So what you are saying is that the people who are closest to horrible tragedy often have their judgment clouded by the desire for revenge that goes along with such atrocities, even to the point of not being able to make rational decisions?
Agreed, that happens, and its why hot heads make bad policy. Its why we should outlaw naming bills after murdered children. Its why we need to roll back the majority of post-9/11 changes. Its why the civil libertarians need to yell the loudest when everyone else is the most sure that its time to give up some liberty.
> I agree with you. I just don't think it's worth picking up a gun over. Vote the shitheads out of office. Remember, it's soap box, > ballot box, jury box, then ammo box.....
I mostly agree but... until a camera lens can trasmit matter and cause it to come out the screen, harming the person monitoring it.... until that day, I hold a far lower standard for picking up a gun to take out some cameras than I would for taking out some people. So long as its done with regard for minimizing any risk of damage to other property or lives (which rules out most urban use, or at least calls for different methodology) then I would applaud such forms of protest.
Any idea what a 300 mW laser will do to a camera CCD? You can get the diode for about $20 on ebay with a housing and glass lense costing all of about $10 more....
> Surely that depends on how stupid your populace are? If you're dumb enough to repeatedly get caught speeding and not learn from it > then yeah, they're not going to improve things.
I wouldn't say I have been repeatedly caught, I have gotten one speeding ticket and two that would have been but they did me a supposed "favor" and ticketed me for something else. Either way they get their hour and a half on their time sheet for a ticket (yes they do here in MA) and my insurance company still got to bilk me for supposedly being less safe.
What have I learned? Be more vigilant in looking for pigs on the road. I have learned that my government does the bidding of insurance companies. Thats about it. Overall, I try not to be intimidated by thugs and let them dictate my driving style since, I know I am safe. Just look at my record. Its mostly paperwork violations (because, as we all know, paying $50 to the RMV for a renewal is one of the most important habbits of a safe driver) and speeding stops... the one accident thats still even on my record was when some road raging moron slammed on his breaks in front of me while I was trying to change lanes in heavy traffic, called the police, and went about raving about how I was swerving in traffic because I made one lane change to avoid blocking an intersection at a red light. Seriously.
All they do is enforce laws, whether its absolutely retarded to do so or not.
I am going to take you rpoints in reverse order, since they separate well and its more interesting that way...
> Iraq (Saddam) was dumb enough to try and play chicken with us at a time when we were looking for someone to really hurt and Saddam > chose poorly.
Actually was he "playing chicken"? Thats an easy call to make from here, but put yourself in his shoes. You are a totalitarian dictator, who most of your own countrymen would love to see hanged. You rule by fear, and have no actually significant allies worth speaking of.
You are most notably known for brutality, a bloody war with your neighbors, and using chemical gas attacks on civilians and military targets in at several different times. What else are you known for? Right... for getting your ass kicked by the US in an engagement that lasted all of 6 weeks.
Now, years of sanctions and inspections, since said engagement have left you without any chemical weapon capacity, and all of your hair brained schemes to rebuild it have been failing. Do you A) Allow in inspectors, open the books, and show the world how decimated and weak you really are? or B) Play games with the inspectors, bluff, and pray that nobody figures out how weak you really are and decides that you look like a target.
I wouldn't say that he chose poorly, he was singled out and targeted. Even after Bush declared "he must open up to inspectors or we go to war", he finally caved and did it. Then we used the lack of any finding as an excuse to call him a liar and attack. The was was preordained no matter what choice he made, the Bush administration wasn't going to take anything for an answer.
> Your second point is mostly true, except for the attack on Sept 11, 2001. The Taliban fully endorsed and supported the actions of > Al Qaida. That brought all of Afghanistan into the scope of retaliation, which we did.
Perhaps, but to what end? It was a criminal act by a small group. Our government has been working to bankrupt itself like its their job since 1980. The last thing that we needed was a war and whole bunch of new departments and "collaborations". In fact, the whole point of an attack of that nature is to prey on one of the worst weaknesses of a government like ours.... that we overreact and spend such as to make drunken sailors look frugal by a comparison.
