I asked you to tell me which one of them is sane and, instead of admitting that you don't know the first thing about the situation, you decided to get huffy and storm off. Very mature. If you think you're fooling anyone, you're delusional.
Ah, right. So when I say "Harold Shipman was insane" and you say "he couldn't be insane, he was a doctor!", that's not an appeal to authority. Right. Whatever makes you happy, Captain Logic.
You're arguing that because crazy people can slip through the cracks, the only possible explanation is that all people you disagree with are therefore crazy.
How in the world did you come to such a ridiculous conclusion?
Honestly, at least one of them has been established as both sane and extremely credible.
Does being a pedant give you some strange sexual thrill or something? Or is there another reason why you chose to completely ignore the context of the discussion?
I completely agree with your point, but despite their reports at the time, the government and the military did not consider them crazy.
If you'd ever worked in the military, you'd know just how meaningless that sentence really is. I already linked to the famous case of Major General Albert Stubblebine - if that's not enough to convince you that crazy people slip through the cracks, then I don't know what will.
They may be crackpots, but not by your argument and rational.
I didn't use any argument or "rational" - I simply stated that they're UFO nuts. The reasoning behind that statement should be obvious. Whether their beliefs are caused by delusion, ignorance, senility, or full out insanity, they can still be classified as "nuts".
This is not an "appeal to authority." This is an "appeal to you can't just dismiss these folks as crackpots."
Apparently you don't understand what the term "appeal to authority" means.
So you're saying that only a certified UFO expert could be a credible witness to a UFO?
No, I'm saying that no one could be a credible witness to a UFO. If the best you can come up with is "this guy says it happened", then you've failed to provide any meaningful evidence.
At least creationists and global warming deniers have the good sense to cite scientists when making an appeal-to-authority type logical fallacy. When you start citing military officers, you've completely dropped the ball. Some of the craziest people I've met happen to work for military intelligence, and I know two airforce pilots who are convinced that the face on mars is an authentic alien artifact.
That's not to say that you shouldn't listen to military experts when they're speaking within the realm of their expertise; I'm just pointing out that the military - like any other field of human endeavour - has it's share of lunatics and idiots, and you need to look at the data instead of the credentials.
I'm not sure what a "coincince" is, but considering that the UFO nuts have some new "groundbreaking" revelation every couple months, I'd say you probably shouldn't get too excited about this.
His "victims" claim he cost them $1.4 million. How did they lose out? Because he sold bandwidth that they weren't even using at the time?
You're not using your living-room sofa for sleeping on, so I'm going to rent it out to a Mexican migrant for a few hundred a month. Hope you enjoy the company - I know I'll enjoy the cash.
It's simple really - those who see western dominance as a shameful thing will continue to oppose any and all use of force - whether it be political, economic, or physical - regardless of their actual effect. If we implement sanctions against a nation, we get blamed for "starvation and disease". If we provide support for elements attempting to overthrow a dictator, we get accused of "propping up puppet regimes". If we kill a single innocent person, we get accused of "deliberate slaughter of civilians". That's why as soon as you hear these words being tossed around, you can be 99% confident that the speaker is a clueless twat who cares more about propping up his own ideology than about what's actually going on in the world.
A warrior is defined by attitude and conduct, not by effect. The guy who pushes a button to launch a nuclear holocaust is not a warrior. The guy who storms a beach only to be cut down with machine gun fire before he can fire a single shot, is. There's a big difference between the two categories, and if you don't intuitively understand it then you probably fall into the former.
Bullshit. Sad but true, soldiers are taught two contradictory things: "return fire" and "follow the Rules of Engagement."
Bullshit. Those things are no more contradictory than "provide a user friendly interface" and "provide reasonable security". If you're an idiot, you won't be able to balance the two. If you have any semblance of a working brain, you'll find a solution which satisfies both criteria, and adapt it to fit changing circumstances.
This leads to all sorts of trouble, especially since the "Rules of Engagement" for Iraq and Afghanistan are thicker than a copy of Tolstoy's War And Peace in 10-point font.
