I could go through your house lock in under a minute using a lockpick.
Or through your door in about 20 seconds using a sledge or hooligan tool.
Or through your window in about 5 seconds using a rock.
So no, your house is not more secure than MS Windows unless you've invested in some sort of security solution. Just like your OS won't be secure unless you invest in a security solution.
What you're thinking of isn't a parasite, but rather a symbiont. You could argue that if a body improves to a certain level, the symbiont becomes unnecessary, however, I don't think you'd ever reach that level as far as computers are concerned. The weakest link will always be the user. As long as you've got stupid users you'll have successful virii, regardless of how well the OS works.
So I suppose you also think that alarm companies, security companies, bodyguards, and even police officers are just parasites?
Virii will always be around, and it's no more MS's responsibility to "fix" that than it is a construction companies responsibility to make your house burglar-proof. As such, Norton and McAfee antivirus and firewall solutions are definitely products "which filled in a need customers had". They don't fill it very well in my opinion, which is why I used NOD32, but they do fill a need, so they're far from being "parasites".
Oh, I see what you're going on about now. My mistake. You jumped in at the wrong spot, so it was rather confusing.
Anyway, you're still misquoting and misunderstanding me. I never said that following the law is always the right thing to do. If you're going to keep insisting that I did, I'd ask that you provide a quote.
In "the case" it just so happens that following the law happened to be the right thing. Why because braking the law required lying. And, as I've stated only about a dozen times so far in this debate, it's the LYING I disagree with. The law's got nothing to do with it.
"Yes, you did. You were presented with the case where you had two choices: A) Follow the law and be punished for no good reason B) Break the law and avoid punishment"
You are VERY confused. Perhaps you should try re-reading the thread from the beginning. I was never presented with a case, nor was there ever any such stringent limitations on choices. Either you're hallucinating, or you read another thread and got it mixed up with this one.
You REALLY need to learn to read, bud. The first time you responded, you stated that "Following the law in EVERY situation does not make you honorable, it makes you a sheep", when, in fact, I'd never said anything about following the law in the first place. You misread my post entirely, and then made an entirely irrelevant statement.
When I tried to point this out, you responded with "Funny, you didn't actually point out where anything I said was wrong", when, in fact, I'd never claimed you were wrong. I simply stated that you can't read. So, in fact, you basically proved my point:)
In any event, it's a little disingenuous to argue against something I never said while pretending that I said it. Not cool, man. If you want to have a discussion, try responding to things I actually say, instead of things you wish I'd said.
I enjoyed them. They had a good story-line, and a fairly decent set of characters. They didn't over-focus on the battle aspect of it, but they also didn't get drawn off on irrelevant details or pointless plot twists. So, basically, yeah I thought they were good novels. It depends on what you like though, can't guarantee anyone else would enjoy them since the definitely fall into the sci-if-war genre.
"A very reputable pollster recently showed with (according to him) 95% certainty that up to 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the war began, far exceeding the "official" body count. "
Yeah. Right. I was thinking that you sound like a very reasonable individual until I hit that little tidbit. You do realize, don't you, that less German civilians died in all of the allied bombings of Germany during WW2? What are you trying to tell me, that carpet bombing saves lives?
Those numbers are nonsense. For them to be true, more than 7,000 Iraqis would have had to die every single month from the beginning of the invasion. But even more amazingly, the last time these clowns did a poll was a year ago, and at that time the "body count", done by the SAME PEOPLE, only stood at 150,000. And I thought THAT was too high. But let's say it was accurate. That means in roughly 12 months, another 500,000 died. That gives you a death rate of more than 41,000 Iraqis per month! Can you imagine if that were actually happening? We wouldn't be seeing reports of "20 people killed in market bombing", we'd be seeing reports of "crowd of 10,000 gunned down in football stadium".
Anything even remotely close to the figure being pushed is just ridiculous. The official count stands at just above 40,000, I'd be willing to accept a figure twice that size. Anything over 100,000 and you're starting to get into "I'm going to make up numbers because I hate Bush" land.
"So I include myself among those people who believe that the real body count far exceeds the official one, which stands right now at 48,000 - a lower number indeed, but one that should still offend you."
