocritical. But for this, neither anglo-saxon nor latin provides me with a word sufficient to describe it. I can only resort to yiddish and call it chutzpah, and even that seems weak.
You appear to have misunderstood the term 'moral agents.' It does not by any means imply that we always behave morally. It means that we are capable behaving morally - or immorally. A wolf, or a lion, is not, and thus should not be judged by the same standards.
I havent donated to the NRA in decades. They are too soft on the second amendment. The fact that even they recognise this has gone too far speaks volumes.
"Wolves and lions both will attack and eject an offspring killing member or one that refuses to accept their place in the hierarchy"
They also routinely kill infants of their own species. The big difference between humans and other animals is that we are moral agents and they are not. Your path is to abdicate agency and live like a wolf? Not impressive.
There was no car involved, the younger man was shot while on top of the older man, apparently attempting to release his brains from his skull with the assistance of the concrete below. Read the trial transcripts.
You can shoot someone that jumps out of the shadows and starts beating your head in. That's actually legal virtually everywhere, including all over Europe. In most of Europe, it's very difficult for an individual citizen to legally carry the weapon to begin with, of course, but the right to self defense is hardly a US invention.
There is a commonality between those you mentioned that you skipped. In each case, they believe that the goodness of their ends justify the darkest and most despicable of methods. I believe this is the critical malfunction - the delusion that aggression and coercion can somehow be used for good.
I dont allow cross-site scripting without whitelisting myself, but it's important to realize this is a compromise that reduces vulnerabilities but does not eliminate them. In this case, it's NOT cross-site scripting we are worried about.
"What? Can you actually be serious? Most of the endemic problems in the Windows world can be attributed to the lack of proper package management outside of OS updates."
Perfectly serious. Can you be seriously advocating the addition of a major system to gnu in order to solve a problem *on windows?*
Which problem on windows, btw, has nothing to do with package management. Rather it is a result of lacking support for library versioning. Something *nix systems have dealt with properly for decades.
The Slackware version of KDE is very nice as well, and it does not 'suffer' from lack of Debian package management. Really, package management causes more suffering than it alleviates.
You're assuming the warming stops at 'habitable'...
Hot-house earth isnt completely uninhabitable. The violent storms and extreme heat in the tropical zones would make them indoors-only and dangerous to travel in, but the polar regions and for instance high mountain areas further south would be quite habitable.
The compression should be done at a higher level, however. And if things are set up properly it almost always does when it counts. So this sounds suspiciously like the inflated connection speeds I remember from the modem days.
You would be connected at a much lower speed than the box said, the difference being the 'expected' gain from the built-in compression. In the rare occasion that you were a total idiot and sent large amounts of uncompressed data then expectations would be met. In other cases it was meaningless - compressing exchanges consisting of small 'sentences' back and forth may work but it produces no dramatic gains since that stuff is tiny to begin with. And large files are compressed beforehand, either by the originating application or via lessless or lossy compression for video and audio. Running a lossless compression algorithm on already compressed files is never a performance win.
In this case, compressing files smaller than the allocatable block size is pointless first off. And larger files, again, are normally going to be compressed at a higher level, by something with better understanding of its properties, possibly even using lossy compression.
It sounds like the old Stacker/Doublespace stuff is built into the controller. If that is accurate I give it a big DO NOT WANT.
There is no taboo in place to prevent us from questioning the shape of the earth, no one is run out of their profession for questioning the exact shape, in fact there are recent papers on the subject. If someone were to contend that the Earth is flat (which seems to be something no one ever really believed, btw) it's easy to demonstrate the falsehood of that. We can use evidence and experiment, rather than ridicule and ostracism, to make our point, because in that case the point is correct.
This is the difference between science and religion. When someone who functions as a religious authority day in and day out pretends to be doing science you really should take that as a sign to check your wallet.
Slashdot Mirror
True enough. But on their own they are weak and marginalized and little threat.
When they do manage to provoke an invasion, that strengthens their hand immensely. The death and destruction and poverty inflicted gives them a generation of recruits and donors they would not otherwise have. And now we have jihadi armies, from Libya to Syria and on over to Afghanistan, created by US foreign policy and interventions.
"What was wrong with standard plates?"
No patents.
Yeah, look. Pat yourself on the back for being 'up-to-date' all you want but you are missing the point. You cannot have privacy and an ecmascript based substitute for the web, they are mutually exclusive. No matter what else you tighten up on the browser end, if your browser is required to trust the server it will be compromised in short order. This is not a matter of old vs new it's a matter of fundamental logic.