More bullshit. Manuals for planning and development of ROE's might be that thick, but the actual ROE's issued to the troops are generally simple enough that they can carry them around as a small pamphlet. What in the world do you think is IN them? A PhD thesis on the historical use of force over the last 2,000 years? Hell no. They're designed to be simple: if person X does action Y, goto Z. Soldiers bitch about them because they put them at higher risk of injury or death in any given engagement, not because they're complex or difficult to understand.
What else would a person working on a secured network need to access?
Depends what you mean by "secured". Speaking from experience... the military runs a separate network, but provides gateways / proxies for external net access. At one point I was tasked to work on web development for the internal network, and I found external internet access to be invaluable as a reference - especially since a lot of the programming was in ASP, and I only had experience with PHP. Without it, I would have had to create a purchase request for an "ASP for Dummies" book, get the funding approved, wait a year (ok, maybe 3 months) for it to finally arrive, and then spend 3 times as long digging through it as it took to just punch a search into google every time I wasn't sure about something.
That's just one example - there are plenty of other legitemate reasons to have internet access on an otherwise secure network. Of course, as I said, it depends on your definition of "secured network". If we're talking about the control systems for a nuclea power plant, then yeah, it might be a good idea to have an air-gap.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe he meant it's been neglected/abandoned. Which it has.
My immediate reaction was "they've been leant on".
That kind of paranoia really isn't healthy. When you start seeing shadowy conspiracies around every corner, it's time to seek help.
Also, we dont just hand out guns in this nation so you'll have to get mighty close ...
It's really cute that you think that :) It's like you've never heard of criminals. Naiveté can be so adorable!
I asked you to tell me which one of them is sane and, instead of admitting that you don't know the first thing about the situation, you decided to get huffy and storm off. Very mature. If you think you're fooling anyone, you're delusional.
Ah, right. So when I say "Harold Shipman was insane" and you say "he couldn't be insane, he was a doctor!", that's not an appeal to authority. Right. Whatever makes you happy, Captain Logic.
You're arguing that because crazy people can slip through the cracks, the only possible explanation is that all people you disagree with are therefore crazy.
How in the world did you come to such a ridiculous conclusion?
Honestly, at least one of them has been established as both sane and extremely credible.
Great! Which one, and where's your evidence?
*sigh*
Does being a pedant give you some strange sexual thrill or something? Or is there another reason why you chose to completely ignore the context of the discussion?
I completely agree with your point, but despite their reports at the time, the government and the military did not consider them crazy.
If you'd ever worked in the military, you'd know just how meaningless that sentence really is. I already linked to the famous case of Major General Albert Stubblebine - if that's not enough to convince you that crazy people slip through the cracks, then I don't know what will.
They may be crackpots, but not by your argument and rational.
I didn't use any argument or "rational" - I simply stated that they're UFO nuts. The reasoning behind that statement should be obvious. Whether their beliefs are caused by delusion, ignorance, senility, or full out insanity, they can still be classified as "nuts".
This is not an "appeal to authority." This is an "appeal to you can't just dismiss these folks as crackpots."
Apparently you don't understand what the term "appeal to authority" means.
So you're saying that only a certified UFO expert could be a credible witness to a UFO?
No, I'm saying that no one could be a credible witness to a UFO. If the best you can come up with is "this guy says it happened", then you've failed to provide any meaningful evidence.
And if by "UFO nuts" do you mean "five former USAF officers who were in charge of nuclear weapons and base commanders?"
Yes, that's exactly what I mean.
At least creationists and global warming deniers have the good sense to cite scientists when making an appeal-to-authority type logical fallacy. When you start citing military officers, you've completely dropped the ball. Some of the craziest people I've met happen to work for military intelligence, and I know two airforce pilots who are convinced that the face on mars is an authentic alien artifact.
That's not to say that you shouldn't listen to military experts when they're speaking within the realm of their expertise; I'm just pointing out that the military - like any other field of human endeavour - has it's share of lunatics and idiots, and you need to look at the data instead of the credentials.
Why would aliens intrinsiclly meet with humans?