Essentially Ossama Bin Bogeyman said "jump and waste money" and.... we did.
> Really? at what time did Germany attack the USA or get close to attacking the USA??? Japan attacked a USA base on a > USA protected island. That was the only part of WWII we should have been in. We had no right to go to Europe.
I did mean to imply, and thought I had with mention of WWII, that there are reasons beyond enemy boots on our soil, but, they are less clear cut the further and further away that you get from that. WWII, we at least had expansionist powers attacking us and declaring war on us.
In this case, its a small, insignificant criminal group, who blew up a building with unconventional means. Excuse me while I go quake in my boots.
If there is any lesson from this its that standing behind a single flag just paints a bigger target on us all by the small groups of crazies. They wouldn't have attacked an independant New York State in the first place, had there been one.
WWII at least made some sense. You had two military-expansionist powers that were attempting to gobble up their parts of the world. Pitching in to stop their dangerous and violent expansion was definitely worth doing.
To suggest that any of the conflicts that we have been involved in since then has risen to either the level of urgency or clarity of need as WWII is laughable.
And if they calculate right, the only difference is who it comes down on, and who you are murdering. Frankly, doesn't make much difference to me whether the people you murder are the ones you intend to or your co-conspirators. You are wasting my tax dollars either way, as far as I am concerned.
When enemy boots are on US soil, thats one thing, anything else is just senseless murder. I find it disgusting that anyone is willing to fight and murder for congress, the body that less than 25% of the country even trusts.
Meh war is war eh? Whats with all the "we must sugar coat war". It is what it is. Sorry about that, but its called "reality".
Frankly, my view on war is that we shouldn't fight it. Its bad, its disgusting. There hasn't been a war since WWII that I really am happy that my country (the US) has been engaged in. This is to the point that I don't even like to refer to "our troops". They aren't my troops. I don't support this shit except in the ways that I am forced to under threat of legal action (that is to say, I pay my protection money to the warmongers).
Now... all that said, you might think that I am against these sorts of weapons or armament in general. Far from it. When it does come time that war is needed, as a last resort, then I see no reason to hold back. Merchant ships should arm themselves as, war should be kept in such reserve as we should not engage in it until we are at such a point that even blasting enemy supporting merchant ships out of the water is considered justified.
Until we are ready to attack the hearts of the people supporting "the enemy" with all the ferocity of General Sherman, then we shouldn't send a single bomb.
Plus, if merchant ships could defend themselves, they would be safer. Just think what one of these containers could do to a group of Somali pirates! Forget that ridiculous long range sound attack that has already failed and gotten people killed, its high time that merchant ships stop being simple targets.
As usual "the police" (in this case governments with their navys) don't have the resources to make a difference, so the merchants should be taking these matters into their own hands. I say....arm them to the teeth!.
As someone getting out of the landlording business.... I can tell you that his obsession with coins may explain why he is so successful and still in it. Being a landlord, quite a lot of the job is fronting the cost on bills (or outright juggling them) until people get around to paying up.
Much easier for the penny pincher who holds tightly onto his war chest than someone who "floats" and doesn't stress it. Neighbors complain? Guess who they complain to. Something breaks, you know who fixes it.
I don't mean to sound bitter or anything but, I totally have a lot more respect for those penny pinching, in your face landlords who want the money on time now that I spent a few years in the rental business.
Except that its a lot easier to turn on SSL for all transactions than seperate out the MA transactions from others.
Thus, I suspect, it will effect customers of firms that either do business with MA residents or do business with firms that do so.
Also, I would question the case of implementing it in such a way as to make the seperation. Since it would, generally, be more work, and serve only to continue not protecting non-ma residents... isn't it a different case from the current situation? Currently its just standard practice to do nothing and offer no protection. Going out of your way to not offer protection seems to me like a different action from simply not offering it by doing nothing.
I spent a few weeks in France, and by the end of it, I almost stopped carrying ID around. It was so refreshing to be in a place where I could walk into bars, eat at restraunts etc, all without anybody asking for ID. In fact, the only people, during my entire trip, that I had to show ID to were the customs agent who stamped my entry visa, and the clerk at the hotel check in.
