Nobody put a gun to your head and made you go to law school. And if you didn't already know about the debt, and the fact you don't become partner right away, then you are way to naive to ever make it as a lawyer.
If the US had the technology in their satellites to take down other objects, they would have shown it off long ago, and/or taken down the last one with it and not a land-based weapon. We LOVE to show off our military capabilities. Seeing as most of these fall into the "deterrent" category anyways. Think about it - if any countries really thought we could successfully defend ourselves from a missile attack, their options would be: Attack now before we have the capability, or, Wait until we have it and are invulnerable. So far I haven't seen any attacks. And I am positive that banning weapons in space is something that will be coming soon.
And you do know that SDI was a pipe dream that tricked the Soviets into a defense spending contest that basically collapsed the Soviet empire and caused the breakup of the USSR? It was never designed to be a working solution. And shooting down one of our own satellites is a far stretch from the "global missile defense blanket" we were promised. From all the test results at trying to take down actual missiles, they had a very poor success rate. And they were talking about using satellite mounted mirrors/laser system to blast down missiles. Where is that? I'd also be willing to wager that advancement in the technology field and computers are more responsible for us being able to hit fast moving targets with our missiles than the SDI research. Besides, big deal, China can do it too. Have they been spending billions of dollars since the mid-80s to come up with their success?
I'd say both sides knew it would never work the way it was intended, but it doesn't really matter. They only have less than a year left anyways. This is another project like Reagan's favorite pet project the STAR WARS DEFENSE INITIATIVE. Good thing we spent shitpiles of money on that. I feel safe knowing that we can knock down all those pesky Soviet missiles. And yes, the Bush administration was responding to what the public wanted - not by coming up with an effective solution, but doing the "feel good" solution that sounds great on paper, but never quite works out in reality. I mean, what company is not going to take a billion dollar contract from the government, even if they think it isn't exactly feasible? They will just end up asking for more money in the end.
It is pretty hard to look at civilian bodies blown apart with "objective reality". It is hard to look at kids barely over 18 dead for someone else's cause with "objective reality". The reality is that there is no "objective reality" when it comes to war.
Exactly. If there is one thing the armed forces learned from Vietnam it is control the information given out by the press. I remember a general's response to the question of why dead bodies and such were not allowed to be shown in the US was something like "If we let the public see what was really happening, to see dead bodies and destruction, they would never support the war." To me it sounded like the best reason FOR showing the pictures.
"You seem like a very confused individual. The president and national security had nothing to do with this judge closing the site down. And whether Identity theft is like gay marriage or not it pointless too."
If you can't see a parallel between the administration making up excuses because they don't want to reveal information, and the bank doing the same thing with Wikileaks, it is you that is confused. And you are right about your next sentence, the "identity theft" angle is pointless, just like bringing up the issue of gay marriage (a total non-issue) before an election. Identity theft was the excuse they used to do what they wanted.
Yeah, and everything the administration doesn't want to talk about is "a matter of national security". Does that give a judge the right to shut down the entire site, and to stipulate to the hosting company that it couldn't be moved elsewhere? I think that "identity theft" is the "gay marriage" topic on this issue. The real issue is these banks are doing some very shady things when it comes to reporting their client's assets for tax purposes, and neither the bank nor it's clients really want the figures dragged out into the light. "Identity theft" is just the current scare tactic catchphrase of the week.
Re:Can't these places take more assertive action?
on
EFF, ACLU Back WikiLeaks
·
· Score: 2, Funny
"Wikileaks isn't a legitimate source of news, it's a bunch of asshats with an agenda who think that free speech includes libel and slander."
Hey look on the bright side - pessimistic cynical people are hardly ever let down by anything. We already assumed the worst would happen. When it does, we aren't shocked. When it doesn't, we get to be pleasantly surprised (but then instantly suspicious).
Wikileaks would not post the actual data, it would post a story about how the data had been compromised. They are in the business of reporting whistle-blowing activities - not committing the same crimes they are trying to prevent by making them public.
And if they did post protected medical information, it would be very easy to legally have it removed under the HIPAA laws, and would likely be fined heavily for the violation.
*read-->think-->understand-->post* in that order only
It is confusing because in TFA it was stated "Police raided several homes across Quebec on Wednesday and arrested 16 people in their investigation", and then a few paragraphs down, in the same article, it states "The 14 suspects arrested Wednesday are between the ages of 17 and 26". Just in case you were not aware - 16 != 14, and this to some, is confusing. They never explained this discrepancy in the article anywhere.
We were never discussing punching a hole in double/high density disks, only single/double sided disks. Putting more on a disk than it is rated for capacity is NEVER a good idea, although was possible through any number of hacks.
If someone is THAT determined, I doubt anything would. And if I were the guy with the power saw, I would just wait for the administrator to come in, and start cutting off fingers with the saw until they gave up the keys to decrpyt.
Slashdot Mirror
"Once you start blowing up satellites, where do you stop?
Well, I would say with the utter destruction of everything. The real question is how long will that take us?
If investing in the infrastructure of another country will also benefit your country, it isn't exactly a waste of money.
Nobody put a gun to your head and made you go to law school. And if you didn't already know about the debt, and the fact you don't become partner right away, then you are way to naive to ever make it as a lawyer.
If the US had the technology in their satellites to take down other objects, they would have shown it off long ago, and/or taken down the last one with it and not a land-based weapon. We LOVE to show off our military capabilities. Seeing as most of these fall into the "deterrent" category anyways. Think about it - if any countries really thought we could successfully defend ourselves from a missile attack, their options would be: Attack now before we have the capability, or, Wait until we have it and are invulnerable. So far I haven't seen any attacks. And I am positive that banning weapons in space is something that will be coming soon.