These are symptoms of a broken browser.
You can fix it by turning off javascript. I got the news article with no intrusive crap on the first load.
Again, about 80% of the disagreement is simply because you keep repeating 'facts' that are anything but. Read the trial transcripts and forget all the junk you learned from reading fact-free tabloid 'journalism' and then you might be capable making a point.
"In normal countries neighbourhood watch doesn't mean going round looking for trouble with a gun."
Poisoning the well/true but irrelevant.
"It means keeping an eye out for anything suspicious and phoning the professionals (the police) to deal with it and why do you think that is? Precisely to avoid shit like this."
Bullshit. That is straight up bullshit. You cannot, in any country, simply call the police when you see anything the slightest bit suspicious and then run the other way and trust them to deal with it. That's ridiculous.
As a neighborwood watcher you are always, of course, happy to call the cops and let them deal with someone just as soon as the situation allows. But the cops dont just run around at the beck and call of the citizens you know. If you want them to come you have to wait until you have something they consider a good reason. And you will still have to wait for them to show up as well.
You try to avoid confrontation, and you also try to be prepared for it, and you have to accept that it's a risk in what you are doing. You are trying to deter criminals, and criminals are unlikely to be happy about being deterred.
"Wrong, it found that there wasn't enough evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was guilty which is not the same thing."
No, actually, you are wrong. His guilt was admitted from the start, there was no question that he killed Mr Martin, so the jury didnt even consider the question! What the jury found was that the action was justified, since Mr Martin was at that very time actively and credibly attempting to murder Mr Zimmerman, or that at least any reasonable person in Mr Zimmermans position would have believed that to be the case.
In other words this isnt the standard 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' verdict as you seem to think, but an affirmative defense which was shown by the evidence to be true. This and so many other details you would know if you read the trail transcripts instead of learning all you think you know from yellow journalism.
"Effectively the whole case has created a precedent where you can go out armed, provoke someone until they attack you, shoot them, and get away with it."
It has done nothing of the sort. This case set no precedents, it affirmed a chain of precedents back through centuries of Common Law.
If you decide to walk through my neighborhood, I can walk along and follow you and if your face isnt known to me I will do just that. As long as you dont start breaking into houses or something you really have no reason to care. And the only way you will ever find out that I have a pistol is if you actually decide to attack me. In which case it's very likely to be the last thing you learn.
If you are worried about me using this as a loophole to arrange your death, please re-read it a couple times. You have to attack me for it to work. Dont attack me, dont worry. Is that really too difficult for you?
You might note that Syria has not signed nor ratified it, so they have no obligations to follow it. Nor have they ever pretended to follow it. It's no secret they have the weapons.
Gases are ugly but as 'weapons of mass destruction' they are fairly overblown. Nothing like the wimpy little A-bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is why the major powers will agree to chemical weapons treaties for moral high ground while at the same time loudly proclaiming that they hold the option 'on the table' to launch nuclear attacks without even being attacked first.
And it just does not seem likely at all the Syrans used them here. With the inspectors right there, no military or strategic value being served, they just decided to randomly open up some cans of gas and hit civilians with them? It might make some sense if the war was lost and he was huddled in his bunker going out with a bang, but the regime is set to win this one.
It makes much more sense that one of the jihadis who are facing the grim possibility of defeat, sacrificed some innocents in order to trigger Mr Obamas 'red line' and the promised intervention to save Al Qaida^W^Nusra from the harsh fate Assad has in mind for them.
At the very least, it would make sense to let the inspectors gather evidence before you start killing even more innocents no?
And as long as we are talking about international law, the UN charter, which everyone concerned has assented to, requires Security Council authorization before a strike. And the only obstacle to an SC resolution appears to be the desire of some members to wait for the inspectors and the evidence.
It's not an easy day to be proud to be an American.
"'By sparing the lives of Syrian troops and nearby civilians, an opening cyber operation against Syria could demonstrate exactly how such capabilities can be compliant with international humanitarian law,' writes Healey."
Yes, indeed. Let us demonstrate our moral rightness by launching an illegal war, to enforce international law. Oh, wait, they know that is nonsense so they are saying 'international norm' instead.