Its so nice to not constantly be asked to show your papers.
Actually, thats not even correct. Its a repeating number, but, its wrong to round in the middle of an operation. You always round the final value, not the intermediary value. You take 2/3 and then round, not round and then multiply.
So what you are saying is.... they are doing something for one reason, and then turning around and telling lies about why they are doing it in an attempt to cast aspersions on a competitor. So essentially, they are being assholes.
Sounds about right to me. The way I read that entire article was "Steve Jobs Recommends Android over IPhone."
If they want control, they should exercise control. Sites can be made non-public. Sites that detect ad blocking and don't display could be designed (essentially forcing javascript etc), Ad systems could be developed that inject static content into the page and are transparent to the browser.
Why don't they do that? Because it would piss users off if it became less reliable or didn't work in certain circumstances. They don't do it because of server load, and a number of other reasons. However, none of that is anyone elses problem.
You should have as much sympathy as you do for ice harvesters when you buy a freezer for your kitchen. You do feel for the ice man don't you?
You could take it one step further... forget adblock... use RequestPolicy! It goes together with noscript like yogurt and cucumber. (no really...)
Just like noscript lets you selectively turn on scripts on a per site basis... RequestPolicy blocks and allows you to whitelist browser requests to other sites. This breaks more websites than noscript does to start, but, it allows for a really fine grained control, AND it voraciously blocks ads.
It also allows whitelisting from site to site. So, I can allow slashdot to ask my browser to load content from fsdn.com, but no other site is allowed until I give the ok. Other than that, it just works like noscript, collecting your custom white list.
Can documents by the US Government be copywritten? Turns out... not usually
"such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law" Though, apparently it may still fall under the copyright law of other countries. So, if the distributor wasn't in the US, the local law would apply and the US government might hold copyright status there.
> My view is that there just is no substitute for a system of social morality like those in eastern cultures of old. Modern society has > the attitude that "if it's not illegal, do it".
"The very emphasis of the commandment: Thou shalt not kill, makes it certain that we are descended from an endlessly long chain of generations of murderers, whose love of murder was in their blood as it is perhaps also in ours. " -- Sigmund Freud
He may not have gotten a lot of things right, but, I think he hit the nail on the head there. If such a time of morality existed, then we would never know about it. There is no need to tell people not to kill each other if nobody is doing it. No need to write down a code of morality, unless you believe that the people around you sorely need one. (or to bring it back to home, you don't find passive agressive notes offering to hold classes on how to use the dishwasher next to sinks in shared living spaces where everyone cleans up after themselves)
On the whole, I agree. Frankly, I think there is something to the old Erisian maxim "Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos". Order seems great but, people like to play games, we are good at games. You can't start giving me a bunch of rules without me instinctively starting to look for how your new game works, and how to play it well.
Rules can't bring about morality, if anything, they can only work to subvert it. Its only when you strip away the rules of the game and look at the other players that morality comes into play. There is no morality involved when a poker player soft calls into a check raise with the nuts, no more than when a monopoly player builds hotels, or a magic player hits you with 30 point drain life on the second turn... consistently. Should we expect wall street players to really act differently? When everything is abstract numbers and rules, its all just kind of a game.
Actually, I have used a few hundreds recently, and never had anyone give me a second look.
My wife works at a cash register sales/service company. Amusingly, many people wanted to reprogram their registers for the new hiked sales tax rate here, before the official deadline. This lead to many heated conversations about how "You can't do that, its not legal". Now, apparently, they seem to get many requests for new registers.... without cash drawers.
When asked why, increasingly the response is "We don't plan to accept cash, plastic only". Of course, this leads to more explanations about how you can't have a store front business and not accept cash. Interestingly, it doesn't seem to be the immigrant store owners who want to not accept cash, it seems to mostly be the people who are actually from here that want to do it.
"USB Detect detects the use of removable drives" "Shadow Drive evades detection by the following products" "Latest USB Detect detects Shadow Drive use!" "New ShadowDrive 2.0!"