And you do know that SDI was a pipe dream that tricked the Soviets into a defense spending contest that basically collapsed the Soviet empire and caused the breakup of the USSR? It was never designed to be a working solution. And shooting down one of our own satellites is a far stretch from the "global missile defense blanket" we were promised. From all the test results at trying to take down actual missiles, they had a very poor success rate. And they were talking about using satellite mounted mirrors/laser system to blast down missiles. Where is that? I'd also be willing to wager that advancement in the technology field and computers are more responsible for us being able to hit fast moving targets with our missiles than the SDI research.
Besides, big deal, China can do it too. Have they been spending billions of dollars since the mid-80s to come up with their success?
"the one in China was 100% ineffective and did not do anything."
Well, it did help a little to keep the damn Mongorians out for a while, but they kept knocking down the Shitty Wall.
"I'm certain that Apple doesn't do this to cripple Firefox or to make its own software look better. It's not a vast fruit-wing conspiracy...."
You are correct. It seems on Slashdot that Microsoft has a monopoly on vast fruit-wing conspiracies.
I'd say both sides knew it would never work the way it was intended, but it doesn't really matter. They only have less than a year left anyways. This is another project like Reagan's favorite pet project the STAR WARS DEFENSE INITIATIVE. Good thing we spent shitpiles of money on that. I feel safe knowing that we can knock down all those pesky Soviet missiles. And yes, the Bush administration was responding to what the public wanted - not by coming up with an effective solution, but doing the "feel good" solution that sounds great on paper, but never quite works out in reality. I mean, what company is not going to take a billion dollar contract from the government, even if they think it isn't exactly feasible? They will just end up asking for more money in the end.
It is pretty hard to look at civilian bodies blown apart with "objective reality". It is hard to look at kids barely over 18 dead for someone else's cause with "objective reality". The reality is that there is no "objective reality" when it comes to war.
Exactly. If there is one thing the armed forces learned from Vietnam it is control the information given out by the press. I remember a general's response to the question of why dead bodies and such were not allowed to be shown in the US was something like "If we let the public see what was really happening, to see dead bodies and destruction, they would never support the war."
To me it sounded like the best reason FOR showing the pictures.
"the DHS? don't make people laugh, they're wussy amateurs compared to the IRS."
No doubt. The IRS brought down Al Capone for christ sakes. No other law enforcement agency could come close to bringing him down.
Um, not sure if you meant to reply to me, as I was not replying to you, but the AC who replied to you. That comment was directed at AC, not you.
Don't go trying to make monkeys out of the "intelligent design" people.
"You seem like a very confused individual. The president and national security had nothing to do with this judge closing the site down. And whether Identity theft is like gay marriage or not it pointless too."
If you can't see a parallel between the administration making up excuses because they don't want to reveal information, and the bank doing the same thing with Wikileaks, it is you that is confused. And you are right about your next sentence, the "identity theft" angle is pointless, just like bringing up the issue of gay marriage (a total non-issue) before an election. Identity theft was the excuse they used to do what they wanted.
Yeah, and everything the administration doesn't want to talk about is "a matter of national security". Does that give a judge the right to shut down the entire site, and to stipulate to the hosting company that it couldn't be moved elsewhere? I think that "identity theft" is the "gay marriage" topic on this issue. The real issue is these banks are doing some very shady things when it comes to reporting their client's assets for tax purposes, and neither the bank nor it's clients really want the figures dragged out into the light. "Identity theft" is just the current scare tactic catchphrase of the week.
"Wikileaks isn't a legitimate source of news, it's a bunch of asshats with an agenda who think that free speech includes libel and slander."
Since when did Wikileaks become talk radio?
The ironic thing is that the ACLU would go to the mat defending your right to say all of this. (Just look at your own #3.)
Hey look on the bright side - pessimistic cynical people are hardly ever let down by anything. We already assumed the worst would happen. When it does, we aren't shocked. When it doesn't, we get to be pleasantly surprised (but then instantly suspicious).
Wikileaks would not post the actual data, it would post a story about how the data had been compromised. They are in the business of reporting whistle-blowing activities - not committing the same crimes they are trying to prevent by making them public.
And if they did post protected medical information, it would be very easy to legally have it removed under the HIPAA laws, and would likely be fined heavily for the violation.
*read-->think-->understand-->post* in that order only
It is confusing because in TFA it was stated "Police raided several homes across Quebec on Wednesday and arrested 16 people in their investigation", and then a few paragraphs down, in the same article, it states "The 14 suspects arrested Wednesday are between the ages of 17 and 26". Just in case you were not aware - 16 != 14, and this to some, is confusing. They never explained this discrepancy in the article anywhere.
I think they were originally planning a simultaneous release of Vista and Duke Nukem Forever.
We were never discussing punching a hole in double/high density disks, only single/double sided disks. Putting more on a disk than it is rated for capacity is NEVER a good idea, although was possible through any number of hacks.
Then why wasn't it phrased "All of the 14 suspects arrested" if they didn't want to make it confusing?
According to a recent poll, 78% of Slashdot comments contain simple words that are spelled incorrectly.
If someone is THAT determined, I doubt anything would. And if I were the guy with the power saw, I would just wait for the administrator to come in, and start cutting off fingers with the saw until they gave up the keys to decrpyt.