Ironically enough, if you interpolate the death rate under Saddam Hussein, and accept the 48,000 dead figure, you end up calculating that the Iraq war has actually SAVED between 80,000 and 100,000 Iraqi lives. Why? Because the violent death rate under Saddam Hussein was higher (averaged out over his time in office) than the current violent death rate.
So, I really don't see why it should offend me. I don't expect the US military to save the life of every single Iraqi. That'd be a bit unreasonable, don't you think?
Oh, and let's not forget the intelligence aspect. You're right there was certainly evidence to suggest that Saddam had ended his programs, however, that evidence was a lot more rare, and a lot less credible. When the overwhelming majority of evidence supports one idea, we tend to go with that. There's a reason why so many Democrats, and so many foreign leaders, are all on record as having stated that Saddam is a threat and that he does still have WMD. They were all wrong too, but nobody accuses THEM of lying.
"and you americans really wonder what the world is thinking about you?"
I'm not American, but I know exactly what the world thinks of them. Doesn't make a difference. Most of the world hates Jews too, doesn't mean it's right.
"detaining foreigners without trail (yes, that's a pun), without even knowing why and how long they will be detained comparing with educating children is so brainwashed that i think you should get back to the front lines really soon."
Well, we can just execute them instead, since International Law doesn't forbid that. Would you like that better? You just let me know, "perler", and I'll see what I can do. It'd probably work better anyway since Europe is right now refusing to take back the Gitmo prisoners who were captured in the EU. Since you guys don't want them back, and you don't want the US holding them, guess we'll just finish 'em off. That alright with you, Perler?
As far as the Education system goes, I've seen what Europe churns out, and I'm not impressed. When a large segment of your population can buy into the "9/11 was an inside job myth", I think all that money spent on schooling is probably wasted.
"Following the law in EVERY situation does not make you honorable, it makes you a sheep."
You know, learning to read and not put words in other peoples mouths...well it wouldn't turn you into a sheep or anything.
Just so you know....
If it makes you feel any better though, you're far from being the only person on slashdot that needs to improve in that respect. Just look around this thread and you'll see at least 4 more.
"Indeed, it could be argued that sometimes fighting the law at the time is upholding the same concepts. There's certainly a lot of historical precedent, even in the sanitized versions of American history;-)"
I never claimed otherwise, but how can you equate saying "no, I didn't break the law" with fighting the law? The best way to fight an unjust law is to break it, and let others see you break it. Ofcourse, it helps if you're not doing it by yourself, but the concept is still valid. You don't fight unjust laws by lying.
Secondly, putting "torture" in quotes to imply it isn't is sickening. Believe me, if someone kidnapped you, tied you up, beat you, deprived you of sleep, and pretended to drown you, you'd mentally remove those quote marks from the word "torture"... if you could do anything but think "god when will this stop".
I've been through it in training, so I know exactly what it's like. I still don't consider it torture. This is the same mentality that tells us it's wrong to occasionally discipline a child physically, or to eat meat because "it's cruel to the wiffle cows".
As to your definition of Christianity, I certainly don't care if Bush is a Christian or not because I'm definitely not. However, by your definition, there's probably been maybe 10 "real Christians" since the religion first began. All those poor deluded bastards fighting in WW2 should have just turned the other cheek, right?
"Your attempt to paint me as a dishonorable individual because I'm willing to lie in situations in which I shouldn't be asked a question at all is ridiculous, because I am not a sheep. I make my own decisions and I don't need the court to tell me about right or wrong."
You miss the point entirely. Courts have nothing to do with it. Lying is wrong. Period, full stop. If you can make yourself feel better by justifying your lies, hey, that's your decision. I'm sure child molesters make themselves feel better by telling themselves that the kid enjoyed it. You're more than welcome to perceive the world however you wish. I just avoid having to compromise my morals by not lying at all.
"Obeying an unjust law is not the right thing, it is the wrong thing."
Who said otherwise? I never said I obeyed every law, in fact if you'll recall I specifically stated I'd gotten caught breaking the law before. Nobody says you have to obey them, but it's pure cowardice to lie about it afterwards. At least be a man and stand up for what you believe in. If you think a law is unjust, step forward and claim responsibility. Say that the law is unjust. If enough people did that, the law would get overturned. It's people like you, who lie and weasel their way through the system, that allow those laws to stand.