Shit, the parent company of both products could make a killing! Hey wait a minute, is this another lame attempt to bring money in off the books for illegal ops?
Possibly related to the logistics of doing such studies. Its easy to poll the US and Europe relatively speaking. Do you want to head out to gather the data for a penis size survey in the Congo? Maybe Sudan? Somalia? Would you just check the cities? or expand out to the countryside?
Understandable, but my comment was less about the incident and more about the leak and whether the public can or should interpret it.
I say not only should we, but its our duty to, as they are representing us. If public opinion on the war (or war in general) changes, then, well... the military exists and prosecutes wars at our collective discretion. So if public changes, so be it. Its the public who fund it, and supported it in the first place.
As such, I consider any manner of "cover up" of suspected wrongdoing is as bad as treason in my book.
So... do you disagree with this doctrine as applied to US citizens who have sex with children in other countries?
I am not saying the US constitution and laws apply to everyone, everywhere. However, they do apply to US citizens. They apply to the actions of the US government, and its employees, wherever they may be. They are out there representing us, and THEY are accountable to us.
They are not allowed to incarcerate and punish people without due process, anywhere in the world that they go, they continue to be under the constitution themselves. Again, its not about what a person in another country can or can't do... its about what WE as american citizens, and soldiers, as american citizens and soldiers, may do, even when we do it to "them".
Their actions are not bound by the constitution, until they swear allegiance to it, or temporarily when they enter our land. WE are bound by it no matter where we travel and ESPECIALLY when we travel on "official business" of our government.
It most certainly does when you are an american citizen who is acting on behalf of the US government.
It may not matter in an Iraqi court, however, it definitely does apply to you as an american citizen who is supposed to be acting on behalf and as an employee of the US government. Thats my fundamental problem with the enemy combatant theory too. Even if you don't feel that US law can apply to foreign nationals on foreign soil, the law isn't about that.
The law is about what the us government can do, and what rights it recognizes in people. So as a representative of that government, you shouldn't be violating anyones recognized rights under the constitution, in this country or not.
Thats a problem, and a real one. However, in the end, one thing is true. The military exists at the desire of, and is paid for by, the civilian administration and, who is answerable to the people.
Whether these soldiers did right or wrong is a matter for the military, civilian administration, and courts to decide.
Regardless of whether the individual action was right or wrong, an attempt to cover up an atrocity that the public or civilian administration may need to review and use to form their opnion as to how to make war and how and whether to support war is inexcusable, whether the atrocity is judged to be an actual atrocity or not.
We pay the checks, we support the people who make the laws. It is our opinion that matters in the end, attempting to lie to us and keep from us the information that we need to have an opinion is an offence against the very democratic ideals that they are supposed to be defending.
Really the chances of an STD aren't that high, in general.
Even HIV, just look at the actual transmission rates and, unless you are an IV drug user who shares needles, there is a lot ess to worry about than some might have you believe. You can have a man with FBA (thats full blown aids) fuck you in the ass with no condom and you still have only a 1 in 200 chance of becoming infected! (thank you wikipedia)
When you combine that with the actual odds that any given person that you may choose to sleep with has HIV in the first place and, well, lets just say that you probably have better things to worry about.
Of course thats just HIV. Many of the others may be more transmissible, but are also more treatable. I think I would still take my chances with the clap vs HIV, even with its higher infection rate and now emerging superbug status.
Condoms break and or slip off. Also, how about oral sex?
Sucking cock through a condom must sound about as appetizing to a cocksucker (male or female) as using dental dams does to me. In fact, I have met exactly one person who even advocated for the use of barriers during oral sex, and while I did have sex with her, it wasn't oral, so, I can't say as I have experienced it from either side.
Its not theoretical either, just ask the friend of mine who got herpes on her face from eating a girl out.
Though hey, 80% of the population has an oral HSV1 infection, and now she does too.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you are saying is that the people who are closest to horrible tragedy often have their judgment clouded by the desire for revenge that goes along with such atrocities, even to the point of not being able to make rational decisions?
