Fine, you want me to put it in words the Slashdot crowd will understand?
A poor plan aggressively executed is like a quick-and-dirty patch for a critical OS vulnerability released within 2 hours of discovering the hole.
A great plan poorly executed is the typical Microsoft response of spending 2 months developing the "perfect" patch, while your customers machines scream in agony, and the twisted carcasses of their cases litter the battlefield.
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you just naturally this way?
I suppose if your definition of "victory" is "turn Iraq into America Jr", then no, it's not happening. On the other hand, there's no reason why reasonable, and productive, goals cannot be met. Try ignoring the media and talking to your soldiers some time if you want a realistic picture of how things are going in Iraq.
Nonsense, Americans LOVE to lose. It's like a national pastime these days. They've been calling the war a "quagmire" since, what, week 2? Never mind that it's technically impossible for them to lose, even if you ignore that fact, the speed at which the opposition parties and the media raised the white flag is truly stunning. There's something in the American psyche these days that demands they leave every job half done.
So in other words, it's ok for a few in the ruling elite to say "this is how things are going to be, because we know better than all the rest of you".
Hrm, dictatorship much?
I know that it's the way it DOES work in some cases, and that it times it might even be necessary, but it should still be avoided as much as possible. Redefining a friggin' word is one of those cases. In many places it's not even an issue of rights, it's just an issue of language.
As for your last paragraph, marriage may have served different functions, but it has always been between a man and a woman. Whether it may have at certain times been forced, arranged, or political is irrelevant; marriage has been a union between a male and a female for thousands of years. You may as well try to legislate that the word "dog" should also apply to cats, because different species of dog have evolved over the last thousand years and, as such, it's discriminatory not to let cats use it too. Let's not be silly. You knew full well what I meant when I said "thousands year old institution", so please don't misinterpret it to suit your whims.
Yeah, and they won't let you make human sacrifices to the gods, or have sex with 12 year old girls either! What a horribly oppressive state!
Frankly, I don't much care about whether pot is illegal or not, nor do I care if two anal avengers want to call themselves husband and wife. What I DO have a problem with is when such decisions are made by legal activism instead of by popular decision. For instance, in Canada same sex marriage was declared to be a "right" despite the fact that no referendum was ever held, and that polls showed the people pretty equally split on the issue. That's simply not right. If we're going to re-define an institution which has existed in it's present form for thousands of years, it should be a decision made by the people, and not some judge or politician. That's one thing that the US has gotten right so far.
I don't live in Europe, so I'm not an expert on your laws, but this article seems to contradict what you're saying:
European Union Applies 'Hate Speech' Rules To Internet
Opposition to multiracialism, homosexuality, immigration effectively banned under new Internet rules.
BRUSSELS, Belgium - The European Union will be launching new Internet broadcasting rules later this year.
"The European Commission had a duty to protect shared European values," EU Information Society Commissioner Viviane Reding (pictured) told a broadcasting conference in Liverpool, England. "Who in this room... stands for the freedom to spread incitement to racial hatred on the new media?"
Reding said there was a "broad consensus that hate speech rules should also apply to the Internet."
It's uncanny how the EU implemented these types of restrictions years ago, yet nobody really said much about it.
Say what you will about the US, they're still the best country in the world when it comes to personal rights and freedoms. And no, this isn't going to change just because some retarded old guy makes a stupid statement during a speech. Seems to me you're overreacting a wee bit.
Causing physical pain to someone intentionally IS torture. It's not a "broad definition" it IS the definition.
Only in perma-stoned hippie land. By your deffinition, defending myself in a bar fight would constitute me torturing the other person. Or perhaps the two of us torturing eachother.
Pain compliance is an accepted form of control. Always has been, always will be. I've pressure points and joint locks to move suspects, and I can guarantee you that some pressure points are just as painful, if not more so, than being hit by a taser on stun mode.