"I think what you're missing is a willingness to grasp reality and manipulate it, instead you are ruled by it."
I grasp reality just fine, I simply refuse to let it change my character.
"I think what is needed here is an agreement to disagree."
"For instance, it's illegal to drink a beer on your front porch (in view of the road) in most jurisdictions, but this is clearly a stupid fucking law. If you could get away with getting away with it, why should you tell the truth?"
Because words like truth, honor, duty, and integrity actually have some meaning to me. But you're right, those are my values and not yours.
"I hear and understand what you're saying, mind you, I just think it's unrealistic. Life is not fair! I refuse to act as if it were."
I can't remember who said it but it went something like:
"The man who does the right thing does it, not because he wants to change the world, but because he refuses to be changed by it."
I'm sorry, I just don't beleive in deliberate lies. I got in trouble with the law a few times when I was younger, and I didn't lie even when I knew it could probably get me off with no consequences. Either answer the question truthfuly or refuse to answer, but don't lie.
"If there was *any* question, he should have consulted his staff, or the court, BEFORE he decided."
Do you seriously beleive he didn't consult his staff?
"If he is such a "man of faith" (as he's blabbed about time and again), it should have been against his belief system to torture, hold people without due process, etc, in the first place."
Not really. What you call "torture" has was done in many past conflicts without anyone raising a peep. And holding "illegal combatants" indeffinitely isn't a violation of any laws. I suppose you would have preferred that we just execute them, since the Geneva Conventions say it's ok?
"I think the "stupid look" he portrays is just a cover for someone nearly as insane as Sadam, Hitler, etc. "
"Some say that these lies have directly resulted in as many as half a million deaths."
Talk about "misleading public statements". Some people say the moon landing was faked. Doesn't mean it's true.
"So what I suppose you are really complaining about is that Clinton got caught."
What I'm saying is that Clinton lid DELIBERATELY. Which definitely doesn't make him "relatively honest". Bushes "lies" have generally been mistakes. Saying that he "lied about WMD's" for instance is nonsense, since all intel at the time indicated that they did indeed exist. That's not a lie, that's a statement based on the best available information, which turned out to be wrong. Unless you can show that he has deliberately lied about something, he's still more honest in my book than Clinton was. On the other hand, if you CAN show it, I'll be calling for his resignation too.
There's a big difference between saying "no I did not have relations with this woman" while knowing you did, and saying "I swear to uphold the constitution", and then doing something which in your opinion doesn't violate the constitution and then having someone else determine that it does. One is intentional, the other accidental. One is a deliberate lie, the other is an accidental failure to keep a promise.
Unless, ofcourse, you can show that Bush deliberately set out to violate the Constitution.
Difference is, Clinton lied on numerous occasions.
Only die-hard evangelist Christians really gave a shit that Clinton had an affair. Granted, people with a political agenda would have hammered him even if he'd told the truth from the get-go, however, I for one had no problem with it. I think cheating on your wife is an immoral thing to do, but I understand why some people might do it, and it doesn't really speak to his competence as a president. Lying under oath on the other hand is something I have a huge problem with. I think (although I can't offer any evidence) that most people felt the same way. If he had told the truth from the beginning, I would have defended him instead of calling for his resignation.
Well...allright, I guess the actors tried, it was probably mainly the script that stank. Hard to act like a soldier when the person writing your lines is clueless. Which is the case in most movies. However, I really didn't like the actor playing the main character. There was just something very wrong about him.
FWIW, I actually thought Doom was the best video game movie ever made. I was especially impressed by the training they received to "look" like real soldiers.
That's just really, REALLY sad. Take it from a real soldier: they "looked" like a bunch of second-rate actors trying way too hard, and failing miserably. The special effects were the only cool thing about the whole movie, and the "kill mode" part (or whatever you want to call it) killed even that. I'm a huge fan of Halo, but seeing the fiasco that Doom got turned into actually makes me wish that they'd scrap the Halo movie. After playing the game and reading the books, I REALLY don't need to be traumatized by seeing it raped on the big-screen.
Slashdot Mirror
I could go through your house lock in under a minute using a lockpick.
Or through your door in about 20 seconds using a sledge or hooligan tool.
Or through your window in about 5 seconds using a rock.