Agreed, that happens, and its why hot heads make bad policy. Its why we should outlaw naming bills after murdered children. Its why we need to roll back the majority of post-9/11 changes. Its why the civil libertarians need to yell the loudest when everyone else is the most sure that its time to give up some liberty.
-Steve
> I agree with you. I just don't think it's worth picking up a gun over. Vote the shitheads out of office. Remember, it's soap box,
> ballot box, jury box, then ammo box.....
I mostly agree but... until a camera lens can trasmit matter and cause it to come out the screen, harming the person monitoring it.... until that day, I hold a far lower standard for picking up a gun to take out some cameras than I would for taking out some people. So long as its done with regard for minimizing any risk of damage to other property or lives (which rules out most urban use, or at least calls for different methodology) then I would applaud such forms of protest.
Any idea what a 300 mW laser will do to a camera CCD? You can get the diode for about $20 on ebay with a housing and glass lense costing all of about $10 more....
-Steve
> Surely that depends on how stupid your populace are? If you're dumb enough to repeatedly get caught speeding and not learn from it
> then yeah, they're not going to improve things.
I wouldn't say I have been repeatedly caught, I have gotten one speeding ticket and two that would have been but they did me a supposed "favor" and ticketed me for something else. Either way they get their hour and a half on their time sheet for a ticket (yes they do here in MA) and my insurance company still got to bilk me for supposedly being less safe.
What have I learned? Be more vigilant in looking for pigs on the road. I have learned that my government does the bidding of insurance companies. Thats about it. Overall, I try not to be intimidated by thugs and let them dictate my driving style since, I know I am safe. Just look at my record. Its mostly paperwork violations (because, as we all know, paying $50 to the RMV for a renewal is one of the most important habbits of a safe driver) and speeding stops... the one accident thats still even on my record was when some road raging moron slammed on his breaks in front of me while I was trying to change lanes in heavy traffic, called the police, and went about raving about how I was swerving in traffic because I made one lane change to avoid blocking an intersection at a red light. Seriously.
All they do is enforce laws, whether its absolutely retarded to do so or not.
-Steve
I am going to take you rpoints in reverse order, since they separate well and its more interesting that way...
> Iraq (Saddam) was dumb enough to try and play chicken with us at a time when we were looking for someone to really hurt and Saddam
> chose poorly.
Actually was he "playing chicken"? Thats an easy call to make from here, but put yourself in his shoes. You are a totalitarian dictator, who most of your own countrymen would love to see hanged. You rule by fear, and have no actually significant allies worth speaking of.
You are most notably known for brutality, a bloody war with your neighbors, and using chemical gas attacks on civilians and military targets in at several different times. What else are you known for? Right... for getting your ass kicked by the US in an engagement that lasted all of 6 weeks.
Now, years of sanctions and inspections, since said engagement have left you without any chemical weapon capacity, and all of your hair brained schemes to rebuild it have been failing. Do you A) Allow in inspectors, open the books, and show the world how decimated and weak you really are? or B) Play games with the inspectors, bluff, and pray that nobody figures out how weak you really are and decides that you look like a target.
I wouldn't say that he chose poorly, he was singled out and targeted. Even after Bush declared "he must open up to inspectors or we go to war", he finally caved and did it. Then we used the lack of any finding as an excuse to call him a liar and attack. The was was preordained no matter what choice he made, the Bush administration wasn't going to take anything for an answer.
> Your second point is mostly true, except for the attack on Sept 11, 2001. The Taliban fully endorsed and supported the actions of
> Al Qaida. That brought all of Afghanistan into the scope of retaliation, which we did.
Perhaps, but to what end? It was a criminal act by a small group. Our government has been working to bankrupt itself like its their job since 1980. The last thing that we needed was a war and whole bunch of new departments and "collaborations". In fact, the whole point of an attack of that nature is to prey on one of the worst weaknesses of a government like ours.... that we overreact and spend such as to make drunken sailors look frugal by a comparison.
Essentially Ossama Bin Bogeyman said "jump and waste money" and.... we did.