People need to start realizing that in addition to rights, they also have responsibilities. You can't do whatever the hell you feel like and expect not to get punished. You don't want to feel pain? Do what we fucking tell you! It's pretty simple. Maybe if this idiot had been spanked as a kid, he'd understand the concept.
I actually thought the same thing, until I read the UCLA police guidelines. Their guidelines specifically allow the use of a taser on non-compliant suspects, including those who are already handcuffed. The guidelines suggest that officers exercise caution and judgment in such circumstances, but they do authorize it. If you want to debate whether that should be allowed, you'd be better off speaking to the head of the UCLA police department. As it stands, the officers were acting in a perfectly legal manner. End of story.
FYI (and this isn't just for you, but for all the dumbasses calling this "torture") the officers could have removed him using a joint-lock, or by carrying him. However, a joint lock can end up dislocating joints, and carrying a suspect always leaves the possibility of dropping him if he starts resisting. Either way, you're risking causing bodily harm to the suspect, possibly quite severe (for example, carrying him down stairs, he struggles, you drop him, his neck breaks. explain that one to his parents). Tasering him on the other hand poses no threat whatsoever, and he always has the opportunity to end it simply by complying. While this might have looked bad, it was actually the safest of the available options, both for the suspect and for the arresting officers.
Not necessarily. I had a teacher who loved to go into detail about why calculators were the greatest invention of man kind. We all thought he was joking around until he started going off on all kinds of other strange rants. Then we didn't know what to think. Finally, one day he went home and committed suicide in a particularly nasty manner, and that's when we realized that he really was a lunatic.
You raise some decent points, but I disagree with the idea that teachers should be "speaking to the really important issues of the day". That's what we have parents for. Teachers are supposed to focus on education, since I'm pretty sure that's somewhere in their job description.
If they teach no ideas, what are they for?
What is school for?
To teach basic knowledge, and, more importantly, to teach students how to THINK. How to analyze information in a scientific manner, and reach a logical conclusion. Which is one thing that they seem to be failing horribly to do. Way too many students come out of school without even the most basic reasoning abilities.
During its brief burst, Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point.
Really. And what are they using to power this laser, then? Europe's power gird? Otherwise I think I might have noticed the entire grid failing all at once, especially since one would assume they've performed the experiment multiple times....
Plus I'd hate to see that poor bastards electrical bill....
Sorry buds, YOU don't get to decide what "the real truth" is. Certainly, you can lie to yourself all you like, but the moment a teacher takes it into a classroom, it becomes wrong. Why? Because if I let YOU teach your wacky conspiracies, then I also have to let every other nut out there (including the religious ones) teach theirs as well. Either teachers stick to the facts and deliver the relevant material accurately and without bias, or the wholes system becomes one giant free-for-all, with every lunatic pushing his or her personal agenda.
There's been a lot of teachers doing similar thing in the past, including, but not limited to, the idea that the US government carried out 9/11, and the myth that American Indians were all peaceful tree-hugging poets and philosophers until the horrible white man slaughtered them.
The fact is that there are many, MANY teachers who use their position of authority to try and brainwash their students. I'm sure most of you can think of at least one such experience in your student days. It's irrelevant whether the teacher is pushing religion, politics, historical revisionism, or wacky conspiracy theories; any of them constitute an abuse of authority, and none of them should be allowed. Teachers need to be able to present relevant information in an unbiased manner, not preach from the pulpit of their favorite cause célèbre.
What's going on here? Not a single comment blaming this on the Iraq war? Nobody trying to tell us that the US is a much worse police state? Wow. Must be an off-day for the slashdot trolls.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really.
Fine, you want me to put it in words the Slashdot crowd will understand?
A poor plan aggressively executed is like a quick-and-dirty patch for a critical OS vulnerability released within 2 hours of discovering the hole.
A great plan poorly executed is the typical Microsoft response of spending 2 months developing the "perfect" patch, while your customers machines scream in agony, and the twisted carcasses of their cases litter the battlefield.