So no, your house is not more secure than MS Windows unless you've invested in some sort of security solution. Just like your OS won't be secure unless you invest in a security solution.
What you're thinking of isn't a parasite, but rather a symbiont. You could argue that if a body improves to a certain level, the symbiont becomes unnecessary, however, I don't think you'd ever reach that level as far as computers are concerned. The weakest link will always be the user. As long as you've got stupid users you'll have successful virii, regardless of how well the OS works.
So I suppose you also think that alarm companies, security companies, bodyguards, and even police officers are just parasites?
Virii will always be around, and it's no more MS's responsibility to "fix" that than it is a construction companies responsibility to make your house burglar-proof. As such, Norton and McAfee antivirus and firewall solutions are definitely products "which filled in a need customers had". They don't fill it very well in my opinion, which is why I used NOD32, but they do fill a need, so they're far from being "parasites".
Oh, I see what you're going on about now. My mistake. You jumped in at the wrong spot, so it was rather confusing.
Anyway, you're still misquoting and misunderstanding me. I never said that following the law is always the right thing to do. If you're going to keep insisting that I did, I'd ask that you provide a quote.
In "the case" it just so happens that following the law happened to be the right thing. Why because braking the law required lying. And, as I've stated only about a dozen times so far in this debate, it's the LYING I disagree with. The law's got nothing to do with it.
"Yes, you did. You were presented with the case where you had two choices:
A) Follow the law and be punished for no good reason
B) Break the law and avoid punishment"
You are VERY confused. Perhaps you should try re-reading the thread from the beginning. I was never presented with a case, nor was there ever any such stringent limitations on choices. Either you're hallucinating, or you read another thread and got it mixed up with this one.
*sigh*
:)
You REALLY need to learn to read, bud. The first time you responded, you stated that "Following the law in EVERY situation does not make you honorable, it makes you a sheep", when, in fact, I'd never said anything about following the law in the first place. You misread my post entirely, and then made an entirely irrelevant statement.
When I tried to point this out, you responded with "Funny, you didn't actually point out where anything I said was wrong", when, in fact, I'd never claimed you were wrong. I simply stated that you can't read. So, in fact, you basically proved my point
In any event, it's a little disingenuous to argue against something I never said while pretending that I said it. Not cool, man. If you want to have a discussion, try responding to things I actually say, instead of things you wish I'd said.
I enjoyed them. They had a good story-line, and a fairly decent set of characters. They didn't over-focus on the battle aspect of it, but they also didn't get drawn off on irrelevant details or pointless plot twists. So, basically, yeah I thought they were good novels. It depends on what you like though, can't guarantee anyone else would enjoy them since the definitely fall into the sci-if-war genre.
"A very reputable pollster recently showed with (according to him) 95% certainty that up to 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the war began, far exceeding the "official" body count. "
Yeah. Right. I was thinking that you sound like a very reasonable individual until I hit that little tidbit. You do realize, don't you, that less German civilians died in all of the allied bombings of Germany during WW2? What are you trying to tell me, that carpet bombing saves lives?
Those numbers are nonsense. For them to be true, more than 7,000 Iraqis would have had to die every single month from the beginning of the invasion. But even more amazingly, the last time these clowns did a poll was a year ago, and at that time the "body count", done by the SAME PEOPLE, only stood at 150,000. And I thought THAT was too high. But let's say it was accurate. That means in roughly 12 months, another 500,000 died. That gives you a death rate of more than 41,000 Iraqis per month! Can you imagine if that were actually happening? We wouldn't be seeing reports of "20 people killed in market bombing", we'd be seeing reports of "crowd of 10,000 gunned down in football stadium".
Anything even remotely close to the figure being pushed is just ridiculous. The official count stands at just above 40,000, I'd be willing to accept a figure twice that size. Anything over 100,000 and you're starting to get into "I'm going to make up numbers because I hate Bush" land.
"So I include myself among those people who believe that the real body count far exceeds the official one, which stands right now at 48,000 - a lower number indeed, but one that should still offend you."
Ironically enough, if you interpolate the death rate under Saddam Hussein, and accept the 48,000 dead figure, you end up calculating that the Iraq war has actually SAVED between 80,000 and 100,000 Iraqi lives. Why? Because the violent death rate under Saddam Hussein was higher (averaged out over his time in office) than the current violent death rate.