Even if it were an actual violation of international law, responding with an assault that itself violates international law would still be hypocritical. But for this, neither anglo-saxon nor latin provides me with a word sufficient to describe it. I can only resort to yiddish and call it chutzpah, and even that seems weak.
You appear to have misunderstood the term 'moral agents.' It does not by any means imply that we always behave morally. It means that we are capable behaving morally - or immorally. A wolf, or a lion, is not, and thus should not be judged by the same standards.
I havent donated to the NRA in decades. They are too soft on the second amendment. The fact that even they recognise this has gone too far speaks volumes.
"Wolves and lions both will attack and eject an offspring killing member or one that refuses to accept their place in the hierarchy"
They also routinely kill infants of their own species. The big difference between humans and other animals is that we are moral agents and they are not. Your path is to abdicate agency and live like a wolf? Not impressive.
There was no car involved, the younger man was shot while on top of the older man, apparently attempting to release his brains from his skull with the assistance of the concrete below. Read the trial transcripts.
You can shoot someone that jumps out of the shadows and starts beating your head in. That's actually legal virtually everywhere, including all over Europe. In most of Europe, it's very difficult for an individual citizen to legally carry the weapon to begin with, of course, but the right to self defense is hardly a US invention.
There is a commonality between those you mentioned that you skipped. In each case, they believe that the goodness of their ends justify the darkest and most despicable of methods. I believe this is the critical malfunction - the delusion that aggression and coercion can somehow be used for good.
"If you do not enable javascript, you cannot use Mega."
And that is indeed my point. If it wont work when you turn javascript off, it isnt a webpage, and it definitely cannot be trusted.
I dont allow cross-site scripting without whitelisting myself, but it's important to realize this is a compromise that reduces vulnerabilities but does not eliminate them. In this case, it's NOT cross-site scripting we are worried about.
"Only if you define "someone with access to my computer" to include "anyone who runs a web server I visit"."
That definition works, if you are foolish enough to enable javascript.
"What? Can you actually be serious? Most of the endemic problems in the Windows world can be attributed to the lack of proper package management outside of OS updates."
Perfectly serious. Can you be seriously advocating the addition of a major system to gnu in order to solve a problem *on windows?*
Which problem on windows, btw, has nothing to do with package management. Rather it is a result of lacking support for library versioning. Something *nix systems have dealt with properly for decades.
The Slackware version of KDE is very nice as well, and it does not 'suffer' from lack of Debian package management. Really, package management causes more suffering than it alleviates.
Didnt say it would be easy. Said it would not be 'uninhabitable.'
Hot-house earth isnt completely uninhabitable. The violent storms and extreme heat in the tropical zones would make them indoors-only and dangerous to travel in, but the polar regions and for instance high mountain areas further south would be quite habitable.
"Further, it begs the question:"
Uhh, no it doesnt.
Nice post other than that odd little non sequitur. Reads fine when you leave it out.
The compression should be done at a higher level, however. And if things are set up properly it almost always does when it counts. So this sounds suspiciously like the inflated connection speeds I remember from the modem days.
You would be connected at a much lower speed than the box said, the difference being the 'expected' gain from the built-in compression. In the rare occasion that you were a total idiot and sent large amounts of uncompressed data then expectations would be met. In other cases it was meaningless - compressing exchanges consisting of small 'sentences' back and forth may work but it produces no dramatic gains since that stuff is tiny to begin with. And large files are compressed beforehand, either by the originating application or via lessless or lossy compression for video and audio. Running a lossless compression algorithm on already compressed files is never a performance win.
In this case, compressing files smaller than the allocatable block size is pointless first off. And larger files, again, are normally going to be compressed at a higher level, by something with better understanding of its properties, possibly even using lossy compression.
It sounds like the old Stacker/Doublespace stuff is built into the controller. If that is accurate I give it a big DO NOT WANT.
Yet another good reason to salvage our Republic. We were never meant to be an Empire, we are ill-suited to it. Which fact is to our credit.
There is no taboo in place to prevent us from questioning the shape of the earth, no one is run out of their profession for questioning the exact shape, in fact there are recent papers on the subject. If someone were to contend that the Earth is flat (which seems to be something no one ever really believed, btw) it's easy to demonstrate the falsehood of that. We can use evidence and experiment, rather than ridicule and ostracism, to make our point, because in that case the point is correct.
This is the difference between science and religion. When someone who functions as a religious authority day in and day out pretends to be doing science you really should take that as a sign to check your wallet.