> Really? at what time did Germany attack the USA or get close to attacking the USA??? Japan attacked a USA base on a
> USA protected island. That was the only part of WWII we should have been in. We had no right to go to Europe.
I did mean to imply, and thought I had with mention of WWII, that there are reasons beyond enemy boots on our soil, but, they are less clear cut the further and further away that you get from that. WWII, we at least had expansionist powers attacking us and declaring war on us.
In this case, its a small, insignificant criminal group, who blew up a building with unconventional means. Excuse me while I go quake in my boots.
If there is any lesson from this its that standing behind a single flag just paints a bigger target on us all by the small groups of crazies. They wouldn't have attacked an independant New York State in the first place, had there been one.
-Steve
WWII at least made some sense. You had two military-expansionist powers that were attempting to gobble up their parts of the world. Pitching in to stop their dangerous and violent expansion was definitely worth doing.
To suggest that any of the conflicts that we have been involved in since then has risen to either the level of urgency or clarity of need as WWII is laughable.
And if they calculate right, the only difference is who it comes down on, and who you are murdering.
Frankly, doesn't make much difference to me whether the people you murder are the ones you intend to or your co-conspirators. You are wasting my tax dollars either way, as far as I am concerned.
When enemy boots are on US soil, thats one thing, anything else is just senseless murder. I find it disgusting that anyone is willing to fight and murder for congress, the body that less than 25% of the country even trusts.
-Steve
Meh war is war eh? Whats with all the "we must sugar coat war". It is what it is. Sorry about that, but its called "reality".
Frankly, my view on war is that we shouldn't fight it. Its bad, its disgusting. There hasn't been a war since WWII that I really am happy that my country (the US) has been engaged in. This is to the point that I don't even like to refer to "our troops". They aren't my troops. I don't support this shit except in the ways that I am forced to under threat of legal action (that is to say, I pay my protection money to the warmongers).
Now... all that said, you might think that I am against these sorts of weapons or armament in general. Far from it. When it does come time that war is needed, as a last resort, then I see no reason to hold back. Merchant ships should arm themselves as, war should be kept in such reserve as we should not engage in it until we are at such a point that even blasting enemy supporting merchant ships out of the water is considered justified.
Until we are ready to attack the hearts of the people supporting "the enemy" with all the ferocity of General Sherman, then we shouldn't send a single bomb.
Plus, if merchant ships could defend themselves, they would be safer. Just think what one of these containers could do to a group of Somali pirates! Forget that ridiculous long range sound attack that has already failed and gotten people killed, its high time that merchant ships stop being simple targets.
As usual "the police" (in this case governments with their navys) don't have the resources to make a difference, so the merchants should be taking these matters into their own hands. I say....arm them to the teeth!.
-Steve
As someone getting out of the landlording business.... I can tell you that his obsession with coins may explain why he is so successful and still in it. Being a landlord, quite a lot of the job is fronting the cost on bills (or outright juggling them) until people get around to paying up.
Much easier for the penny pincher who holds tightly onto his war chest than someone who "floats" and doesn't stress it. Neighbors complain? Guess who they complain to. Something breaks, you know who fixes it.
I don't mean to sound bitter or anything but, I totally have a lot more respect for those penny pinching, in your face landlords who want the money on time now that I spent a few years in the rental business.
-Steve
Except that its a lot easier to turn on SSL for all transactions than seperate out the MA transactions from others.
Thus, I suspect, it will effect customers of firms that either do business with MA residents or do business with firms that do so.
Also, I would question the case of implementing it in such a way as to make the seperation. Since it would, generally, be more work, and serve only to continue not protecting non-ma residents... isn't it a different case from the current situation? Currently its just standard practice to do nothing and offer no protection. Going out of your way to not offer protection seems to me like a different action from simply not offering it by doing nothing.
-Steve
Really?
I spent a few weeks in France, and by the end of it, I almost stopped carrying ID around. It was so refreshing to be in a place where I could walk into bars, eat at restraunts etc, all without anybody asking for ID. In fact, the only people, during my entire trip, that I had to show ID to were the customs agent who stamped my entry visa, and the clerk at the hotel check in.