Why are you commenting on slashdot instead of having tea and crumpets with the roaches under your sink?
We do have cars, airplanes, large steam ships, and radio. Nothing we have today would strike them as magic.
I'm thinking CGI might. Show them Avatar, and see how they react.
I'm not sure what a "coincince" is, but considering that the UFO nuts have some new "groundbreaking" revelation every couple months, I'd say you probably shouldn't get too excited about this.
That's wrong - deportations usually involve hearings, but not always, and they usually don't involve convictions.
His "victims" claim he cost them $1.4 million. How did they lose out? Because he sold bandwidth that they weren't even using at the time?
You're not using your living-room sofa for sleeping on, so I'm going to rent it out to a Mexican migrant for a few hundred a month. Hope you enjoy the company - I know I'll enjoy the cash.
Off topic here, but FYI your "orange plane" is probably a flare, especially if you spotted it over Mountain View.
Destroy the equipment, for starters?
Great idea: perform an act of vandalism in a location which is guaranteed to have cameras. What could possibly go wrong?
That's why you go for the smaller ones. The bodies are easier to hide.
Why the hell the US would want people in their armed forces who can think for themselves at the moment is beyond me
Because hiring mindless automatons would result in entire platoons dropping their weapons and running around screaming "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!".
It's simple really - those who see western dominance as a shameful thing will continue to oppose any and all use of force - whether it be political, economic, or physical - regardless of their actual effect. If we implement sanctions against a nation, we get blamed for "starvation and disease". If we provide support for elements attempting to overthrow a dictator, we get accused of "propping up puppet regimes". If we kill a single innocent person, we get accused of "deliberate slaughter of civilians". That's why as soon as you hear these words being tossed around, you can be 99% confident that the speaker is a clueless twat who cares more about propping up his own ideology than about what's actually going on in the world.
A warrior is defined by attitude and conduct, not by effect. The guy who pushes a button to launch a nuclear holocaust is not a warrior. The guy who storms a beach only to be cut down with machine gun fire before he can fire a single shot, is. There's a big difference between the two categories, and if you don't intuitively understand it then you probably fall into the former.
Bullshit. Sad but true, soldiers are taught two contradictory things: "return fire" and "follow the Rules of Engagement."
Bullshit. Those things are no more contradictory than "provide a user friendly interface" and "provide reasonable security". If you're an idiot, you won't be able to balance the two. If you have any semblance of a working brain, you'll find a solution which satisfies both criteria, and adapt it to fit changing circumstances.
This leads to all sorts of trouble, especially since the "Rules of Engagement" for Iraq and Afghanistan are thicker than a copy of Tolstoy's War And Peace in 10-point font.
More bullshit. Manuals for planning and development of ROE's might be that thick, but the actual ROE's issued to the troops are generally simple enough that they can carry them around as a small pamphlet. What in the world do you think is IN them? A PhD thesis on the historical use of force over the last 2,000 years? Hell no. They're designed to be simple: if person X does action Y, goto Z. Soldiers bitch about them because they put them at higher risk of injury or death in any given engagement, not because they're complex or difficult to understand.
Why does anything exist at all, instead of nothing?
Why not?
If you needed three hands to masturbate .... you wouldn't need to masturbate!
What else would a person working on a secured network need to access?
Depends what you mean by "secured". Speaking from experience ... the military runs a separate network, but provides gateways / proxies for external net access. At one point I was tasked to work on web development for the internal network, and I found external internet access to be invaluable as a reference - especially since a lot of the programming was in ASP, and I only had experience with PHP. Without it, I would have had to create a purchase request for an "ASP for Dummies" book, get the funding approved, wait a year (ok, maybe 3 months) for it to finally arrive, and then spend 3 times as long digging through it as it took to just punch a search into google every time I wasn't sure about something.
That's just one example - there are plenty of other legitemate reasons to have internet access on an otherwise secure network. Of course, as I said, it depends on your definition of "secured network". If we're talking about the control systems for a nuclea power plant, then yeah, it might be a good idea to have an air-gap.