Clear as mud?
Ah. So. How's the weather in France these days?
That was a joke, right?
Because you'd have to be off your meds to REALLY believe something THAT silly...
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you just naturally this way?
I suppose if your definition of "victory" is "turn Iraq into America Jr", then no, it's not happening. On the other hand, there's no reason why reasonable, and productive, goals cannot be met. Try ignoring the media and talking to your soldiers some time if you want a realistic picture of how things are going in Iraq.
Nobody said anything about doing the wrong thing. He said "a poor plan", not "a counterproductive plan".
Whatever you're smoking, it must be DAMN good. Vietnam vintage, eh?
Next you'll be telling us that a wastebasket fire defeated your local fire department.
Mainly because you lack the relevant experience.
Nonsense, Americans LOVE to lose. It's like a national pastime these days. They've been calling the war a "quagmire" since, what, week 2? Never mind that it's technically impossible for them to lose, even if you ignore that fact, the speed at which the opposition parties and the media raised the white flag is truly stunning. There's something in the American psyche these days that demands they leave every job half done.
Cool, thanks for the info. That's an "insightful" post if I ever saw one.
So in other words, it's ok for a few in the ruling elite to say "this is how things are going to be, because we know better than all the rest of you".
Hrm, dictatorship much?
I know that it's the way it DOES work in some cases, and that it times it might even be necessary, but it should still be avoided as much as possible. Redefining a friggin' word is one of those cases. In many places it's not even an issue of rights, it's just an issue of language.
As for your last paragraph, marriage may have served different functions, but it has always been between a man and a woman. Whether it may have at certain times been forced, arranged, or political is irrelevant; marriage has been a union between a male and a female for thousands of years. You may as well try to legislate that the word "dog" should also apply to cats, because different species of dog have evolved over the last thousand years and, as such, it's discriminatory not to let cats use it too. Let's not be silly. You knew full well what I meant when I said "thousands year old institution", so please don't misinterpret it to suit your whims.
Yeah, and they won't let you make human sacrifices to the gods, or have sex with 12 year old girls either! What a horribly oppressive state!
Frankly, I don't much care about whether pot is illegal or not, nor do I care if two anal avengers want to call themselves husband and wife. What I DO have a problem with is when such decisions are made by legal activism instead of by popular decision. For instance, in Canada same sex marriage was declared to be a "right" despite the fact that no referendum was ever held, and that polls showed the people pretty equally split on the issue. That's simply not right. If we're going to re-define an institution which has existed in it's present form for thousands of years, it should be a decision made by the people, and not some judge or politician. That's one thing that the US has gotten right so far.
I don't live in Europe, so I'm not an expert on your laws, but this article seems to contradict what you're saying:
4 5
European Union Applies 'Hate Speech' Rules To Internet
Opposition to multiracialism, homosexuality, immigration effectively banned under new Internet rules.
BRUSSELS, Belgium - The European Union will be launching new Internet broadcasting rules later this year.
"The European Commission had a duty to protect shared European values," EU Information Society Commissioner Viviane Reding (pictured) told a broadcasting conference in Liverpool, England. "Who in this room... stands for the freedom to spread incitement to racial hatred on the new media?"
Reding said there was a "broad consensus that hate speech rules should also apply to the Internet."
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=62
It's uncanny how the EU implemented these types of restrictions years ago, yet nobody really said much about it.
Say what you will about the US, they're still the best country in the world when it comes to personal rights and freedoms. And no, this isn't going to change just because some retarded old guy makes a stupid statement during a speech. Seems to me you're overreacting a wee bit.
Just out of curiosity, is English your second language, or are you just a product of the US public school system?
Causing physical pain to someone intentionally IS torture. It's not a "broad definition" it IS the definition.
Only in perma-stoned hippie land. By your deffinition, defending myself in a bar fight would constitute me torturing the other person. Or perhaps the two of us torturing eachother.