So, I really don't see why it should offend me. I don't expect the US military to save the life of every single Iraqi. That'd be a bit unreasonable, don't you think?
Oh, and let's not forget the intelligence aspect. You're right there was certainly evidence to suggest that Saddam had ended his programs, however, that evidence was a lot more rare, and a lot less credible. When the overwhelming majority of evidence supports one idea, we tend to go with that. There's a reason why so many Democrats, and so many foreign leaders, are all on record as having stated that Saddam is a threat and that he does still have WMD. They were all wrong too, but nobody accuses THEM of lying.
Start by reading the whole post next time, instead of just the last line.
"and you americans really wonder what the world is thinking about you?" I'm not American, but I know exactly what the world thinks of them. Doesn't make a difference. Most of the world hates Jews too, doesn't mean it's right. "detaining foreigners without trail (yes, that's a pun), without even knowing why and how long they will be detained comparing with educating children is so brainwashed that i think you should get back to the front lines really soon." Well, we can just execute them instead, since International Law doesn't forbid that. Would you like that better? You just let me know, "perler", and I'll see what I can do. It'd probably work better anyway since Europe is right now refusing to take back the Gitmo prisoners who were captured in the EU. Since you guys don't want them back, and you don't want the US holding them, guess we'll just finish 'em off. That alright with you, Perler? As far as the Education system goes, I've seen what Europe churns out, and I'm not impressed. When a large segment of your population can buy into the "9/11 was an inside job myth", I think all that money spent on schooling is probably wasted.
"Following the law in EVERY situation does not make you honorable, it makes you a sheep."
You know, learning to read and not put words in other peoples mouths...well it wouldn't turn you into a sheep or anything.
Just so you know....
If it makes you feel any better though, you're far from being the only person on slashdot that needs to improve in that respect. Just look around this thread and you'll see at least 4 more.
"Indeed, it could be argued that sometimes fighting the law at the time is upholding the same concepts. There's certainly a lot of historical precedent, even in the sanitized versions of American history ;-)"
I never claimed otherwise, but how can you equate saying "no, I didn't break the law" with fighting the law? The best way to fight an unjust law is to break it, and let others see you break it. Ofcourse, it helps if you're not doing it by yourself, but the concept is still valid. You don't fight unjust laws by lying.
"That's pretty irrelevant, we've been creating terrorist so long that you might say it's one of the things we're best at."
I suppose that's true, in the same way that a woman in a short skirt creates rapists.
Secondly, putting "torture" in quotes to imply it isn't is sickening. Believe me, if someone kidnapped you, tied you up, beat you, deprived you of sleep, and pretended to drown you, you'd mentally remove those quote marks from the word "torture"... if you could do anything but think "god when will this stop".
I've been through it in training, so I know exactly what it's like. I still don't consider it torture. This is the same mentality that tells us it's wrong to occasionally discipline a child physically, or to eat meat because "it's cruel to the wiffle cows".
As to your definition of Christianity, I certainly don't care if Bush is a Christian or not because I'm definitely not. However, by your definition, there's probably been maybe 10 "real Christians" since the religion first began. All those poor deluded bastards fighting in WW2 should have just turned the other cheek, right?
"Your attempt to paint me as a dishonorable individual because I'm willing to lie in situations in which I shouldn't be asked a question at all is ridiculous, because I am not a sheep. I make my own decisions and I don't need the court to tell me about right or wrong."
You miss the point entirely. Courts have nothing to do with it. Lying is wrong. Period, full stop. If you can make yourself feel better by justifying your lies, hey, that's your decision. I'm sure child molesters make themselves feel better by telling themselves that the kid enjoyed it. You're more than welcome to perceive the world however you wish. I just avoid having to compromise my morals by not lying at all.
"Obeying an unjust law is not the right thing, it is the wrong thing."
Who said otherwise? I never said I obeyed every law, in fact if you'll recall I specifically stated I'd gotten caught breaking the law before. Nobody says you have to obey them, but it's pure cowardice to lie about it afterwards. At least be a man and stand up for what you believe in. If you think a law is unjust, step forward and claim responsibility. Say that the law is unjust. If enough people did that, the law would get overturned. It's people like you, who lie and weasel their way through the system, that allow those laws to stand.