Its so nice to not constantly be asked to show your papers.
-Steve
Actually, thats not even correct. Its a repeating number, but, its wrong to round in the middle of an operation. You always round the final value, not the intermediary value. You take 2/3 and then round, not round and then multiply.
-Steve
So what you are saying is.... they are doing something for one reason, and then turning around and telling lies about why they are doing it in an attempt to cast aspersions on a competitor. So essentially, they are being assholes.
Sounds about right to me. The way I read that entire article was "Steve Jobs Recommends Android over IPhone."
-Steve
Leech? Why would you self apply such a term?
If they want control, they should exercise control. Sites can be made non-public. Sites that detect ad blocking and don't display could be designed (essentially forcing javascript etc), Ad systems could be developed that inject static content into the page and are transparent to the browser.
Why don't they do that? Because it would piss users off if it became less reliable or didn't work in certain circumstances. They don't do it because of server load, and a number of other reasons. However, none of that is anyone elses problem.
You should have as much sympathy as you do for ice harvesters when you buy a freezer for your kitchen. You do feel for the ice man don't you?
You could take it one step further... forget adblock... use RequestPolicy! It goes together with noscript like yogurt and cucumber. (no really...)
Just like noscript lets you selectively turn on scripts on a per site basis... RequestPolicy blocks and allows you to whitelist browser requests to other sites. This breaks more websites than noscript does to start, but, it allows for a really fine grained control, AND it voraciously blocks ads.
It also allows whitelisting from site to site. So, I can allow slashdot to ask my browser to load content from fsdn.com, but no other site is allowed until I give the ok. Other than that, it just works like noscript, collecting your custom white list.
Can documents by the US Government be copywritten? Turns out... not usually
"such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law"
Though, apparently it may still fall under the copyright law of other countries. So, if the
distributor wasn't in the US, the local law would apply and the US government might hold copyright
status there.
http://tinyurl.com/y2wkhnx
-Steve
> My view is that there just is no substitute for a system of social morality like those in eastern cultures of old. Modern society has
> the attitude that "if it's not illegal, do it".
"The very emphasis of the commandment: Thou shalt not kill, makes it certain that we are descended from an endlessly long chain of generations of murderers, whose love of murder was in their blood as it is perhaps also in ours. " -- Sigmund Freud
He may not have gotten a lot of things right, but, I think he hit the nail on the head there. If such a time of morality existed, then we would never know about it. There is no need to tell people not to kill each other if nobody is doing it. No need to write down a code of morality, unless you believe that the people around you sorely need one. (or to bring it back to home, you don't find passive agressive notes offering to hold classes on how to use the dishwasher next to sinks in shared living spaces where everyone cleans up after themselves)
On the whole, I agree. Frankly, I think there is something to the old Erisian maxim "Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos". Order seems great but, people like to play games, we are good at games. You can't start giving me a bunch of rules without me instinctively starting to look for how your new game works, and how to play it well.
Rules can't bring about morality, if anything, they can only work to subvert it. Its only when you strip away the rules of the game and look at the other players that morality comes into play. There is no morality involved when a poker player soft calls into a check raise with the nuts, no more than when a monopoly player builds hotels, or a magic player hits you with 30 point drain life on the second turn... consistently. Should we expect wall street players to really act differently? When everything is abstract numbers and rules, its all just kind of a game.
-Steve
Actually, I have used a few hundreds recently, and never had anyone give me a second look.
My wife works at a cash register sales/service company. Amusingly, many people wanted to reprogram their registers for the new hiked sales tax rate here, before the official deadline. This lead to many heated conversations about how "You can't do that, its not legal". Now, apparently, they seem to get many requests for new registers.... without cash drawers.
When asked why, increasingly the response is "We don't plan to accept cash, plastic only". Of course, this leads to more explanations about how you can't have a store front business and not accept cash. Interestingly, it doesn't seem to be the immigrant store owners who want to not accept cash, it seems to mostly be the people who are actually from here that want to do it.
-Steve
"USB Detect detects the use of removable drives"
"Shadow Drive evades detection by the following products"
"Latest USB Detect detects Shadow Drive use!"