Pain compliance is an accepted form of control. Always has been, always will be. I've pressure points and joint locks to move suspects, and I can guarantee you that some pressure points are just as painful, if not more so, than being hit by a taser on stun mode.
People need to start realizing that in addition to rights, they also have responsibilities. You can't do whatever the hell you feel like and expect not to get punished. You don't want to feel pain? Do what we fucking tell you! It's pretty simple. Maybe if this idiot had been spanked as a kid, he'd understand the concept.
I actually thought the same thing, until I read the UCLA police guidelines. Their guidelines specifically allow the use of a taser on non-compliant suspects, including those who are already handcuffed. The guidelines suggest that officers exercise caution and judgment in such circumstances, but they do authorize it. If you want to debate whether that should be allowed, you'd be better off speaking to the head of the UCLA police department. As it stands, the officers were acting in a perfectly legal manner. End of story.
FYI (and this isn't just for you, but for all the dumbasses calling this "torture") the officers could have removed him using a joint-lock, or by carrying him. However, a joint lock can end up dislocating joints, and carrying a suspect always leaves the possibility of dropping him if he starts resisting. Either way, you're risking causing bodily harm to the suspect, possibly quite severe (for example, carrying him down stairs, he struggles, you drop him, his neck breaks. explain that one to his parents). Tasering him on the other hand poses no threat whatsoever, and he always has the opportunity to end it simply by complying. While this might have looked bad, it was actually the safest of the available options, both for the suspect and for the arresting officers.
Not necessarily. I had a teacher who loved to go into detail about why calculators were the greatest invention of man kind. We all thought he was joking around until he started going off on all kinds of other strange rants. Then we didn't know what to think. Finally, one day he went home and committed suicide in a particularly nasty manner, and that's when we realized that he really was a lunatic.
To teach basic knowledge, and, more importantly, to teach students how to THINK. How to analyze information in a scientific manner, and reach a logical conclusion. Which is one thing that they seem to be failing horribly to do. Way too many students come out of school without even the most basic reasoning abilities.
Wow, way to prove my point. Next time, try not sucking back quite so many suds before posting.
How about you stop seeing things you want to see, and instead read what I actually wrote?
I swear, the average slashdoter must have the comprehensive abilities of a 3-year-old.
Really. And what are they using to power this laser, then? Europe's power gird? Otherwise I think I might have noticed the entire grid failing all at once, especially since one would assume they've performed the experiment multiple times....
Plus I'd hate to see that poor bastards electrical bill....
Sorry buds, YOU don't get to decide what "the real truth" is. Certainly, you can lie to yourself all you like, but the moment a teacher takes it into a classroom, it becomes wrong. Why? Because if I let YOU teach your wacky conspiracies, then I also have to let every other nut out there (including the religious ones) teach theirs as well. Either teachers stick to the facts and deliver the relevant material accurately and without bias, or the wholes system becomes one giant free-for-all, with every lunatic pushing his or her personal agenda.
There's been a lot of teachers doing similar thing in the past, including, but not limited to, the idea that the US government carried out 9/11, and the myth that American Indians were all peaceful tree-hugging poets and philosophers until the horrible white man slaughtered them.
The fact is that there are many, MANY teachers who use their position of authority to try and brainwash their students. I'm sure most of you can think of at least one such experience in your student days. It's irrelevant whether the teacher is pushing religion, politics, historical revisionism, or wacky conspiracy theories; any of them constitute an abuse of authority, and none of them should be allowed. Teachers need to be able to present relevant information in an unbiased manner, not preach from the pulpit of their favorite cause célèbre.
Aw, c'mon, it was just TOO good of an opportunity :)
What's going on here? Not a single comment blaming this on the Iraq war? Nobody trying to tell us that the US is a much worse police state? Wow. Must be an off-day for the slashdot trolls.