"I think what you're missing is a willingness to grasp reality and manipulate it, instead you are ruled by it."
I grasp reality just fine, I simply refuse to let it change my character.
"I think what is needed here is an agreement to disagree."
Sure.
"For instance, it's illegal to drink a beer on your front porch (in view of the road) in most jurisdictions, but this is clearly a stupid fucking law. If you could get away with getting away with it, why should you tell the truth?"
Because words like truth, honor, duty, and integrity actually have some meaning to me. But you're right, those are my values and not yours.
"I hear and understand what you're saying, mind you, I just think it's unrealistic. Life is not fair! I refuse to act as if it were."
I can't remember who said it but it went something like:
"The man who does the right thing does it, not because he wants to change the world, but because he refuses to be changed by it."
No, please, tell us how you REALLY feel.
Although I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me a liar.
Fine then say "I refuse to answer that question".
I'm sorry, I just don't beleive in deliberate lies. I got in trouble with the law a few times when I was younger, and I didn't lie even when I knew it could probably get me off with no consequences. Either answer the question truthfuly or refuse to answer, but don't lie.
"If there was *any* question, he should have consulted his staff, or the court, BEFORE he decided."
Do you seriously beleive he didn't consult his staff?
"If he is such a "man of faith" (as he's blabbed about time and again), it should have been against his belief system to torture, hold people without due process, etc, in the first place."
Not really. What you call "torture" has was done in many past conflicts without anyone raising a peep. And holding "illegal combatants" indeffinitely isn't a violation of any laws. I suppose you would have preferred that we just execute them, since the Geneva Conventions say it's ok?
"I think the "stupid look" he portrays is just a cover for someone nearly as insane as Sadam, Hitler, etc. "
Well. You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
"Some say that these lies have directly resulted in as many as half a million deaths." Talk about "misleading public statements". Some people say the moon landing was faked. Doesn't mean it's true. "So what I suppose you are really complaining about is that Clinton got caught." What I'm saying is that Clinton lid DELIBERATELY. Which definitely doesn't make him "relatively honest". Bushes "lies" have generally been mistakes. Saying that he "lied about WMD's" for instance is nonsense, since all intel at the time indicated that they did indeed exist. That's not a lie, that's a statement based on the best available information, which turned out to be wrong. Unless you can show that he has deliberately lied about something, he's still more honest in my book than Clinton was. On the other hand, if you CAN show it, I'll be calling for his resignation too.
There's a big difference between saying "no I did not have relations with this woman" while knowing you did, and saying "I swear to uphold the constitution", and then doing something which in your opinion doesn't violate the constitution and then having someone else determine that it does. One is intentional, the other accidental. One is a deliberate lie, the other is an accidental failure to keep a promise.
Unless, ofcourse, you can show that Bush deliberately set out to violate the Constitution.
If you're so sure he has, why are you posting as an Anonymous Coward?
Difference is, Clinton lied on numerous occasions.
Only die-hard evangelist Christians really gave a shit that Clinton had an affair. Granted, people with a political agenda would have hammered him even if he'd told the truth from the get-go, however, I for one had no problem with it. I think cheating on your wife is an immoral thing to do, but I understand why some people might do it, and it doesn't really speak to his competence as a president. Lying under oath on the other hand is something I have a huge problem with. I think (although I can't offer any evidence) that most people felt the same way. If he had told the truth from the beginning, I would have defended him instead of calling for his resignation.
Well...allright, I guess the actors tried, it was probably mainly the script that stank. Hard to act like a soldier when the person writing your lines is clueless. Which is the case in most movies. However, I really didn't like the actor playing the main character. There was just something very wrong about him.
FWIW, I actually thought Doom was the best video game movie ever made. I was especially impressed by the training they received to "look" like real soldiers.
That's just really, REALLY sad. Take it from a real soldier: they "looked" like a bunch of second-rate actors trying way too hard, and failing miserably. The special effects were the only cool thing about the whole movie, and the "kill mode" part (or whatever you want to call it) killed even that. I'm a huge fan of Halo, but seeing the fiasco that Doom got turned into actually makes me wish that they'd scrap the Halo movie. After playing the game and reading the books, I REALLY don't need to be traumatized by seeing it raped on the big-screen.