"New ShadowDrive 2.0!"
Shit, the parent company of both products could make a killing! Hey wait a minute, is this another lame
attempt to bring money in off the books for illegal ops?
-Steve
Possibly related to the logistics of doing such studies. Its easy to poll the US and Europe relatively speaking. Do you want to head out to gather the data for a penis size survey in the Congo? Maybe Sudan? Somalia? Would you just check the cities? or expand out to the countryside?
Understandable, but my comment was less about the incident and more about the leak and whether the public can or should interpret it.
I say not only should we, but its our duty to, as they are representing us. If public opinion on the war (or war in general) changes, then, well... the military exists and prosecutes wars at our collective discretion. So if public changes, so be it. Its the public who fund it, and supported it in the first place.
As such, I consider any manner of "cover up" of suspected wrongdoing is as bad as treason in my book.
No, I am not saying that at all.
So... do you disagree with this doctrine as applied to US citizens who have sex with children in other countries?
I am not saying the US constitution and laws apply to everyone, everywhere. However, they do apply to US citizens. They apply to the actions of the US government, and its employees, wherever they may be. They are out there representing us, and THEY are accountable to us.
They are not allowed to incarcerate and punish people without due process, anywhere in the world that they go, they continue to be under the constitution themselves. Again, its not about what a person in another country can or can't do... its about what WE as american citizens, and soldiers, as american citizens and soldiers, may do, even when we do it to "them".
Their actions are not bound by the constitution, until they swear allegiance to it, or temporarily when they enter our land. WE are bound by it no matter where we travel and ESPECIALLY when we travel on "official business" of our government.
-Steve
It most certainly does when you are an american citizen who is acting on behalf of the US government.
It may not matter in an Iraqi court, however, it definitely does apply to you as an american citizen who is supposed to be acting on behalf and as an employee of the US government. Thats my fundamental problem with the enemy combatant theory too. Even if you don't feel that US law can apply to foreign nationals on foreign soil, the law isn't about that.
The law is about what the us government can do, and what rights it recognizes in people. So as a representative of that government, you shouldn't be violating anyones recognized rights under the constitution, in this country or not.
-Steve
Thats a problem, and a real one. However, in the end, one thing is true. The military exists at the desire of, and is paid for by, the civilian administration and, who is answerable to the people.
Whether these soldiers did right or wrong is a matter for the military, civilian administration, and courts to decide.
Regardless of whether the individual action was right or wrong, an attempt to cover up an atrocity that the public or civilian administration may need to review and use to form their opnion as to how to make war and how and whether to support war is inexcusable, whether the atrocity is judged to be an actual atrocity or not.
We pay the checks, we support the people who make the laws. It is our opinion that matters in the end, attempting to lie to us and keep from us the information that we need to have an opinion is an offence against the very democratic ideals that they are supposed to be defending.
-Steve
Really the chances of an STD aren't that high, in general.
Even HIV, just look at the actual transmission rates and, unless you are an IV drug user who shares needles, there is a lot ess to worry about than some might have you believe. You can have a man with FBA (thats full blown aids) fuck you in the ass with no condom and you still have only a 1 in 200 chance of becoming infected! (thank you wikipedia)
When you combine that with the actual odds that any given person that you may choose to sleep with has HIV in the first place and, well, lets just say that you probably have better things to worry about.
Of course thats just HIV. Many of the others may be more transmissible, but are also more treatable. I think I would still take my chances with the clap vs HIV, even with its higher infection rate and now emerging superbug status.
-Steve
Condoms break and or slip off. Also, how about oral sex?
Sucking cock through a condom must sound about as appetizing to a cocksucker (male or female) as using dental dams does to me. In fact, I have met exactly one person who even advocated for the use of barriers during oral sex, and while I did have sex with her, it wasn't oral, so, I can't say as I have experienced it from either side.
Its not theoretical either, just ask the friend of mine who got herpes on her face from eating a girl out.
Though hey, 80% of the population has an oral HSV1 infection, and now she does too.
-Steve